Are Samsara and the Nibbana the two sides of the same coin?

[Rambutan]

Theravāda says no, they are distinct.

Are the two sides of a coin not distinct from each other?

Nibbana and samsara are like two sides of a Möbius strip

[Rambutan]

Nibbana is the prefect cessation of the causes of rebirth.
Rebirth, by definition, is a cycle, that is to say, repetitive.
Samsara is that cycle. It’s not anything in the experience. It’s not hunger or anger or any of the passions. It’s the arising of the experience which is samsara. In that sense, it is somewhat abstract. It’s like the movement of the wind, rather than the wind itself.

But, just as in fact there is no thing that is “wind” other than the movement of air itself, which is a composite phenomenon, likewise there is nothing experienced as samsara which is not a composite, and which this had no intrinsic reality or essence of its own. Since there is no truly existent thing experienced in samsara, there is ultimately no thing to be liberated from, other than the experience itself.

What samsara is and what nibbana is are two very different things. However, regarding
What is samsara and what is nibbana, there is no difference.

That may sound like saying the same thing. But it’s not. The difference is like saying “this phenomenon does not exist” (a misunderstanding of sunnata) as opposed to saying “no thing (ultimately) exists which be found within this phenomenon” (a correct understanding of sunnata).

[PeterC86]

Words being empty doesn't mean they do not carry meaning.

It does mean that they don't carry meaning, but we can give them meaning. And me saying that it means that they don't carry meaning also doesn't mean anything, as my words are also empty. The meaning of words lies only in the meaning you give to them.

You yourself just understood what I wrote, despite words being empty.

Merely conscensus.

Look, you are doing it again! Ven. Nāgārjuna never denounced the use of concepts. Concepts are useful. The problem is when we breathe life into them, so to speak. That is what Ven. Nāgārjuna was addressing. If concepts are useless, why did the Buddha teach at all?

I didn't say that they are useless, and neither did Nagarjuna. I said that; "so through reasoning, we can communicate that everything, including reasoning itself, is empty, without giving reasoning any substance."

So Nagarjuna taught, through using concepts, that concepts are empty, and inherently without meaning.

[Ceisiwr]

It does mean that they don't carry meaning, but we can give them meaning. And me saying that it means that they don't carry meaning also doesn't mean anything, as my words are also empty. The meaning of words lies only in the meaning you give to them.

So words do have meaning then, which you seem to be flipflopping on. It's the meaning we agree upon. You agree with me in part of your earlier post, and here:

Merely conscensus.

We have a consensus on the meaning, thus having common understanding. This is how we are communicating.

I didn't say that they are useless, and neither did Nagarjuna. I said that; "so through reasoning, we can communicate that everything, including reasoning itself, is empty, without giving reasoning any substance."

So Nagarjuna taught, through using concepts, that concepts are empty, and inherently without meaning.

I'm glad you agree that concepts can be useful. This is why I said your earlier post was nonsense. In all honesty you still sound like someone who hasn't got the foggiest idea what they are talking about.

[PeterC86]

It does mean that they don't carry meaning, but we can give them meaning. And me saying that it means that they don't carry meaning also doesn't mean anything, as my words are also empty. The meaning of words lies only in the meaning you give to them.

So words do have meaning then, which you seem to be flipflopping on. It's the meaning we agree upon. You agree with me in part of your earlier post, and here:

Merely conscensus.

We have a consensus on the meaning, thus having common understanding. This is how we are communicating.

I didn't say that they are useless, and neither did Nagarjuna. I said that; "so through reasoning, we can communicate that everything, including reasoning itself, is empty, without giving reasoning any substance."

So Nagarjuna taught, through using concepts, that concepts are empty, and inherently without meaning.

I'm glad you agree that concepts can be useful. This is why I said your earlier post was nonsense. In all honesty you still sound like someone who hasn't got the foggiest idea what they are talking about.

First I was busy writing a serious response, but then I recognized that you are not really reading my posts, and therefore you are not really trying to understand, as I don't have anything to add to what I already explained. So I am not going to spend more energy on you. Goodbye.

[pegembara]

Theravāda says no, they are distinct.

Are the two sides of a coin not distinct from each other?

Exactly.

Aren't birth and death two sides of the same coin?
Tall and short, rich and poor, sick and healthy.
You can't talk of the unconditioned if there was no conditioned.
Without samsara, nibbana is meaningless.
No solution without a problem.

“There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned.”

Without dukkha, the cessation of dukkha is irrelevant.

"Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."

Birth ALWAYS ends in death. The solution/escape isn't through immortality. It certainly isn’t suicide or death!

[SarathW]

Are Samsara and the Nibbana the two sides of the same coin?
Sri Lankan monk made the above statement.
What is your opinion?

Sorry, not the monk made that statement but the host asked that question.

[Rambutan]

Words being empty doesn't mean they do not carry meaning.

It does mean that they don't carry meaning, but we can give them meaning. And me saying that it means that they don't carry meaning also doesn't mean anything, as my words are also empty. The meaning of words lies only in the meaning you give to them.

Empty in the buddhist sense means lacking intrinsic reality. All composites are empty (sunnata) and words are definitely composites. Not only composites of sounds or of written symbols, but of meanings. Meanings are also composites. Just as trying to find a “self” anywhere in parts of the body is fruitless, trying to find where any meaning truly exists within a word will also produce no results.
“Empty words” in the general context refers to lies or worthless statements, such as promises one makes but will always fail to keep.