What experiences Nirvana?

[cappuccino]

Well, at least you are trying.

Generally people do not have it yet

[Ceisiwr]

Well, at least you are trying.

Generally people do not have it yet

Mundane Right View at least is the dominant view of humanity, at the moment.

[Dhammapardon]

Everything that arises will cease, yes.

And Saṁsāra is aniccā?

Yes. It is constantly arising and passing away.

Does that mean Saṁsāra is also niccā?

[cappuccino]

Mundane Right View at least is the dominant view of humanity, at the moment.

Not that I encounter

[Ceisiwr]

And Saṁsāra is aniccā?

Yes. It is constantly arising and passing away.

Does that mean Saṁsāra is also niccā?

Possibly if you rarefy saṁsāra, but that would take you down the road of speculative views like when the Buddha was asked if all beings would find nibbāna or some of them would. He didn't reply, because the speculation lends itself to grasping. Saṁsāra is without discoverable beginning, but everything which arises will cease. The ultimate truth is of no arising, no ceasing, no change, no persisting. No impermanence, no permanence, no saṁsāra, no nibbāna. Impermanence is a perception, and perception is dependently originated and eventually let go of. The Dhamma is to be used as a raft for crossing over, rather than as a basis for theorising.

[Dhammapardon]

Yes. It is constantly arising and passing away.

Does that mean Saṁsāra is also niccā?

Possible if you rarefy saṁsāra, but that would take you down the road of speculative views like when the Buddha was asked if all beings would find nibbāna or some of them would. He didn't reply, because the speculation lends itself to grasping. Saṁsāra is without discoverable beginning, but everything which arises will cease. The ultimate truth is of no arising, no ceasing, no change, no persisting. No impermanence, no permanence, no saṁsāra, no nibbāna. Impermanence is a perception, and perception is dependently originated and eventually let go of. The Dhamma is to be used as a raft for crossing over, rather than as a basis for theorising.

Thank you

[riceandcashews]

But in reality, no one anywhere is actually ever reborn. And yet here we are.

Here we are again

Sure, if 'person' is reified, then no one visits the grocery store, and then leaves it. And then no one visits the grocery store again, and then leaves it again. And yet there is the arising of 'grocery store' and then 'not grocery store'.

If 'person' is not reified, then a person visits the grocery store, and then a person leaves, and then a person returns and a person leaves again.

Similary:

if 'person' is reified, then no one is born as a human, and then dies. And then no one is born as a human again, and then dies again. And yet there is the arising of 'birth as a human' and then 'death'.

If 'person' is not reified, then a person is born, and then dies. And then that person is born again, and then dies.

[cappuccino]

If 'person' is not reified, then a person is born, and then dies. And then that person is born again, and then dies.

Come down to earth

[riceandcashews]

If 'person' is not reified, then a person is born, and then dies. And then that person is born again, and then dies.

Come down to earth

Unfortunately I can't read the tone behind your comment because it is text. I assume you're trying to be condescending?

[cappuccino]

Unfortunately I can't read the tone behind your comment because it is text. I assume you're trying to be condescending?

I mean be more grounded, just advice

[riceandcashews]

Unfortunately I can't read the tone behind your comment because it is text. I assume you're trying to be condescending?

I mean be more grounded, just advice

Sure, maybe I need to be more grounded. Or maybe you need to be more elevated?

But sincerely, it seems like maybe you are reading a lot more into my mental state than is given in the context of the posts themselves? What are you reading into my actions and writing that leads you to say things like 'come down to earth' and 'be grounded' to me? I mean, maybe they're accurate. I'm no arahant, I have no problem admitting that, so I definitely have my issues as a person. So, what's your take on my issues, cap, that lends to me needing to be more grounded and down to earth?

And/or you can give me your perspective on the content of my post about nirvana as well?

[cappuccino]

So, what's your take on my issues, cap, that lends to me needing to be more grounded and down to earth?

well, I think Buddhism is about facing the unsatisfactory nature of life


which manifests in very mundane ways


hence I am tired of theory and speculation, in general

[pegembara]

More fully

“Seniya, the first teacher who has the view that in the present world there truly is a self and who speaks according to his understanding, he is reckoned as having the view of annihilation.

“The second teacher who has the view that in the present world and in the future world there truly is a self, and who speaks according to his understanding, he has the view of eternalism.

“The third teacher who does not have the view that in the present world there truly is a self, and who also does not have the view that in the afterlife there [truly] is a self ― this is the Tathāgata, the arahant, the fully awakened one, who in the present has abandoned craving, become separated from desire, has made them cease, and has attained Nirvāṇa.”

Like a candle flame that gets extinguished when the fuel runs out. Nirodha.

Thus the image underlying nibbana is one of freedom. The Pali commentaries support this point by tracing the word nibbana to its verbal root, which means "unbinding." What kind of unbinding? The texts describe two levels. One is the unbinding in this lifetime, symbolized by a fire that has gone out but whose embers are still warm. This stands for the enlightened arahant, who is conscious of sights and sounds, sensitive to pleasure and pain, but freed from passion, aversion, and delusion. The second level of unbinding, symbolized by a fire so totally out that its embers have grown cold, is what the arahant experiences after this life. All input from the senses cools away and he/she is totally freed from even the subtlest stresses and limitations of existence in space and time.

The Buddha insists that this level is indescribable, even in terms of existence or nonexistence, because words work only for things that have limits. All he really says about it — apart from images and metaphors — is that one can have foretastes of the experience in this lifetime, and that it's the ultimate happiness, something truly worth knowing.

So the next time you watch a fire going out, see it not as a case of annihilation, but as a lesson in how freedom is to be found in letting go.

Thanissaro

[riceandcashews]

So, what's your take on my issues, cap, that lends to me needing to be more grounded and down to earth?

well, I think Buddhism is about facing the unsatisfactory nature of life,which manifests in very mundane ways

Hmm, I don't quite see Buddhism the same way. I see Buddhism as about learning to more skillfully identify the things in life that are more joyful, pleasant, and rewarding and the things in life that are more harmful, painful, and damaging, gradually aiming at more refined happiness.

This piece by Thanissaro, esp. the parts that emphasize mudita, or joy, is relevant to my view if you are interested: https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/Medit ... n0028.html

hence I am tired of theory and speculation, in general

That's absolutely understandable. Buddhist theory can definitely become objectified and lead to endless conceptualization that does not lead to the goal. On the other hand right view is an important thing too. So there's a balance of developing right view along with non-fixation on right view.

[cappuccino]

Hmm, I don't quite see Buddhism the same way.

I am being ascetic


Somewhat