Nature of Nibbana (the 103rd)

Hi

Is the level of liberation achieved in Nibbana ever such that the general conditions of human existence are sanctioned?

Or put in other words: Is existence with the means of achieving Nibbana preferable to non-existence?

Your best crisp one or two-liners with sources please :blush:

Will our non-existence be of any benefit to us who exist? Not in my understanding.

To benefit from something, the one who wants to benefit must remain capable of benefitting.

1 Like

I think this depends on the scarcity of resources. If there’s only 1 food and 2 people, then non-existence of a person means more food for the other person.

This is a matter of perspective on scarcity/abundance, cost of opportunity, etc. Basically, are people generally of benefit or harm to us?

Of course the truth is generally more nuanced. I’m more of the “My presence alone is a burden on everyone else” camp though. :slight_smile:

That sounds like a Mahā-yāna (great vehicle) Bodhisattva, who with his unlimited compassion for all beings, delays his own nirvāáč‡a as long as it necessary to ferry everyone else (in his great vehicle) to the final destination.

Other people however are more interested in the hÄ«na-yāna (small vehicle) buddhism that carries only oneself into nirvāáč‡a, and leaves other people to make their own attempt.

1 Like

@srkris I can see where you are coming from and believe that your lingusitical and logical argument falls short. But I don’t want to go into that here.

So let me rephrase that question for you: Does the pleasure from reaching Nibbana outweigh the suffering necessary to achieve it so that it becomes morally justified to bring new human beings into existence?

If you think your nibbana is your personal-extinction, pleasure or any other benefit cannot arise from it to you. So I dont understand what you mean by this.

I dont understand this very well either. Do you presume that you are the cause new humans come into existence i.e. do you think you are a link in a chain, and if you break the link that is yourself, the chain no longer will exist? Also what morality does new human beings coming into existence currently violate that will be fixed by your nibbana?

Yes, I believe that any prospective parents, if healthy, have full power over their decision to bring a new human being into existence. Should that future being be known to be exposed to more suffering than pleasure during it’s lifetime, I would judge the act of bringing it into existence as immoral.

That the amount of suffering during their lifetime is sure to outweigh the amount of pleasure according to the first noble truth.

Wouldn’t the experience of dukkha or sukha for the child during its lifetime also depend on the decisions the child exercises during its life? How would it be appropriate to pre-judge how the child’s life is going to turn out?

The first ārya-satya (“noble-truth”) is that there is duáž„kha (“suffering”). The first ārya-satya doesnt say anything to the effect that the extent of duáž„kha will surely outweigh the extent of pleasure within the span of one lifetime. How do you conclude that that is the case?


On a point of translation - please note that the opposite of duáž„kha (dis-ease) is not pleasure (rati) but ease / comfort (sukha). Pleasure is a kind of mental fabrication (saáčƒskāra) that is given a nomenclature (saáčƒjñā) and depends on sensations / feelings (vedanā) derived from sense-contact with forms (rĆ«pa). So the feeling of pleasure is part of the 5 aggregates (skandhas) which produce duáž„kha.

Well, here we are at the question I was asking.
Would reaching Nibbana for a future human being necessarily mean that pleasure - or comfort - outweighed the suffering during that being’s lifetime.

(Contrary to where we have digressed, my original question was rather about pessimistic vs. optimistic cosmology than anti-natalism).

But you also know that Buddha does not teach that with birth we are brought into existence. We have only grasped another and new existence, human existence. And this is very precious, more precious then deva states because they tend to be absorbed in the pleasures of those realms. And beings in lower realm are often mostly focussed on survival, it is said.

Yes, the strange thing is that Buddha does not really see birth as the first time we come into existence while we almost all see it this way.

But birth in a certain realm of existence is also not only dependend on kamma. But also the state of samsara. Also this is not in a constant state with all these kind of existences, i have understood.

1 Like

Yes. We’ve digressed because he tried to pull the linguistic trick on me.

But anyway: Samsara, rebirth, Kamma etc: Will all of this be viewed as good by somebody who has reached Nibbana?

Will he be grateful for his past million suffering lifes because these enabled him to reach Nibbana?

For me the lifestream of Sumedha (in a former life this was the Buddha meeting Dipankara Buddha i an very devotional moment) to Gautama is about becoming a Buddha to serve the wellbeing of all beings in the best possible way.

In many lifes this stream was devoted to this goal. And it culminated in Buddhahood. He became a living vehicle of purity, truth, love, compassion. With great abilities to help others. His heart was fully opened, his mind fully awakened. Always in a state of grace.

From helping beings in a direct manner with their needs in this life, he more and more evolved towards helping them also in an ulitmate way, in a more definite way to end the suffering. He yearned for true knowledge about this. But that arose from goodness, nobility, not from escapism and pessimism about life, i believe.

I feel in the lifes of Sumedha-Gautama there was always this sincere goodness, this purity. Always wanting to serve the welbeing of others. Not for ones own credit or praise or merit or future but just because that is what feels right for the Purehearted Ones. That is what pureheartedness naturally wishes, doing good and helping others, establishing welbeing for everyone.

I believe from such inner beauty arises all these great qualities Buddha had and also other people have. I believe he was grateful to be alive and being able to help other beings in many former lifes too. Even if this would come with his own death. And it came with his own death too.

For one who has such a pure heart, such pure wishes to always serve the wellbeing of others, the purity of that wish, THAT is the one and only noble path for me. For me there is no other Noble Path. This is true connection with Dhamma for me. The heartfelt wish to do good and serve the temporary and final welbeing of other beings.

For me this is the life of the Buddha. Pessimism is not part of this. Buddha was grateful, as it were, that he was even able to help 1 ant, or one fish that was caught on the dry, let alone to guide all beings to definitive the end of suffering. It is such a purehearted goodness. But from there all arises, the total Path, i believe.
For me that is the living Buddha in us too. It is for me not about being optimistic or pessimistic about life. More being connected to the natural purity of the heart.

Never seeking ones own praise and glory, never aiming at self-glorifcation, that is what real pureheartedness is about, i feel. That is a real sincere living, noble living/
Buddha did not seek his self-glorification but he always wanted something to honour because that is the nature of the pure heart too. It is devotional of nature.
It is devoted to truthfulness, to purity, to goodness. Buddha decided to honour the Dhamma, says a sutta. Not himself. I feel this is all so great and also very rare.

I can see in my self that i often seek self-glorification. I want people to think of me as wise, good etc and am disappointed and sad people do not see me this way, or even feel digust or just ignore me. This I am conceit is still so strong. But i also know and see this is not really me but it is a very strong narcistisch habit, a dart in the heart.

I feel, Buddhas purity is amazing. He was grateful to be alive and being able to help others in a temporary way and in his last lifes in a more definitive way.

Nibbana is for me not about escapism but about having the greatest abilities to serve the welbeing of others.

Life has meaning outside of Nibbana too. Though Nibbana is the Deathless, Nibbana is also just the most perfect way to end suffering. There are plenty of meaningful things one can do as they live in this world as well, goals they can achieve, that are not just about the cessation of suffering. Buddhahood, for example: to reach it may mean you will live towards ending other people’s suffering
 And forego your own entrance into a Pure Land or a Nibbana of no pain. Maybe for one lifetime, many for many. But I think our drive to succeed is better controlled by Karuna, than fear. But if we fear something, may it be the fear of wrongdoing, the fear of erring in serious ways. Namo Buddhaya.

I personally do not view Buddhism representing a pessimistic cosmology to adopt your language and think this is a result of many misunderstandings. For my best crisp two-liners with references I’d offer:

Greedy intention is a person’s sensual pleasure.
The world’s pretty things aren’t sensual pleasures.
Greedy intention is a person’s sensual pleasure.
The world’s pretty things stay just as they are,
but the attentive remove desire for them.
AN 6.63

The aggregates are not literally dukkha
– some fool on the internet :joy:

:pray:

If there is a cure for a severe illness, can the cured person ever be at peace with the circumstances that made the illness possible in the first place?

I trust your answer will be yes, based on your above response.

The aggregates are a construct of Skillful Means, Upaya, the Buddha created to bring people into Nibbana. It is a Skillful Means to get us to the other shore, to end our suffering. There are in fact no aggregates, just as there is no Buddha in the aggregates. I think we should search for something higher than trying to understand the aggregates, or merely trying to put out the fire we have imagined in our minds is burning this world as it is. Maybe, in fact, there is no fire, and the world is just in our minds along with the flames of this ill-perceived Saha World?

He said it’s all in your head
And I said so’s everything, but he didn’t get it


-Fiona Apple.

Yes. I believe peace is possible. :pray:

1 Like

And that peace, I assume, will undoubtedly be at the heart of Nibbana?

Why then should the teacher say the following (AN 1.329):

Just as even a tiny bit of urine, or spit, or pus, or blood still stinks, so too I don’t approve of even a tiny bit of continued existence, not even as long as a finger-snap.

1 Like

There is no existence in Nibbana. That’s the whole purpose of understanding or getting there. These shapes you see around you. Your breath. Your mind. As long as you keep grasping at a self, you create more suffering. It’s time to realize you aren’t you, and that beyond this world, in the next Hereafter, there is something of quality that is beyond existence
 Buddha has described Nibbana, and it is of value because it saves valuable innocent life from suffering.

1 Like

If this all means that you do agree that existing with the 5 aggregates is inferior to Nibbana, and the state of Nibbana can never include an appreciation of such an existence, then you have answered my question and we are on the same page completely.

But there seems to be a rather large camp of Buddhists here that seem to think of Nibbana as a kind of existence in which everything turns hunky-dory.

These rose coloured glasses
that I’m looking trough
show only the beauty
'cause they hide all the truth."

(John Conlee)