Nonesense. Nibbana is experience free from conditioning of greed, hatred, and delusion. It is the only "thing" that is. One does not need to descend into that quagmire of nagarjunian nonsense to make a simple point that addresses the OP.
Hmh ... "Nonesense" ...brilliant argument ...
However this has not much to do with Nagarjuna ... it just your pre-conditioning that makes it appear to you in that way.
Nagarjuna did not deny the existence of nibbana, but rather the fruitlessness of trying to describe it in words. This is because words are just complex schematics conditioned by greed, hatred, and delusion. Nibbana is unconditioned, and uncompounded. So to say it is a "thing", and a "word" is factual.
"One is not born a woman, but becomes one."- Simone de Beauvoir
Nonesense. Nibbana is experience free from conditioning of greed, hatred, and delusion. It is the only "thing" that is. One does not need to descend into that quagmire of nagarjunian nonsense to make a simple point that addresses the OP.
Hmh ... "Nonesense" ...brilliant argument ...
Better than yours
However this has not much to do with Nagarjuna ... it just your pre-conditioning that makes it appear to you in that way.
Well, whatever your "argument" has to do with, it does not have anything to to do with what the suttas say. There is no point in the papañca of your point of view.
>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Wizard in the Forest wrote:Nagarjuna did not deny the existence of nibbana, but rather the fruitlessness of trying to describe it in words. This is because words are just complex schematics conditioned by greed, hatred, and delusion. Nibbana is unconditioned, and uncompounded. So to say it is a "thing", and a "word" is factual.
The only thing you said here that is correct: Nibbana is unconditioned, and uncompounded.
That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is asankhata [unconditioned/uncompounded]. -- S.N. IV 359 and S.N. 362
That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is nibbana. -- S.N. IV 251 and IV 321.
There "is" no nibbana outside of the process of the individual nibbanized, the individual who is no longer conditioned by greed, hatred and delusion.
>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
tiltbillings wrote:
The only thing you said here that is correct: Nibbana is unconditioned, and uncompounded.
That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is asankhata [unconditioned/uncompounded]. -- S.N. IV 359 and S.N. 362
That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is nibbana. -- S.N. IV 251 and IV 321.
There "is" no nibbana outside of the process of the individual nibbanized, the individual who is no longer conditioned by greed, hatred and delusion.
You see, I have no argument with that, but I think T Mingyur is talking about the "Thingification" or word of Nibbana, and then to that I said "nibbana" is a word to describe the unconditioned and uncompounded. The word itself isn't nibbana. (And I wasn't implying what Nagarjuna spoke of has any truth value btw.)
"One is not born a woman, but becomes one."- Simone de Beauvoir
tiltbillings wrote:
The only thing you said here that is correct: Nibbana is unconditioned, and uncompounded.
That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is asankhata [unconditioned/uncompounded]. -- S.N. IV 359 and S.N. 362
That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is nibbana. -- S.N. IV 251 and IV 321.
There "is" no nibbana outside of the process of the individual nibbanized, the individual who is no longer conditioned by greed, hatred and delusion.
You see, I have no argument with that, but I think T Mingyur is talking about the "Thingification" or word of Nibbana, and then to that I said "nibbana" is a word to describe the unconditioned and uncompounded. The word itself isn't nibbana. (And I wasn't implying what Nagarjuna spoke of has any truth value btw.)
I know that was what he was talking about. As far as I am concerned for this thread, it was totally unnecessary.
>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Wizard in the Forest wrote:...You see, I have no argument with that, but I think T Mingyur is talking about the "Thingification" or word of Nibbana, and then to that I said "nibbana" is a word to describe the unconditioned and uncompounded. The word itself isn't nibbana. (And I wasn't implying what Nagarjuna spoke of has any truth value btw.)
I know that was what he was talking about. As far as I am concerned for this thread, it was totally unnecessary.
That is not really the point.
TMingyur wrote:
So IMO a valid question is:
What renders a term "valid" for an alleged experience that one has not yet experienced?
And if any alleged experience is a "dhamma" to which a term may refer then "God" refers to a dhamma too.
If "God" does not refer to a dhamma but "nibbana" does then what is this differentiation based on?
