Individual wrote:I have a preference for more positive language in a way that, to me, seems to carry the same meaning but approaches the extinction of ego from a different angle that feels safer and more comfortable.
Jechbi wrote:I'm not sure if we can get to the extinction of ego in a manner that is safe and comfortable.
Like the wishing jewel, Nirvana grants all one can desire, brings joy, and sheds light.
Individual wrote:What do you think about Nagasena's description of Nibbana in the Milinda-Panha?
Individual wrote:True life and abiding happiness, not merely the "deathless" and the "cessation of suffering."
Sankharam paramam dukkham
Nibbanam paramam sukkham
Concocting is the supreme suffering
Nibbana is the supreme happiness
Individual wrote:Somewhat related to the discussion in this thread, I have to ask: Is it absolutely necessary to speak of the dhamma in terms of the negative, in order for the teaching to be clear?
I teach only dukkha and the cessation of dukkha.
Individual wrote:"Storehouse consciousness" instead of "all mental processes stop."
"Expanding infinitely in all directions," instead of "being extinguished".
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Individual,Individual wrote:What do you think about Nagasena's description of Nibbana in the Milinda-Panha?
Heaven by Rupert Brooke
Fish (fly-replete, in depth of June,
Dawdling away their wat'ry noon)
Ponder deep wisdom, dark or clear,
Each secret fishy hope or fear.
Fish say, they have their Stream and Pond;
But is there anything Beyond?
This life cannot be All, they swear,
For how unpleasant, if it were!
One may not doubt that, somehow, Good
Shall come of Water and of Mud;
And, sure, the reverent eye must see
A Purpose in Liquidity.
We darkly know, by Faith we cry,
The future is not Wholly Dry.
Mud unto mud! -- - Death eddies near -- -
Not here the appointed End, not here!
But somewhere, beyond Space and Time.
Is wetter water, slimier slime!
And there (they trust) there swimmeth One
Who swam ere rivers were begun,
Immense, of fishy form and mind,
Squamous, omnipotent, and kind;
And under that Almighty Fin,
The littlest fish may enter in.
Oh! never fly conceals a hook,
Fish say, in the Eternal Brook,
But more than mundane weeds are there,
And mud, celestially fair;
Fat caterpillars drift around,
And Paradisal grubs are found;
Unfading moths, immortal flies,
And the worm that never dies.
And in that Heaven of all their wish,
There shall be no more land, say fish.
Element wrote:For example, when a car has rust there are two choices. Remove the rust or simply mask it by painting over it. Buddha recommended to remove the rust. Underneath the rust there is shiny metal or luminous original mind.
genkaku wrote:If it seems relevant, the medical profession adheres to the injunction, "Do no harm." It does not adhere to the injunction, "Do a lot of good." Why? My guess is that we invariably do harm of one kind or another and it behooves us to be on our toes. Further, once we utter the word "good," the world fills up with endless interpretations, many of them leading to a good deal of harm.
Individual wrote:...That Nirvana is true self, Emptiness is true self, Buddha-nature is one's true nature... Are these ideas just different ways of stating Theravada Buddhist teachings or are they completely contrary to the Pali canon?
rowyourboat wrote:i think no one can guarantee permanant happiness- that would be a lie- as happiness itself is impermanant- the only truth is the cessation of suffering (it almost goes without saying- but it has been said clearly by the buddha that he is not leading his bikkhus towards suffering but to calm, mindful, blissful mental states- but even these arise and pass away- no doubt more frequently). Saying 'I teach more frequent happiness' doesnt quite have the same ring to it for me.
to talk of positives or negatives in terms of nibbana would be a falacy- at least talkng of nibbana in the negative is closer to the truth
Peter wrote:Individual wrote:...That Nirvana is true self, Emptiness is true self, Buddha-nature is one's true nature... Are these ideas just different ways of stating Theravada Buddhist teachings or are they completely contrary to the Pali canon?
They seem to me expressions of eternalism and thus completely contrary to the Pali Canon.
The desire to exist for ever and ever is, I think, a very basic desire in all of us.
"But, Ananda, when he attained total Unbinding, did Sariputta take the aggregate of virtue along with him? Did he take the aggregate of concentration... discernment... release... the aggregate of knowledge & vision of release along with him?"
"No, lord, when he attained total Unbinding, Ven. Sariputta didn't take the aggregate of virtue... concentration... discernment... release... the aggregate of knowledge & vision of release along with him.
Enough, Vakkali. Why do you want to see this filthy body? Whoever sees the Dhamma sees me; whoever sees me sees the Dhamma.
Individual wrote:Yes, but would the Buddha have to express it as, "There is rust everywhere. My teaching is for the removal of rust"?
Could he not also say, "Everywhere, there is luminosity, luster, shining light, only hidden by rust. My teaching is for the realization of this hidden luminosity"?
Individual wrote:An inference based on the Pali canon.
The Dhamma is eternal (SN 47.13), precisely the reason it's a secure refuge:
The Buddha's body is the Dhamma (SN 22.87):
Back to SN 47.13, in that passage, the Buddha said (also elsewhere), "...each of you should remain with your self as an island, your self as your refuge, without anything else as a refuge."
Individual wrote:The Buddha's body is the Dhamma (SN 22.87):Enough, Vakkali. Why do you want to see this filthy body? Whoever sees the Dhamma sees me; whoever sees me sees the Dhamma.
Now, if the Dhamma is eternal... And the Buddha is the Dhamma... Then this logically means... hmmm? Could anyone here finish the inference for me?