Nibanna, the Deathless, and Self

This song reminds me of Nirvana:

If there is no self, then we’re bigger than our bodies give us credit for. To experience Nirvana is to experience perfect non-duality with the Ultimate Truth.

When Buddhism says there is no self, it means that our notion of a separate, unchanging self is a delusion of the ego.

In our true nature, we are Nirvana itself.

Matter doesn’t get absorbed into emptiness (Nibbana).

Is Nibbana a ‘Grande, coffee’ in which the small ‘self’ of primo coffee, becomes dissolved in? :grinning:

If Matter is already empty what is the reason, for all these koans, zen etc.?

:black_circle:

with metta

Which is exactly definition of Upanishadism and Hinduisn.
And not definition of Buddhism.

Making one with external and internal is Upanishadic and Hindu creed.
And this is what ajhans of secular “buddhism” are advocating nowadays.
They are advocating sort of Upanishadic creed.
Very wrong.

Please read Rabindranath Tagore’s Sādhanā (short read), to understand what Hinduism is all about. Tagore was a Brahmo, but it does not matter much.

1 Like

Maybe you smell like the kāmaloka!
:open_mouth:
:speak_no_evil::hear_no_evil::see_no_evil:

SF 293 (Sanskrit Sarvāstivāda Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra) & SA 176 (Chinese Sarvāstivāda Smṛtyupasthānasūtra):

  1. adhyātmaṃ kāye bahirdhā kāye ’dhyātmabahirdhā kāye / 內身 […] 外身 […] 內外身 […]
  2. adhyātmaṃ vedanāsu bahirdhā vedanāsu adhyātmabahirdhā vedanāsu / 內受 […] 外受 […] 內外受 […]
  3. adhyātmaṃ citte bahirdhā citte ’dhyātmabahirdhā citte / 內心 […] 外心 […] 內外心 […]
  4. adhyātmaṃ dharmeṣu bahirdhā dharmeṣu adhyātmabahirdhā dharmeṣu dharmānupaśyī viharati / 內法 […] 外法 […] 內外法法觀住

[In this way they meditate by observing an aspect] of the body inside; […] of the body outside; […] of the body inside and outside [… an aspect] of sensations inside; […] of sensations outside; […] of sensations inside and outside […] of mind inside; […] of mind outside; […] of mind inside and outside […] of phenomena inside; […] of phenomena outside; […] of phenomena inside and outside[.]

To quote Ven Sujato:

Internally means in one’s own self; externally means outside one’s self; and internally/externally means seeing with wisdom that inside and outside are essentially the same, for example, that the earth element inside and outside are just the earth element.

3 Likes

Albert Einstein proposed the most famous formula in physics in a 1905 paper on Special Relativity titled Does the inertia of an object depend upon its energy content ?

Essentially, the equation says that mass and energy are intimately related. Atom bombs and nuclear reactors are practical examples of the formula working in one direction, turning matter into energy.

But until now there has been no way to do the reverse, turn energy into matter. What makes it particularly hard is that c2 term, the speed of light squared. It accounts for the huge amounts of energy released in nuclear reactions, and the huge amount you’d need to inject to turn energy into matter.

Previous experiments have always required a little bit of mass, even if it was only an electron’s worth.

But scientists at Imperial College London ( including a visiting physicist from Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics ) think they’ve figured out how to turn energy directly into matter

I just try to see the Prajna-paramita Sutra from the scientific perspective, although that sutras might not speak at all about science. But the phrase ‘rūpaṃ śūnyatā śūnyataiva rūpaṃ; rūpān na pṛthak śūnyatā śunyatāyā na pṛthag rūpaṃ;’ or ‘Form ( which is equal to Mass ) is emptiness ( which is equal to Energy ), emptiness is form, Emptiness is not differ from form, form is not differ from emptiness’, this phrase seems very compatible with the findings in the science, that mass and energy are indeed intimately related, that matter can be transformed into energy, and energy can be transformed into matter… :slight_smile:

Not really. This is more like Hinduism, the merging of Atman and Brahman. Buddhism is more like a change of state. It seems like you have an agenda to promote perennialism, but is this really appropriate for a Buddhist forum?

2 Likes

The unconditioned is presented as an “escape” from the conditioned, and the two appear to be quite distinct. The question is whether these are actually different spheres/dimensions, or just different states of mind. What do you think?

Again with the “Ultimate Truth” cliche! :roll_eyes:

It really is meaningless, and therefore unhelpful to discussion.

1 Like

Could you give some examples of this?

1 Like

Wrong.

@Martin
Hinduism:
read Sadhana of Tagore; who, even as brahmo, summarized the gist of Hindu creed.

Secularism:
scientific naturalism of modern buddhism - art of living of Goenka - noble eightfold path seen by Batchelor as some kind of nibanna in kama loka; when it only leads to liberation of citta - vipassana movement, that preaches wrong paradigm of bare attention, as welcoming all kind of emotions from the external.

All these secularist movements, not only preach buddisms that do not let one go further than second jhana; but also, do not even allow one to enter first one.
Seclusion means to transcend external ayatanani by entering internal one (like body-breath).
Secular buddhisms advocate making one ayatana with external and internal ayatanani.
Their seclusion is nonsense. It is just wishful thinking, that cannot and will never lead to proper result.

This seems a little odd to me. I am rather new to Buddhist practice, but with few exceptions, all the individuals who have instructed me on Vipassana meditation are ordained Buddhist monks from Thailand and Southeast Asia (i.e., not Westerners who have adopted Buddhist practice well into their adulthood). It seems to me that Vipassana is common in majority Buddhist countries in South and Southeast Asia and is taught among “religious” (not secular) monks in good standing. Or am I missing something?

1 Like

Maybe this:

Thank you for this article which I read straight away. I understand that the pedigree of Vipassana lies in a school of thought that departs in certain ways from traditional Theravada practice. However, to say that all practitioners of Vipassana are divorced from Buddhist teachings I think is to paint with too broad a brush. I certainly see that some of the so-called mindfulness movement pays only scant attention to Buddhist principles. But from my experience there are many (numbering into the millions) of sincere Buddhists who genuinely endeavor to live a Buddhist life in which Vipassana techniques play a role. This would include large number of monastic sanghas that embrace Vipassana meditative practices.

I should add that the article’s author seems to imply that any practice which does not involve monasticism is a departure from pure Buddhist teachings. That is to say, there is an implication in the article that only true renunciation and adoption of a monk’s life is fully consistent with Buddhist teachings. I suspect that this might be an ideal, but not one that even the most devout monastics would claim as the sole means for following the Buddha’s teachings.

One other observation: I am a scholar with a doctoral degree, so the academic approach taken by Sharf is not entirely foreign to me (although my training is not in Buddhist Studies which is Sharf’s field). I understand that Sharf is staking out a theoretical claim for the purposes of distinguishing the historical development of different Buddhist traditions. His points are well taken, but to argue that all Vipassana techniques are to be associated with modern mindfulness practices would seem to be more an analytical exercise than a statement of empirical fact. Traditional Buddhist teachings and Western mindfulness techniques as enshrined, for example, in mindfulness-based stress reduction may in theory be two entirely distinct things, but well-intentioned Buddhist teachers (monks included) have and are making sincere efforts to incorporate mindfulness meditation into traditional Buddhist teachings.

3 Likes

Maybe you’re wrong!
:open_mouth:
:speak_no_evil::hear_no_evil::see_no_evil:

2 Likes

They never claimed to be Buddhist- often a mix of EBT, Mahayana and perhaps Hindu philosophy.

I’m more concerned about Buddhist ‘Vipassana’ (insight) traditions which are actually Samatha(tranquility meditation) -as they would misrepresent wisdom teachings.

with metta

2 Likes

@Metaphor
Sharf says:

Mahasi designed this method with lay persons in mind, including those with little or no prior exposure to Buddhist doctrine or liturgical practice.

Perhaps most radical was Mahası’s claim that the
cultivation of liberating insight did not require advanced skill in concentration
(samatha) or the experience of absorption (jhana ). Instead, Mahası placed emphasis
on the notion of sati, understood as the moment-to-moment, lucid, non-reactive,
non-judgmental awareness of whatever appears to consciousness.

And this is absolutely not what one finds in EBT suttas with parallels, like SN 54.13.

11th step of anapanasati is samada (sam-ā-√ dhā - lit. placing with) brought by abhippamodaha (gladdening) citta.
Pleasure of the mind corresponds also to piti and sukkha born of “placing oneself in citta” in second jhana.
Both abhippamodaha & piti and sukkha happens before release (vimuncati) or transcendence (ekodibhava) of citta, in next step.
Sam-ā-√ dhā means placing oneself (in this case: in citta). It does not mean “concentration”.
It is pro-active attempt to reach contemplative citta. To place oneself in citta.

Right after is 12th step of anapanasati.
This is realease of citta from mano and other internal ayatanani. This is vi-muncati (vi- √ muc).
This is “not mine” part. (SN 22.89).
It corresponds to second jhana’s cetaso ekodi-bhava (transcendence of citta).

Then comes vipassana which is contemplation of “not-one’s ownness” of this phenomena.
Anicca in this context means “not-one’s ownness”, and not impermanence. This is second meaning of (a) nicca.
This is abandonment of the “I”.

This is proper translation.

This is vipassana.
And you can’t attain vipassana by just letting external “get in”, like in bare attention.

1 Like