This is quite intriguing. I wish there were more resources so one could form an unbiased opinion about N.Dan74 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:38 pm From David Loy's essay:
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.”
Nibbana and samsara are identical. Change my view.
Re: Nibbana and samsara are identical. Change my view.
Re: Nibbana and samsara are identical. Change my view.
Premise A: Beings live in samsara
Premise B: Nibanna and samsara is identical
Conclusion: Those beings have attained Nibanna
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Nibbana and samsara are identical. Change my view.
Samsara is ignorance
ignorance specifically of the teaching
Nirvana is enlightenment
enlightenment specifically from the teaching
ignorance specifically of the teaching
Nirvana is enlightenment
enlightenment specifically from the teaching
Re: Nibbana and samsara are identical. Change my view.
Nagarjuna Reader's Guide
https://www.shambhala.com/nagarjuna-readers-guide/
Have you seen this? It was really easy to find.
chownah
Re: Nibbana and samsara are identical. Change my view.
Well here I thought I was posting a fun, easy way to discuss this issue and being totally up front by including the fine print! Sorry you both seem to see this as wrong for some reason.Pulsar wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:00 pm Santa100 wroteThanks 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:
He said "Change my view" but underneath in almost invisible fine print,
he posted "I don't
believe this", if so what was the point of the post?
He wrotefood for thought.but want to hear the counters to this idea and this is the least convoluted way
PS One must always read the fine print, before responding.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
Re: Nibbana and samsara are identical. Change my view.
Lol fair enough. Thanks.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
Re: Nibbana and samsara are identical. Change my view.
Excellent point Venerable. I'll look into that thank you.Dhammanando wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:24 pmBut 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.
.
George Rupp, The Relationship between Nirvāna and Samsāra.pdf
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
Re: Nibbana and samsara are identical. Change my view.
Ah! I see! We do agree!retrofuturist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:45 am Greetings,
Nirvana is unconditioned, samsara is conditioned.
No amount of Mahariddling alters this true Dhamma.
Metta,
Paul.
Sorry I failed to read this before! Always a pleasure to read your replies, thanks.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
Re: Nibbana and samsara are identical. Change my view.
Easy. A thing can't be wandering around and be extinct at the same time. If a thing is wandering, it's not extinct then is it? If a thing is extinct, it can't be wandering now can it?
Re: Nibbana and samsara are identical. Change my view.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Nibbana and samsara are identical. Change my view.
Tathāgatanmjojola wrote: A thing can't be wandering around and be extinct at the same time. If a thing is wandering, it's not extinct then is it? If a thing is extinct, it can't be wandering now can it?
Re: Nibbana and samsara are identical. Change my view.
Well, I've never seen how that epitaph could be possibly interpreted as anything other than a reflexive pronoun signifying whom it regards as "One thus gone (from wandering, Samsara)/One thus come (to extinction, Nibbana)"cappuccino wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:40 amTathāgatanmjojola wrote: A thing can't be wandering around and be extinct at the same time. If a thing is wandering, it's not extinct then is it? If a thing is extinct, it can't be wandering now can it?
So to me the question if Nibbana and Samsara are the same is to presume ontological or metaphysical meaning or significance about them.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Nibbana and samsara are identical. Change my view.
I interpret "thus gone" as no longer here, yet herenmjojola wrote: Well, I've never seen how that epitaph could be possibly interpreted as anything other than
which is simply a "paradox"
Re: Nibbana and samsara are identical. Change my view.
Thanks Dan. It's good to remind us that the analyses by Nagarjuna and others a quite subtle, and cannot be reduced to sound bites.Dan74 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:38 pm From David Loy's essay:
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nag ... a_Loy.html....
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.”
See also NIBBĀNA – THE MIND STILLED, Sermon 18, by Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda
https://seeingthroughthenet.net/books/
As mentioned in other threads, Ñāṇananda was quite familiar with Nagarjuna.Ñāṇananda wrote: Earlier we happened to mention that there is a wide gap between the
mundane and the supramundane. Some might think that this refers to a gap
in time or in space. In fact it is such a conception that often led to various
misinterpretations concerning Nibbàna. The supramundane seems so far
away from the mundane, so it must be something attainable after death in
point of time. Or else it should be far far away in outer space. Such is the
impression made in general.
But if we go by the simile of the drop of water on the lotus leaf, the
distance between the mundane and the supramundane is the same as that
between the lotus leaf and the drop of water on it.
See "Questions and Answers" on the above link.
“The five ascetics were given a teaching based on the
ethical middle path, avoiding the two extremes of kāmasukhal-
likānuyoga and attakilamathānuyoga. But the middle path of
right view is found in the Kaccānagotta Sutta, beautifully used by
Ven. Nāgārjuna. When the Theravadins got engrossed with the
Abhidhamma they forgot about it. The Mādhyamikas were alert
enough to give it the attention it deserved.
...
“I didn’t quote from the Mahāyāna texts in the Nibbāna
sermons,” he says, “because there was no need. All that was
needed was already found in the Suttas. Teachers like Nāgārjuna
brought to light what was already there but was hidden from
view. Unfortunately his later followers turned it in to a vāda.”
He goes on to quote two of his favourite verses from Ven.
Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamādhyamakakārikā (as usual, from memory):
Bhante doesn’t bother translating the verses; the onesŚūnyatā sarva-dṛṣtīnaṃ proktā niḥsaranaṃ jinaiḥ,
yeṣāṃ śūnyatā-dṛṣtis tān asādhyān babhāṣire [MK 13.8]
The Victorious Ones have declared that emptiness is the
relinquishing of all views. Those who are possessed of the
view of emptiness are said to be incorrigible.
Sarva-dṛṣti-prahāṇāya yaḥ saddharmam adeśayat,
anukampam upādāya taṃ namasyāmi gautamaṃ
– [MK 26.30]
I reverently bow to Gautama who, out of compassion, has
taught the doctrine in order to relinquish all views.
provided above are by David Kalupahana.
“When I first read the Kārikā I too was doubting Ven.
Nāgārjuna’s sanity” he laughs. “But the work needs to be
understood in the context. He was taking a jab at the
Sarvāstivādins. To be honest, even the others deserve the rebuke,
although they now try to get away by using Sarvāstivāda as an
excuse. How skilled Ven. Nāgārjuna must have been, to compose
those verses so elegantly and filling them with so much meaning,
like the Dhammapada verses. It’s quite amazing. This has been
rightly understood by Prof. Kalupahana.”
Prof. David J. Kalupahana is an eminent Sri Lankan
scholar who stirred up another controversy when he portrayed
Ven. Nāgārjuna as a reformist trying to resurrect early Buddhist
teachings. He had been a lecturer during Bhante Ñāṇananda’s
university days as a layman at Peradeniya.
“If there is no substance in anything, what is left is
emptiness. But many people are afraid of words, like śūnyatā.
They want to protect their four.” With that ‘irreverent’ comment
about the four paramattha dhamma–s of the Abhidhamma,
Bhante Ñāṇananda breaks into amused laughter.
Mike
Re: Nibbana and samsara are identical. Change my view.
mikenz66 wrote
be reminded of him. Thank you for taking the time.
Best
I find this refreshing. Thanks for the excerpts from Ven. Nananada. It is wonderful toBut if we go by the simile of the drop of water on the lotus leaf, the
distance between the mundane and the supramundane is the same as that
between the lotus leaf and the drop of water on it.
be reminded of him. Thank you for taking the time.
Best