What exactly is Nirvana?

[Aloysium]

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.

I know Charlie can speak for himself, but what are you talking about?
The Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word of God.
It is guided by the Holy Spirit through the tribulations that arise in this world.
He made a statement about its teaching the one true universal truth.
While all religions arise from God’s call, here is nothing that compares.
An outsider could substitute their religion for ours in the aforementioned paragraph, but they would be in error.
The sociological aspect of religion may be interesting, the psychological more so to me, but it is its most superficial aspect.
And, to come to Rossum’s defence; well, I find it somewhat humourous but it’s better to stick with the OP than to talk about each other.

Back on topic, as to Nirvana, the only way people get there arguing philosophical and theological points is through a burning out of these sorts of mental distractions and especially of the desire to have existence submit to one’s intellect.
So, what is Nirvana?
What is it? This is it.
Not satisfied?
The question is then, what is this?
Really, beyond any words, this right here, right now, this.

Spoiler alert:
This right here and now is our connection to God.
Nirvana is an awakening that shows us the Way.
That Way is Jesus Christ Himself.

 

[rossum]

I guess I’m reaching the point where no matter what questions I ask, I get the royal run around.

I have answered your questions. As far as I can see, you do not like the answers because they do not match Catholic teaching. If you do not like answers that don’t match Catholic teaching, then I suggest that you stop asking questions about subjects, like nirvana, that are not part of Catholic teaching.

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.

Buddhism seems diverse because Buddhism is diverse. People are different and find different approaches to be useful. Because of this, Buddhism offers a wide range of different approaches. The religion adjusts itself to the people who follow it. Chinese Buddhism differs from Tibetan Buddhism and both differ from the emerging Western Buddhism. You are correct that this more closely resembles Protestantism than Catholicism.

rossum

 

[rossum]

So, what is Nirvana?

Here is Thomas Merton’s answer to that question:

[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything – without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.

I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded (much more “imperative” than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa because completely simple and straightforward).

The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya … everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …

It says everything, it needs nothing. And because it needs nothing it can afford to be silent, unnoticed, undiscovered. It does not need to be discovered. It is we who need to discover it.

From: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton

You do not have to be Buddhist to attain enlightenment.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

Gotta love Thomas Merton.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

I think it is you who are making the personal attack and you need to stop it.

I have NOT PERSONALLY ATTACKED ROSSUM. I HAVE DISAGREED WITH HIM.

I have asked difficult questions about Buddhism to which he has not given adequate answers. Are you saying we are not allowed to debate on this forum?

It would be fine with me if this thread is closed because I don’t see it going anywhere with the attitudes developing.

 

[Vico]

As you say, this is getting into the differences between various Buddhist schools. I do not follow those schools.

As I said above, Buddhism offers many different methods to walk the path. The Dharmakaya (your “Eternal Buddha”) is one possible method, but not one that I follow.

rossum

Buddhism is not unified, and for example, there were eighteen schools in Theravada before eternal Buddha concept developed in it. The Mahayana development of eternal Buddha developed in China. A Japanese friend is Pure Land Buddhist.

So, I understand how you could easily be of another school.

 

[Xuan]

Here is Thomas Merton’s answer to that question:

[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything – without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.

I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded (much more “imperative” than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa because completely simple and straightforward).

The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya … everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …

It says everything, it needs nothing. And because it needs nothing it can afford to be silent, unnoticed, undiscovered. It does not need to be discovered. It is we who need to discover it.

From: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton

You do not have to be Buddhist to attain enlightenment.

rossum

Hi rossum,

It’s been a while since I’ve read this passage; thanks for posting it.

I’ve really enjoyed this thread. I appreciate the way you and some others have taken the time to give well thought-out explanations about things that are totally foreign to most westerners. It’s been a good review for me. Thanks.

Xuan

 

[Vico]

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.

You may find this interesting about how Buddhism developed into Pure Land. This is from the Jodo Shu website, this is one of the largest schools of Japanese Buddhism:
On the other hand the Christian God has a different nature from Buddha. God is the creator of the universe, the absolute existence, the highest being, etc. God is quite different from man. He is the creator and man is the created. God is perfect good and man is a sinner. Man cannot become God however hard he may try. God and man are totally different from each other by nature, different ontologically. While God is perfect truth, man cannot attain the perfect truth of God. God is far from us. He is beyond our apprehension. God and man differ from each other epistemologically.

Thus the difference between God and Buddha in relation to man would be as follows: God is different from man epistemologically and ontologically, whereas Buddha is different from man epistemologically but not ontologically.

However, when we come to Pure Land Buddhism, God and Amida Buddha seem to be the same. Both are believed in as a savior by devotees. Among the branches of Buddhism, the Pure Land school particularly emphasizes “faith.” Devotees of the school realize that they do not attain enlightenment by their own power, but by simply having faith in Amida’s power of salvation.

jodo.org/about_plb/what_plb.html

 

[Michael_Mayo]

It sounds to me as though Nirvana as well as Buddhism, is a psychological condition rather than a religious one. Yes, it has to do with liberation, but liberation from self (“false self”) it has to do with being mindful of the present moment and being detached from all our wants and desires but then extends also to our images and so is a bit like our Christian apophatic spirituality.

 

[fhansen]

Here is Thomas Merton’s answer to that question:

[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything – without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.

I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded (much more “imperative” than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa because completely simple and straightforward).

The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya … everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …

It says everything, it needs nothing. And because it needs nothing it can afford to be silent, unnoticed, undiscovered. It does not need to be discovered. It is we who need to discover it.

From: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton

You do not have to be Buddhist to attain enlightenment.

rossum

This brings back memories of reading Merton in decades past. His descriptions of his experiences always came across as a bit forced, somewhat shallow, and otherwise intellectual rather than actually experiential.

 

[rossum]

It sounds to me as though Nirvana as well as Buddhism, is a psychological condition rather than a religious one. Yes, it has to do with liberation, but liberation from self (“false self”) it has to do with being mindful of the present moment and being detached from all our wants and desires but then extends also to our images and so is a bit like our Christian apophatic spirituality.

You are right. The Buddha attained nirvana age 35; he died age 80. Nirvana is not elsewhere, it is here and now.

rossum

 

[tomarin]

It sounds to me as though Nirvana as well as Buddhism, is a psychological condition rather than a religious one. Yes, it has to do with liberation, but liberation from self (“false self”) it has to do with being mindful of the present moment and being detached from all our wants and desires but then extends also to our images and so is a bit like our Christian apophatic spirituality.

I seriously entertain the idea that Buddhism should be seen as a philosophical system because its founder was a man, not a self-proclaimed deity or prophet of a deity.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I seriously entertain the idea that Buddhism should be seen as a philosophical system because its founder was a man, not a self-proclaimed deity or prophet of a deity.

You are right so far as the traditional definition of religion is concerned, which is the recognition and worship of Deity. There has always been a thin line between religion and philosophy, so thin that even in some jurisdictions of the United States atheism is declared by the courts to be a religion, not just a philosophy. The atheist thrust of Buddhism makes it arguably a philosophy, albeit in many quarters a ritualistic one as many God worshiping religions are ritualistic. But the resident Buddhist in this forum has declared that the gods can be safely ignored, certainly a radical departure from traditional religion which emphasizes bonding with God rather than indifference.

 

[tomarin]

You are right so far as the traditional definition of religion is concerned, which is the recognition and worship of Deity. There has always been a thin line between religion and philosophy, so thin that even in some jurisdictions of the United States atheism is declared by the courts to be a religion, not just a philosophy. The atheist thrust of Buddhism makes it arguably a philosophy, albeit in many quarters a ritualistic one as many God worshiping religions are ritualistic. But the resident Buddhist in this forum has declared that the gods can be safely ignored, certainly a radical departure from traditional religion which emphasizes bonding with God rather than indifference.

So do you object to considering it a philosophy? If not then it seems to me there shouldn’t be any conflict between it and a true religion such as Christianity.

 

[rossum]

I seriously entertain the idea that Buddhism should be seen as a philosophical system because its founder was a man, not a self-proclaimed deity or prophet of a deity.

Buddhism in the West, is generally closer to a philosophy. Buddhism in the East is far closer to a religion, and has many more obviously religious trappings.

The Buddha did have some of the characteristics of a Prophet in that he had access to special knowledge that most other men did not. The difference was that the special source was not a god, but the world itself. Also he taught others how to access that special knowledge. Whether that is enough of a difference to make (Western) Buddhism a philosophical system I do not know.

Perhaps the issue is that the set of classifications we use, based primarily on Classical antiquity and the Abrahamic religions, do not work as well for the Indian based Dharmic religions. For example, Hinduism includes everything from very simple folk-religions to some extremely abstruse philosophy.

It may be more a matter of shifting some boundaries in our definitions.

$0.02

rossum

 

[Michael_Mayo]

This brings back memories of reading Merton in decades past. His descriptions of his experiences always came across as a bit forced, somewhat shallow, and otherwise intellectual rather than actually experiential.

In *Seeds of Contemplation *he writes:

“If, like the mystics of the orient, you succeed in emptying your mind of every thought and every desire, you may indeed withdraw into the center of yourself and concentrate everything within you upon the imaginary point where your life springs out of God: yet you will not really find God. No natural exercise can bring you into vital contact with Him. Unless He utters Himself in you, speaks His own name in the center of your soul, you will no more know Him than a stone Knows the ground upon which it rests in its inertia.” P 26 the Chapter Pray for Your own Discovery

I think this is a very important quote in that it clarifies Merton’s position, at least at that time in his life. As in Buddhism we can strive to get beyond every thought and desire and rest in the peaceful center of our being (perhaps Nirvana). But unless God, through grace alone, “utters Himself”, “speaks his own name”, we still do not know God.

 

[fhansen]

In *Seeds of Contemplation *he writes:

“If, like the mystics of the orient, you succeed in emptying your mind of every thought and every desire, you may indeed withdraw into the center of yourself and concentrate everything within you upon the imaginary point where your life springs out of God: yet you will not really find God. No natural exercise can bring you into vital contact with Him. Unless He utters Himself in you, speaks His own name in the center of your soul, you will no more know Him than a stone Knows the ground upon which it rests in its inertia.” P 26 the Chapter Pray for Your own Discovery

I think this is a very important quote in that it clarifies Merton’s position, at least at that time in his life. As in Buddhism we can strive to get beyond every thought and desire and rest in the peaceful center of our being (perhaps Nirvana). But unless God, through grace alone, “utters Himself”, “speaks his own name”, we still do not know God.

This is a very good point-and gets straight to what I was referring to. That Merton acknowledged this truth, in any case, changes my view on him. I know he went through many changes and experiences during his life; I was going by my readings of his works in the past.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

This is a very good point-and gets straight to what I was referring to. That Merton acknowledged this truth, in any case, changes my view on him. I know he went through many changes and experiences during his life; I was going by my readings of his works in the past.

And yet in the previous chapter Things in their Identity he says:

"Ultimately the only way that I can find myself is to become identified with Him in Whom is hidden the reason and fulfillment of my existence.
“Therefore there is only one problem on which all my existence, my peace and my happiness depend: to discover myself in discovering God. If I find Him, I will find myself and if I find my true self I will find Him.”

So it seems a mistake to take one or two quotes from Merton and decide if he is “dangerous” or not. He is complex. Probably too complex for most people.

Could finding your self be Nirvana? Not according to Merton, unless Nirvana also means finding God.

 

[rossum]

Could finding your self be Nirvana? Not according to Merton, unless Nirvana also means finding God.

Not according to Buddhism either. Nirvana is closer to finding that what you thought was your self was actually no such thing after all.

rossum

 

[LiamQ]

Well we don’t sound like Madonna
Here we are now, we’re Nirvana
Sing distinctly? We don’t wanna
Buy our album, we’re Nirvana