convivium wrote:Are there grounds in the tipitaka to attribute to nibbana some transcendental (non-immanent) status?
What would an "ontology of nibbana" look like?convivium wrote:Thanks for the links. Chris, I can't read the responses if there are any.
I know Thanissaro maintains that non-dual positions, regarding the distinction between samsara and nibbana, are unfounded in the tipitaka. Of course, there is no positive articulation of this sort of non-dualism in the canon. However, to my knowledge, there is also no positive statement that samsara and nibbana have mutually exclusive ontologies (that samsara and nibbana are metaphysically distinct & in no way correlated). If I am right, then what grounds do we have to make this assertion?
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."
It find support in the suttas.convivium wrote:Dan, I think it's a reasonable guess and I'd tend to agree with that interpretation.
Did you have something specific in mind?It find support in the suttas.
also don't forget the difference between nibbana-while-alive and nibbana-after-death
convivium wrote:also don't forget the difference between nibbana-while-alive and nibbana-after-death
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
And yet, "(s)he will not be born again"; in what sense exactly?
That's why I called it "effectively transcendental".In my eyes transcendental implies some sort of existence
Users browsing this forum: Bhikkhu Pesala and 50 guests