What exactly is Nirvana?

[Aloysium]

We call him God because he made us. Buddhist gods have never made us. He is Supreme and Eternal. Buddhist gods are neither. He made us in his image and likeness, so we cannot safely ignore him, as you say we can safely ignore the Buddhist gods. . .

Well said, except for the last part, which I would qualify.

I don’t give much weight to what Rossum says; it is one person’s opinion. The fact is that most eastern thought, coming from different sources as it is and victim to translators, is a sort of quagmire of varying interpretations, for those who seek clarity. That may be a good thing because the proof is not in the recipe, but in the pudding itself. One knows Nirvana in the knowing, rather than by imagining what it might be.

From my perspective, there are Buddhist gods which would not be safely ignored, since they represent different aspects of the Divine nature shared by all beings, and from a Christian view, our relationship with God, and ultimately He Himself. They assist us in our search for enlightenment and wisdom and may be described as personified graces bestowed by the Holy Spirit. In Tibetan Buddhism we find five deities or mandalas: the white father transforms anger, the blue father ignorance and stupidity, the yellow father, pride, the red father transforms passion, and the green, jealousy. One would contemplate and pray to the images not as idols, but as we do in the case of statues that represent, like words do, what is Divine. A person, unaware of the theology and existence of the Holy Spirit, could pray to these deities. What I am aware of, but choose to ignore is not what they represent, which is a quest for truth, beauty, goodness and eternal life, but the images and idea of gods.

 

[rossum]

We call him God because he made us.

He made Himself, just as we made ourselves. Once any of us attain enlightenment then we will cease to remake ourselves. Buddhism is not an Abrahamic religion.

He is Supreme and Eternal. Buddhist gods are neither.

How do you know that? Have you ever read Buddhist scriptures? Here is one of the Buddhist gods talking about himself:

“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings.” (emphasis added)

– Brahmajala sutta, Digha Nikaya 1.

Better to remain silent in areas where your knowledge is insufficient.

He made us in his image and likeness, so we cannot safely ignore him, as you say we can safely ignore the Buddhist gods.

So, us humans are in the image and likeness of God.

If Buddhist gods, even ten thousand of them, cannot be distinguished from humans in that they are born and they die, then they must be compatible with atheism

Let us take a look at that argument in a slightly different key:

If the Christian God cannot be distinguished from humans in that they are made in the same image and likeness then He must be compatible with atheism.

Above you say that humans are made in the image and likeness of God. Then you say that Buddhist gods don’t count because they are like humans. You will do much better here if your arguments do not contradict each other. First you say that humans are in God’s image, then you complain that humans are in the gods’ image. You need to rethink your argument here.

Both the Christian God and the Buddhist gods share some properties with humans. You are making different deductions from the existence of those shared properties in the two cases. Such faulty arguments will not convince anyone.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

He made Himself, just as we made ourselves. Once any of us attain enlightenment then we will cease to remake ourselves. Buddhism is not an Abrahamic religion.

How do you know that? Have you ever read Buddhist scriptures? Here is one of the Buddhist gods talking about himself:

“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings.” (emphasis added)

– Brahmajala sutta, Digha Nikaya 1.

Better to remain silent in areas where your knowledge is insufficient.

So, us humans are in the image and likeness of God.

Let us take a look at that argument in a slightly different key:

If the Christian God cannot be distinguished from humans in that they are made in the same image and likeness then He must be compatible with atheism.

Above you say that humans are made in the image and likeness of God. Then you say that Buddhist gods don’t count because they are like humans. You will do much better here if your arguments do not contradict each other. First you say that humans are in God’s image, then you complain that humans are in the gods’ image. You need to rethink your argument here.

Both the Christian God and the Buddhist gods share some properties with humans. You are making different deductions from the existence of those shared properties in the two cases. Such faulty arguments will not convince anyone.

rossum

It is you who constantly say we can safely ignore the gods.

That’s what atheists say.

Just as atheism is a man-made religion, so is Buddhism.

We are made in the image and likeness of God not as God is in himself, but as he relates to us as a personal God. God possesses traits that we possess but in the infinite way, whereas we are infinite.

You said of God: “He made Himself, just as we made ourselves.”

This statement is so bizarre I don’t know what to do with it.

 

[fhansen]

Nibbana is release from samsara - the cycle of birth and death. Release from it can only occur through following the Noble Eightfold Path and having meditative insight into the Four Noble Truths and the “three marks of existence” = impermanence, the reality of suffering caused by cravings and not-self. The goal is to become an arhant (enlightened, liberated person).

It is described as the highest happiness and the other shore. It is unconditioned.

The closest cognate to this in Western thought is apatheia, the monastic goal of the Desert Fathers. The fundamental issue for Evagrius and the Desert Fathers was clear thinking, which is to say clear insight. The Desert Fathers called this ‘apatheia’ which means ‘passionlessness’ of the mind or a state of imperturbable calm. This is where we get the word ‘apathy’ from in English but it’s a poor description of the original meaning of being undisturbed by passionate thoughts born of attachments to objects of sense. Angelus Silesius, a much later Roman Catholic contemplative, described it thus:

“…He has not lived in vain
who learns to be unruffled
by loss, by gain,
by, joy, by pain…”

If this state of mind was achieved, this apatheia, the monks believed that they could understand God’s purpose “undistorted”. I’ve heard Buddhists speak often of “equanimity”.

The goal is then apatheia, to become undisturbed by mental images or thoughts at the time of prayer - so-called “imageless prayer”. Thus, free from the distorting effects of uninhibited passions, a monk would begin to see more clearly the revelation of God’s purpose - that is, understand the nature both of mind and the physical universe. Abbas Evagrius again:

But then, from a Christian perspective, this means we still have far to go to reach the goal, even if or when apatheia is attained, correct?

 

[rossum]

It is you who constantly say we can safely ignore the gods.

That’s what atheists say.

Again, let’s try that in a slightly different key:

It is you who says that Amaterasu does not exist.

That is what atheists say.

Does your argument look so good now? Christians agree with atheists about the vast majority of gods. Does that make Christians atheists? You need to find a better argument here.

Just as atheism is a man-made religion, so is Buddhism.

The Buddha was a man, and what one man did – achieve enlightenment – other men can do also. If the Buddha had been a god then it would be impossible for men to do what a god did. The Buddha being a man is necessary for Buddhism to work. Again you seem to be importing Abrahamic assumptions where they are not relevant.

You said of God: “He made Himself, just as we made ourselves.”

This statement is so bizarre I don’t know what to do with it.

When we are born we are the result of our accumulated past lives. Because we lived those past lives, the accumulated result of those lives is down to us and our past actions. We made what we are now by our own actions in the past. In effect, “the child is father to the man,” writ large over many lifetimes.

Because gods also have many previous lives, they also are self-created in the same way. Their previous lives condition their current lives.

rossum

 

[fhansen]

The Buddha, and particularly the topic of this thread: Nirvana, are not concerned with life and death (mostly) or proofs of authority by divine miracles.

It’s apples to oranges. There could be a new topic in the non-Christian religion forums questioning the Buddha’s authority or divine mandate, but as far as Nirvana goes, I think we have aptly answered those questions.

Yes, and there would also already be a great difference between reincarnation and a resurrection. I sincerely doubt a buddhist would be unimpressed with the latter.

 

[fhansen]

How do Buddhists know there are thousands of gods but no soul?

They are just coming from an Indian way of seeing the universe which is largely Hindu and they believe in countless gods.

Think of it this way: pretend there is a religion called iPhone. In iPhone religion and among the culture of the people who practice iPhone, there is an ancient tradition that there are only four gods. A really exceptional iPhone preacher who has his own idea about how to reach salvation comes along and starts giving classes. A lot of people see that this preacher’s tips work really well for them in finding salvation. After he dies they keep thinking about and teaching others about his tips and people in the West who later discover them call them Tip-ists because they follow the tips. Actually some of them might really be still following iPhone-ism and worshipping or believing in the four gods. But by now the tips have spread to other countries with no iPhone-ists. Many of the followers of the Tips at this point might just be people who never worshipped the four gods of iPhone. Whether they originally worship those gods of iPhone is now irrelevant because the Tips are very good advice for anyone trying to reach salvation.

Just as it doesn’t matter if the follower of the Tips is from the iPhone religion anymore, so it doesn’t matter if a Buddhist person is Hindu and worships or even believes in their gods. It was just the situation in which everyone in India, including the Buddha taught about religious things. The gods in India are also not always thought of as actual deities with bodies, but in many Indian religions are thought of only as symbols of one small aspect of the One God.

Do the Buddhist gods also die?
Every Buddhist is different in their belief of gods. You have to ask each Buddhist personally. There are many atheist Buddhists in the world, as well as many Buddhists who believe in gods or Buddhas like a folk religion. There are also many Christian Buddhists through history and also Muslim Buddhists possibly somewhere in Central Asia. Buddhism does not require anyone to ever believe or not believe in any god or gods.

If they do not die, do they suffer eternally because they can’t die, which you suggested above when you said “Eternal life is eternal suffering”?
You’re right, they suffer because they do not die. Actually that’s why it’s very dangerous to be reincarnated as a god. Some people would like to think existence would be without suffering if they could be a god or in a heaven when they die. The gods are in a very bad state, some monks say it is worse than hell, because they can have everything they want almost until the end of time and they are so distracted by all of their pleasures being fulfilled instantly that they can never focus on being awakened or practicing the Dharma (the Buddha’s tips). But they still suffer because they still constantly want more and more because they know their wish will be perfectly fulfilled instantly because they are a god with power.

At the temples here in Korea (and I think in Tibetan Buddhism also), every night and morning they ring a giant bell because they believe the vibrations are strong enough to go out to the heavens and hopefully snap the gods out of their delusion and get them to remember to try to wake up, remember any of a Buddha’s tips they once learned countless lives ago as an animal or human, and reach Nirvana.

In Christianity existence =suffering only to the extent that we-creation-are apart from our Creator.

 

[fhansen]

Here are two statements:

• Jesus is God.
• Jesus died on the cross.

If both these statements are true then the crucifixion was one example of the death of a God. AIUI, both those statements are well within Christian orthodoxy.

Any unenlightened being that dies gets reborn. If the dying god was not enlightened then it would come back for a new life, though not necessarily as a god. If the god were enlightened, then it would not be reborn.

You have a strange definition of atheism, with tens of thousands of gods.

Your Christian God walks, speaks, gets jealous, gets angry and loves. Humans walk, speak, get jealous, get angry and love. Your God does what humans do. Why do you call him “God”?

rossum

The important fact for a Christian would be that Jesus never ceased to exist

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Because gods also have many previous lives, they also are self-created in the same way. Their previous lives condition their current lives.

rossum

So when and under what conditions do the gods finally cease to exist?

And if there is no soul in Buddhism, how do you get reincarnated?

That is, how does the body get reanimated in some other form?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Buddha was a man, and what one man did – achieve enlightenment – other men can do also. If the Buddha had been a god then it would be impossible for men to do what a god did. The Buddha being a man is necessary for Buddhism to work. Again you seem to be importing Abrahamic assumptions where they are not relevant.

Did the Buddha become a god?

Does the Buddha no longer exist?

Abrahamic assumptions are relevant because they explain more than Buddhism does.

For example, does Buddhism explain how or why the universe and humans were created?

Please quote passages from Buddhist sacred writings that explain how or why?

 

[rossum]

The important fact for a Christian would be that Jesus never ceased to exist

Of course he did. How tall is Jesus? At one point in His life He was 3 feet tall. Earlier and later He was not 3 feet tall.

Since the same person cannot be both 3 feet tall and not 3 feet tall (law of the excluded middle) then the 3 foot Jesus no longer exists.

This is a standard Buddhist analysis to show that anything that changes cannot be permanent. Since Jesus, at least during His lifetime, changed, then He is not permanent. How tall is Jesus today?

Yes, this same argument applies to all of us as ell. We are all continually being replaced with a changed version of ourselves that is contingent on the earlier version of ourselves.

rossum

 

[rossum]

So when and under what conditions do the gods finally cease to exist?

When they die. Was that really such a difficult question that you could not work out the answer for yourself?

And if there is no soul in Buddhism, how do you get reincarnated?

Remember Heraclitus: “You can never step in the same river twice; the river is not the same river and you are not the same you.” There are five components to a human being: material form, feelings, perceptions, formations and consciousness. Only the formations part carries over from one life to the next – it carries memories of previous lives and accumulated karma. The other four all develop anew. If you are reborn as an eagle, then your sight perception will be greatly improved over human sight perception.

That is, how does the body get reanimated in some other form?

It does not. You will start as a zygote and develop a new body in the usual way.

Did the Buddha become a god?

He may have been a god in one of his previous lives, but he was not a god in his last life; he was a Bodhisattva, then a Buddha once he attained enlightenment.

Some people worship him as if he were a god. That is probably an error, and something he tried to discourage when he was alive. Given the way humans treat famous people, it was probably inevitable though.

Does the Buddha no longer exist?

• It is not correct to say that the Buddha currently exists.
• It is not correct to say that the Buddha currently does not exist.
• It is not correct to say that the Buddha currently both exists and does not exist.
• It is not correct to say that the Buddha currently neither exists nor does not exist.

Your question is one of the fourteen unanswerable questions and is effectively asking for a description of nirvana. If you want to know what nirvana is like, then become enlightened and see for yourself.

Abrahamic assumptions are relevant because they explain more than Buddhism does.

Abrahamic assumptions do not explain the path nirvana, hence they fall short.

For example, does Buddhism explain how or why the universe and humans were created?

The Buddha was asked that very question, and answered with a parable:

[The Buddha said:] 'It is as if, Malunkyaputta, a man is shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison, … and the wounded man were to say “I will not have the arrow taken out until I know the caste of the man who shot it, … his tribe … his clan … his village … his height etc.” [many questions omitted here] That man would die Malunkyaputta, before he learned all that he wanted to know.

'In exactly the same way, Malunkyaputta, any one who says “I will not lead the religious life under the Blessed One until the Blessed One explains to me whether the universe is eternal, whether the universe is not eternal, whether the universe is finite, whether the universe is infinite etc.” [many questions omitted here] That person would die Malunkyaputta, before I had ever explained all this to that person.

‘The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here] Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.’

– Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63

The universe exists, and we are suffering in it. Our first priority is to escape that suffering.

Your question is a distraction because it does not pertain to the cessation of suffering. Buddhism is a very practical religion; it is not interested in how many Kinnaras can dance on a pinhead.

Please quote passages from Buddhist sacred writings that explain how or why?

I have quoted the relevant passage, but I doubt that you will like the Buddha’s answer. What did Jesus have for breakfast, if anything, five days after His tenth birthday? It is very easy to formulate an irrelevant question and demand an answer.

rossum

 

[fhansen]

Of course he did. How tall is Jesus? At one point in His life He was 3 feet tall. Earlier and later He was not 3 feet tall.

Since the same person cannot be both 3 feet tall and not 3 feet tall (law of the excluded middle) then the 3 foot Jesus no longer exists.

This is a standard Buddhist analysis to show that anything that changes cannot be permanent. Since Jesus, at least during His lifetime, changed, then He is not permanent. How tall is Jesus today?

Yes, this same argument applies to all of us as ell. We are all continually being replaced with a changed version of ourselves that is contingent on the earlier version of ourselves.

rossum

And yet the 3 foot tall Jesus was the same being; change doesn’t imply cessation of existence. Even the doctrine of reincarnation depends on this truth, in fact. Otherwise there’d be nothing to reincarnate.

 

[rossum]

And yet the 3 foot tall Jesus was the same being

No He was not. He was a different height. “The witness said the suspect was about 5’6” tall; the police have arrested a man 3’ tall and charged him with the crime."

A person is a compound of many different properties. If one property changes then the overall set of properties of the compound entity changes: it is no longer the same compound entity.

change doesn’t imply cessation of existence.

Yes is does. The old compound ceases and the new compound is conditioned by the old compound it arose from.

Even the doctrine of reincarnation depends on this truth, in fact. Otherwise there’d be nothing to reincarnate.

What reincarnated at the beginning of the current life no longer exists by the end of the same life, it has changed in the interim. One part of the compound that makes up a human being is the physical body. I am sure that you will agree that your body now is hugely different from the initial zygote formed at conception.

Can you remember what you had for breakfast this morning? Could you remember that fact yesterday? Your memory is different today than it was yesterday; it is not the same memory, it is a different memory. The components of a human being are changing from instant to instant. Everything changes; nothing is permanent. The search for a permanence that cannot be found will only result in suffering.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

No matter where you go,
what you do,
trying as you might to imagine being anywhere else,
anything other,
thinking of yourself as always changing
and nothing and nowhere real,
here you are
always,
unchangingly centred
on that eternal Font,
from which all creation, all existence springs forth
in blinding love,
infinite in beauty,
fresh and pure,
containing all truth
all that is, was, and ever will be.

 

[fhansen]

No He was not. He was a different height. “The witness said the suspect was about 5’6” tall; the police have arrested a man 3’ tall and charged him with the crime."

A person is a compound of many different properties. If one property changes then the overall set of properties of the compound entity changes: it is no longer the same compound entity.

Yes is does. The old compound ceases and the new compound is conditioned by the old compound it arose from.

What reincarnated at the beginning of the current life no longer exists by the end of the same life, it has changed in the interim. One part of the compound that makes up a human being is the physical body. I am sure that you will agree that your body now is hugely different from the initial zygote formed at conception.

Can you remember what you had for breakfast this morning? Could you remember that fact yesterday? Your memory is different today than it was yesterday; it is not the same memory, it is a different memory. The components of a human being are changing from instant to instant. Everything changes; nothing is permanent. The search for a permanence that cannot be found will only result in suffering.

rossum

If you’re meaning to make the point that an imperfect or bad memory equals cessation of existence, so that there is no continuity in a being-in its “beingness”- between birth and death, then I’d submit that no memory at all should exist from one moment to the next- if such an absolute change were the case. Sounds speculative for the most part.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

When they die. Was that really such a difficult question that you could not work out the answer for yourself?

Remember Heraclitus: “You can never step in the same river twice; the river is not the same river and you are not the same you.” There are five components to a human being: material form, feelings, perceptions, formations and consciousness. Only the formations part carries over from one life to the next – it carries memories of previous lives and accumulated karma. The other four all develop anew. If you are reborn as an eagle, then your sight perception will be greatly improved over human sight perception.

It does not. You will start as a zygote and develop a new body in the usual way.

He may have been a god in one of his previous lives, but he was not a god in his last life; he was a Bodhisattva, then a Buddha once he attained enlightenment.

Some people worship him as if he were a god. That is probably an error, and something he tried to discourage when he was alive. Given the way humans treat famous people, it was probably inevitable though.

• It is not correct to say that the Buddha currently exists.
• It is not correct to say that the Buddha currently does not exist.
• It is not correct to say that the Buddha currently both exists and does not exist.
• It is not correct to say that the Buddha currently neither exists nor does not exist.

Your question is one of the fourteen unanswerable questions and is effectively asking for a description of nirvana. If you want to know what nirvana is like, then become enlightened and see for yourself.

Abrahamic assumptions do not explain the path nirvana, hence they fall short.

The Buddha was asked that very question, and answered with a parable:

[The Buddha said:] 'It is as if, Malunkyaputta, a man is shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison, … and the wounded man were to say “I will not have the arrow taken out until I know the caste of the man who shot it, … his tribe … his clan … his village … his height etc.” [many questions omitted here] That man would die Malunkyaputta, before he learned all that he wanted to know.

'In exactly the same way, Malunkyaputta, any one who says “I will not lead the religious life under the Blessed One until the Blessed One explains to me whether the universe is eternal, whether the universe is not eternal, whether the universe is finite, whether the universe is infinite etc.” [many questions omitted here] That person would die Malunkyaputta, before I had ever explained all this to that person.

‘The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here] Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.’

– Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63

The universe exists, and we are suffering in it. Our first priority is to escape that suffering.

Your question is a distraction because it does not pertain to the cessation of suffering. Buddhism is a very practical religion; it is not interested in how many Kinnaras can dance on a pinhead.

I have quoted the relevant passage, but I doubt that you will like the Buddha’s answer. What did Jesus have for breakfast, if anything, five days after His tenth birthday? It is very easy to formulate an irrelevant question and demand an answer.

rossum

I guess I’m reaching the point where no matter what questions I ask, I get the royal run around. Buddhism seems to be so diverse and confused with all the different answers you get from all the different Buddhists that nothing seems to hang together.

That could be said of Protestantism and atheism as well.

Only the Catholic Church seems to have a firm grasp on what it officially teaches worldwide. I like that because it tells me that truth is one and universal. Yes, Catholic theologians do disagree on minor points, but on the hard issues you will find hardly any disagreement and if you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches all you have to do is consult the Catechism and the Councils and the Popes.

 

[scapularkid8]

I’m sorry to say but I do hope the moderators close this thread. Our Buddhist guest has very charitably answered the OP’s original questions, yet seems to be met with baiting into a discussion of an entirely different topic now seeming to center on the core differences between the Buddha and Jesus and divinity in Buddhism vs Christianity.

 

[scapularkid8]

Only the Catholic Church seems to have a firm grasp on what it officially teaches worldwide. I like that because it tells me that truth is one and universal. Yes, Catholic theologians do disagree on minor points, but on the hard issues you will find hardly any disagreement and if you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches all you have to do is consult the Catechism and the Councils and the Popes.

Yet again…Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, et al can not be compared to the Roman Catholic tradition coming out of a Western thought school.

Buddhists believe core concepts, and have shared these beliefs for many centuries before Christ was even born. Think of Roman Catholic theology vs Byzantine vs Oriental Catholic theology. Based on the total differences in how they talk about our faith, an outsider could take your aforementioned paragraph and merely replace with their own religion upon viewing our different theologies as what seem to be very different. In my view, we are not giving the royal run around. Your questions are being addressed in honest ways.

 

[rossum]

If you’re meaning to make the point that an imperfect or bad memory equals cessation of existence

I said nothing about imperfect memory. Memory changes as time advances. You can remember what you had for breakfast this morning; you cannot remember what you will have for breakfast tomorrow morning. Only after you have had tomorrow’s breakfast will you be able to remember it.

Similarly, change is evident in all the other components of a human being. Even in Christian terms, change is necessary for an unsaved soul to change to a saved soul. If that change is not possible then the entire point of Christianity fails.

Anything which changes cannot be eternal. That is why the Abrahamic religions insist on an unchanging God – only an unchanging God can be eternal.

so that there is no continuity in a being-in its “beingness”- between birth and death, then I’d submit that no memory at all should exist from one moment to the next- if such an absolute change were the case. Sounds speculative for the most part.

There is a continuity in the the later state is conditioned by the earlier state. If an appendix is removed, then the later states of that body lack an appendix, because of the earlier removal. Maybe the 20-year-old body had its appendix removed. The 60-year-old body also lacks an appendix, but it is no longer the 20-year-old body. There have been many changes in the body over the intervening 40 years. The older body carries all the accumulated changes brought forward from its past. It is not the same body, but it is conditioned by its individual history. It is another link in a long chain. Each link attaches to the previous link and to the next link, but no single link extends the entire length of the chain.

Buddhism denies an unchanging Thomist-style essence sitting behind things. People often think that such an essence really exists. It does not; it is only an internal mental construct that our brains overlay onto the external reality. One of the purposes of meditation is to allow us to distinguish these various internal mental overlays, and separate them from what is actually real in the external world.

For example, an arachnophobe will overlay the external perception of a spider with an internally generated fear. The spider exists in the external world; the fear is an internal mental construct. Separating the external from the internal helps us to avoid suffering.

rossum