What exactly is Nirvana?

[LiamQ]

Come on, I know we moderns have short attention spans, but have we really forgotten Nirvana so soon?

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

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

I do not object to it being considered as philosophy, but it’s bad philosophy to the extent that it’s atheistic.

So it is in conflict with the truth which is Christ.

 

[rossum]

I do not object to it being considered as philosophy, but it’s bad philosophy to the extent that it’s atheistic.

Atheistic?

Sakra, the ruler of the celestials, with twenty thousand gods, his followers, such as the god Chandra (the Moon), the god Surya (the Sun), the god Samantagandha (the Wind), the god Ratnaprabha, the god Avabhasaprabha, and others; further, the four great rulers of the cardinal points with thirty thousand gods in their train, viz. the great ruler Virudhaka, the great ruler Virupaksha, the great ruler Dhritarashtra, and the great ruler Vaisravana; the god Ishvara and the god Maheshvara, each followed by thirty thousand gods; further, Brahma Sahdmpati and his twelve thousand followers, the Brahmakayika gods, amongst whom Brahma Sikhin and Brahma Gyotishprabha, with the other twelve thousand Brahmakayika gods.

– Saddharmapundarika sutra, Chapter One

That doesn’t loot very atheistic to me.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Atheistic?

Sakra, the ruler of the celestials, with twenty thousand gods, his followers, such as the god Chandra (the Moon), the god Surya (the Sun), the god Samantagandha (the Wind), the god Ratnaprabha, the god Avabhasaprabha, and others; further, the four great rulers of the cardinal points with thirty thousand gods in their train, viz. the great ruler Virudhaka, the great ruler Virupaksha, the great ruler Dhritarashtra, and the great ruler Vaisravana; the god Ishvara and the god Maheshvara, each followed by thirty thousand gods; further, Brahma Sahdmpati and his twelve thousand followers, the Brahmakayika gods, amongst whom Brahma Sikhin and Brahma Gyotishprabha, with the other twelve thousand Brahmakayika gods.

– Saddharmapundarika sutra, Chapter One

That doesn’t loot very atheistic to me.

rossum

You are the one who has said the gods can be safely ignored.

Atheistic to me. If they can be safely ignored they are less than human, for there is no human who can be safely ignored.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

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

Again words get confusing because finding yourself is really losing yourself. Perhaps Nirvana and Heaven are closer than we think.

 

[fhansen]

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.

I don’t know if “complex” is the right term…maybe. But in all my readings I never found described the kind of almost practical matter-of-fact encounter with an Other Being, as a gift from that Being, that saints have reported. Not that the experiences themselves are matter-of-fact; just the opposite, of course. But matter-of-fact in the certainty that they’d actually met and experienced this Being, as certain as any encounter with any being in that sense.

 

[rossum]

You are the one who has said the gods can be safely ignored.

God do not control morality; morality controls the gods. Gods cannot attain nirvana for you; they can only attain nirvana for themselves. Both morality and enlightenment are something you have to do for yourself.

Atheistic to me. If they can be safely ignored they are less than human, for there is no human who can be safely ignored.

You personally consult every human on earth each time you want to decide something? Or do you perhaps ignore the vast majority of people when deciding what to have for breakfast each morning. All those Muslims would tell you not to eat ham or bacon; do you ignore them?

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

God do not control morality; morality controls the gods. Gods cannot attain nirvana for you; they can only attain nirvana for themselves. Both morality and enlightenment are something you have to do for yourself.

You personally consult every human on earth each time you want to decide something? Or do you perhaps ignore the vast majority of people when deciding what to have for breakfast each morning. All those Muslims would tell you not to eat ham or bacon; do you ignore them?

rossum

 

[Vico]

Atheistic?

Sakra, the ruler of the celestials, with twenty thousand gods, his followers, such as the god Chandra (the Moon), the god Surya (the Sun), the god Samantagandha (the Wind), the god Ratnaprabha, the god Avabhasaprabha, and others; further, the four great rulers of the cardinal points with thirty thousand gods in their train, viz. the great ruler Virudhaka, the great ruler Virupaksha, the great ruler Dhritarashtra, and the great ruler Vaisravana; the god Ishvara and the god Maheshvara, each followed by thirty thousand gods; further, Brahma Sahdmpati and his twelve thousand followers, the Brahmakayika gods, amongst whom Brahma Sikhin and Brahma Gyotishprabha, with the other twelve thousand Brahmakayika gods.

– Saddharmapundarika sutra, Chapter One

That doesn’t loot very atheistic to me.

rossum

No god or deva per Buddhism, is the Creator, so it is very different than the Most Holy Trinity of Christianity. In Pure Land school, Amitabha is prayed to that one may be reincarnated in Pure Land (a place where a teacher and his students are wholeheartedly seeking the Dharma).

 

[rossum]

No god or deva per Buddhism, is the Creator,

Not exactly. 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.” (emphases added)

– Brahmajala sutta, Digha Nikaya 1

In Pure Land school, Amitabha is prayed to that one may be reincarnated in Pure Land (a place where a teacher and his students are wholeheartedly seeking the Dharma).

Correct. Pure Land is one of the many paths within Buddhism. It is the equivalent of the old joke “If you want to get there, then I wouldn’t start from here.” The Pure Land is a much better place to start from.

rossum

 

[Vico]

Not exactly. 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.” (emphases added)

– Brahmajala sutta, Digha Nikaya 1

Correct. Pure Land is one of the many paths within Buddhism. It is the equivalent of the old joke “If you want to get there, then I wouldn’t start from here.” The Pure Land is a much better place to start from.

rossum

Brahmajala sutta, explains that it is their re-arising, and these beings think certain things, such as that they are creators, but are not.

1. "There comes a time, bhikkhus, when after the lapse of a long period this world contracts (disintegrates). While the world is contracting, beings for the most part are reborn in the Ābhassara Brahma-world.[7] There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.

…

1. "Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: ‘I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is the reason? Because first I made the wish: “Oh, that other beings might come to this place!” And after I made this resolution, now these beings have come.’

"And the beings who re-arose there after him also think: ‘This must be Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And we have been created by him. What is the reason? Because we see that he was here first, and we appeared here after him.’

accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

 

[rossum]

Brahmajala sutta, explains that it is their re-arising, and these beings think certain things, such as that they are creators, but are not.

You are right. In Buddhism, gods can be in error. Hence a god who claims to be the creator might be making a mistake, as the Brahmajala sutta explains.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Here is another Buddhist who is radically atheistic.

buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda03.htm

You would never here an authentic theist mouthing this nonsense.