How on earth can they be identical?
- when Samsara is incessantly striding on at full speed, pitifully carrying a full load of recycling garbages
- while Nibbana is elegantly unmoving, being free from any traces of trash
- like this:
You missed the not arising, not ceasing about Nibbana.How on earth can they be identical?
when Samsara is incessantly striding on at full speed, pitifully carrying a full load of recycling garbages
while Nibbana is elegantly unmoving, being free from any traces of trash
but if INibbana and Samsara are identical according to Nagarjuna
Might want to increase the font to your 2nd sentence below the first sentence in the OP for clarification:zan wrote:Nibbana and samsara are identical. Change my view.
So basically it's never really been your own view and hence no need to change anything.I do not believe this, but want to hear the counters to this idea and this is the least convoluted way.
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nag ... a_Loy.html[Nagarjuna's works] refute this thought-constructed distinction between objects and processes by analyzing how that very distinction distorts our understanding of causality, motion, perception, time, and so forth. Nagarjuna’s basic approach is almost always the same: The particular distinction being examined is shown to be incomprehensible, because, having been made, the two different terms no longer fit back together. The basic problem, the source of our suffering, is that our commonsense ways of understanding ourselves as separate from but also in the world assume this delusive distinction.
For example, consider the relationship between the self and its ever-changing mental and physical states (one’s thoughts, emotions, bodily feelings, etc.). Is the self the same as those states, or different from them? We say, “I am hungry or angry, or confused,” which implies that “I” am constantly changing. But we also have a sense of an “I” that persists unchanged: the “I” that works is the same “I” that gets a paycheck at the end of the month. In everyday life we constantly fudge this inconsistency. Sometimes we understand ourselves one way, sometimes the other, but understanding ourselves as things that both change and stay the same is really a contradiction. Nagarjuna’s explanation for the inconsistency is that the self is shunya, “empty.” In modem terms, my sense of self is an impermanent, ever-changing construct.
Nagarjuna also applies his method to Buddhist constructs. What about nirvana? It too is a shunya concept. If nirvana is something causally unconditioned, a reality that does not arise or pass away, then there is no way for us to get there. If it is conditioned, then it too will pass away, like every other conditioned thing. Neither alternative provides spiritual salvation. Letting go of the ways of thinking in which we are normally stuck allows us to experience the world as it really is. This, “the end of conceptual elaborations (prapancha),” is how Nagarjuna refers to nirvana.
Nagarjuna never actually claims, as is sometimes thought, that “samsara is nirvana.” Instead, he says that no difference can be found between them. The koti (limit, boundary) of nirvana is the koti of samsara. They are two different ways of experiencing this world. Nirvana is not another realm or dimension but rather the clarity and peace that arise when our mental turmoil ends, because the objects with which we have been identifying are realized to be shunya. Things have no reality of their own that we can cling to, since they arise and pass away according to conditions. Nor can we cling to this truth. The most famous verse in the Karikas (25:24) sums this up magnificently: “Ultimate serenity is the coming-to-rest of all ways of ‘taking’ things, the repose of named things. No truth has been taught by a Buddha for anyone anywhere.”
I'm not picking sides here. Sarath may be right, you may be right, I don't have a firm understanding of the issue.DooDoot wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 12:04 amNibbana = an objective reality
Samsara = an objective reality
Nibbana = Samsara
A frog = an animal
A dog = an animal
A frog = a dog
A jellyfish breathes
SarathW is a jellyfish
SarathW eats bananas
Monkeys eat bananas
SarathW is a monkey
Four Noble Strawmen
Excellent point. Please elaborate.
Thanks. I'll think about this.
Thank you both for your replies. I'm with DootDoot on this one. Nibbana is the only unconditioned dhamma, so it doesn't depend on anything else.
Oh come one santa, You always give me these amazing responses to my questions. I think this thread would be much for the worse if you refuse to answer it because you don't like the way I posted it. Please share your thoughts on this issue . It's just a common way to phrase a question to start a discussion. I want to know how people counter this view and this is a really fast, simple and easily digestible way to start the thread.santa100 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 3:19 pmMight want to increase the font to your 2nd sentence below the first sentence in the OP for clarification:zan wrote:Nibbana and samsara are identical. Change my view.So basically it's never really been your own view and hence no need to change anything.I do not believe this, but want to hear the counters to this idea and this is the least convoluted way.
Thanks but where did I mention Nagarjuna? I'm asking about the view in general, not Nagarjuna's position.Pulsar wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 1:29 pmOP saysbut if INibbana and Samsara are identical according to Nagarjuna
remember right, Nagarjuna somewhere in the same verses says he has no view, or that he holds no position
regarding anything at all.
How did OP come up with a view? Nagarjuna does not appear to have held
any views at all. You ask us to "Change your view" Is this not futile, If N did not have a view
to begin with, regarding nibbana or samsara?
Thanks. Fair point. I don't know either. This is what I'm trying to wrap my head around by hopefully hearing how people discuss it.
My bad, I apologize, why did Nagrajuna pop up my mind? I must live in a dreamworld.Thanks but where did I mention Nagarjuna? I'm asking about the view in general, not Nagarjuna's position.
Thanks Santa100, I totally missed the fine print. Now that you point it out, I thank you. I guess the OP posted a trick question.Might want to increase the font to your 2nd sentence below the first sentence in the OP for clarification:
food for thought.but want to hear the counters to this idea and this is the least convoluted way
But there's no such thing as "the view in general". For different Mahayana teachers and different Mahayana schools the claim that saṃsāra is nirvāṇa has meant all sorts of different things. For some examples see the attached article by George Rupp: The Relationship between Nirvāna and Samsāra - An Essay on the Evolution of Buddhist Ethics.