From my understanding of your description of Nirvana, I think you are coming from a very Westernised take on it, which is not based on the belief in Nirvana as it is within the historical context of Hinduism. I don't in any way consider myself as any expert on Hinduism but from my r discussion with some frienda from this tradition, Nirvana is not necessarily about 'enlightenment, or inner peace' but is the release from the wheel of rebirth. It is seen as the the ultimate release after many earthly incarnations, even though there is some dispute whether it is absolute, or will be followed by some future birth.

What you are describing as a state of bliss as opposed to the state of mind of a suicidal person seems more like the contrast between heaven and hell, which within Christianity can be in this life rather than just as an afterlife.

I hope that you don't think that I am being nitpicking. It is simply that I do believe that it is important to discuss ideas with some understanding of the context from which they come. Of course, no worldview exists in isolation from others, as there is convergence. In particular, I know that some Hindus believe in heaven and hell, as a state in between death in this life and future incarnations. But, of course, there are many different forms of traditions within Hinduism and later Eastern traditions, but I just believe that your presentation of the idea of Nirvana is based on the misinterpreted idea of the concept which developed within psychedelic writings, and the name of the group Nirvana (there was also a 60s band called Nirvana as well as that of Kurt Cobain).

Edit: I will say that the the Hindu perspective which I was thinking of when writing my response to you was Theravada tradition from which Buddhism emerged, so it is possible that you are drawing upon a tradition which I am not acquainted with, so if you are I apologise. However, I do think that it would be be more useful if you were able to contextualize your understanding of Nirvana.

Nirvana is not necessarily about 'enlightenment, or inner peace' but is the release from the wheel of rebirth — Jack Cummins

"Nirvana" literally means "snuffing-out of a candle". Which may indicate why suicidal people may find the notion of nothingness preferable to sufferingness. :smile:

Where does your definition of Nirvana come from?
Part of the problem which I see is that the idea was originally in Sanskrit writings, so getting a precise definition is difficult. In the sense, in which you are using the term it is almost identical to the Western materialist understanding of death as nothingness. Apart from knowing friends who are Hindu, I did do a module on Hinduism at University and from the lectures I attended the Hindu understanding of death was extremely different from Western non religious views of death as 'nothingness".

Yes. I like to call them "onotophobia" (existential dread, angst, depair, etc) and "ontophilia" (peak or religious experiences).

Where does your definition of Nirvana come from? — Jack Cummins

Nirvāṇa does mean something like 'extinction' but a more philosophically sensitive intepretation is the 'extinction of suffering'. This also implies or requires relinquishment of the sense of self which is the sense in which Buddhism is a renunciate philosophy. Very hard to practice, for people with possessions, families, and ambitions.

In classical Buddhism, 'the desire to be', and 'the desire not to be', are both hindrances. The 'desire to be' manifests as the desire to live eternally, hence is associated with religious belief. The 'desire not to be' is said to be a form of nihilism. By Buddhist standards, scientific materialism is a form of nihilism.

Where does your definition of Nirvana come from? — Jack Cummins

Nirvana (nibbana) literally means "blowing out" or "quenching". It is the most used as well as the earliest term to describe the soteriological goal in Buddhism: release from the cycle of rebirth (saṃsāra).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana

Okay, I see your point, but of course I might have guessed it came from Wikipedia, because that is what most people rely on as a reference.


What I would say is that Nirvana does probably mean extinguish, but I am I still think that there are various interpretations within traditions, just as there are ambiguities within the Christian tradition about life after death. Certainly, the Hindus and Buddhists I have known, who grew up in Asian countries and, viewed the matter a bit differently, but they weren't expert scholars.

Does the existence of a state of mind that actively pursues it’s own death - (suicide) ie. has no hope left, is in endless suffering/ misery, has exhausted all effort to endure and ultimately believes life is not good
, prove, that a contrary pole exists to the spectrum of the mind - one of persistent peace, contentment, hope and one that ultimately sees only good in the world? A nirvana like state. — Benj96

It's not clear that such is the case.

We know the bad side exists for definite because death is fairly definitive evidence.

Bad for whom? Certainly not for bacteria and fungi that will feast on the corpse, and not bad for the undertaker's business either.

But I think it’s reasonable to believe that like many things in nature the mind is a spectrum and if there is one extreme there must exist the other.

But what if the mind is, say, like a tree? There's no opposite to a tree.

And if you believe the existence of suicide is no reason to suppose the existence of nirvana then would that not imply that life is ultimately skewed towards the negative/bad - and that states of permanent joy are impossible?

More like life being skewed toward eating, consuming. Consider: life is all about consumption.

From Nibbana by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

We all know what happens when a fire goes out. The flames die down and the fire is gone for good. So when we first learn that the name for the goal of Buddhist practice, nibbana (nirvana), literally means the extinguishing of a fire, it's hard to imagine a deadlier image for a spiritual goal: utter annihilation. It turns out, though, that this reading of the concept is a mistake in translation, not so much of a word as of an image. What did an extinguished fire represent to the Indians of the Buddha's day? Anything but annihilation.

According to the ancient Brahmans, when a fire was extinguished it went into a state of latency. Rather than ceasing to exist, it became dormant and in that state — unbound from any particular fuel — it became diffused throughout the cosmos. When the Buddha used the image to explain nibbana to the Indian Brahmans of his day, he bypassed the question of whether an extinguished fire continues to exist or not, and focused instead on the impossibility of defining a fire that doesn't burn: thus his statement that the person who has gone totally "out" can't be described.

However, when teaching his own disciples, the Buddha used nibbana more as an image of freedom. Apparently, all Indians at the time saw burning fire as agitated, dependent, and trapped, both clinging and being stuck to its fuel as it burned. To ignite a fire, one had to "seize" it. When fire let go of its fuel, it was "freed," released from its agitation, dependence, and entrapment — calm and unconfined. This is why Pali poetry repeatedly uses the image of extinguished fire as a metaphor for freedom. In fact, this metaphor is part of a pattern of fire imagery that involves two other related terms as well. Upadana, or clinging, also refers to the sustenance a fire takes from its fuel. Khandha means not only one of the five "heaps" (form, feeling, perception, thought processes, and consciousness) that define all conditioned experience, but also the trunk of a tree. Just as fire goes out when it stops clinging and taking sustenance from wood, so the mind is freed when it stops clinging to the khandhas.

Thus the image underlying nibbana is one of freedom.
/.../

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/nibbana.html

Thanks for providing a link and a long passage which I will read. But really i would have been more interesting to hear your view or understanding of the idea of nirvana.

Is the extract your own writing and interpretation or is it taken from the link you have provided because the source is not clear. — Jack Cummins

??

I prefaced the part in italics with:
"From Nibbana by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:"
and provided a link.

Usually, this means it's a direct quotation.

There are many interpretations of "release" in Eastern thought. To me, the only one which makes sense is it's essence, the mind which is still, accepting all without discrimination.

Btw, I spent six months with Thanissaro Bhikku at his Thai Forest Tradition monastery in CA. Wonderful meditation teacher and expansive intellect.

I actually edited my reply to you because I realised that it was from a book. I knew that it was not your own writing and I really can't see the point of you just quoting a whole passage from a book. The idea of Nirvana is complex and needs to be understood in terms of the writer's perspective.

My own view is that the idea of Nirvana points to a possibility of freedom from earthly suffering, but that to understand the fuller picture we need to see it within the framework of that spiritual tradition, otherwise it cannot be appreciated in its truest sense. Spiritual knowledge is rather different from mere information gathering.

I think that your experience is more valuable than when people just lift passages from books and provide links because you are sharing lived knowledge. I believe that any knowledge about spiritual aspects of philosophy needs to be approached in this way in order to be meaningful.

This is why it is (generally speaking) important to have (qualified) teachers attempt to explain things which resist intellectualization (which is pretty much everything :).

I would imagine that scholars will continue their discussions on all the different aspects of (every damn thing) because this is what they do, but it all comes down to experience.

I actually edited my reply to you because I realised that it was from a book. I knew that it was not your own writing and I really can't see the point of you just quoting a whole passage from a book. The idea of Nirvana is complex and needs to be understood in terms of the perspective it comes from. Otherwise, it becomes extremely concrete information gathering and not an actual philosophy discussion at all.

My own view is that the idea of Nirvana points to a possibility of freedom from earthly suffering, but that to understand the fuller picture we need to see it within the framework of that spiritual tradition, otherwise it cannot be appreciated in its truest sense. Spiritual knowledge is rather different from concrete information gathering. — Jack Cummins

The idea that people who have not even attained stream-entry can meaningfully discuss nirvana based on their personal experience, is patently absurd.

This is why, when one is below that level of attainment, it makes sense to refer to established sources.


Further, the passage I quoted is about cultural and historical knowledge, not about first-hand experience of nirvana.
Peeople from the West tend to interpret the fire imagery in old texts in accordance with their own modern (or popular) notions of fire and burning, disregarding that people back then possibly had a different understanding of fire and burning.

Yes, I think that it all comes down to recognising the limits of our knowledge during discussions. We are moving in an age where so much information is available to us. Personally, I read many books on a daily basis, and enjoy this, but I am aware that understanding of profound ideas needs to be supported with the experiential level. Information does not transform us into qualified teachers and I think that this is the main thing which people have to remember when we are in the exploration and discussion of ideas which are of an esoteric nature.

Thanks for providing a link and a long passage which I will read. — Jack Cummins

If you think that was a long passage ...
And if you're replying to a post without having read it ...

But really i would have been more interesting to hear your view or understanding of the idea of nirvana.

Not for me. What use are the opinions of the unenlightended about topics that are far beyond their scope?!

Please see my post to Synthesis to see the perspective I am coming from. Also, please bear in mind that it was not me who began the thread, so it will be interesting to see what the originator of the thread thinks too. Usually, the thread originator has a major role to play in deciding what way discussion should go, so I think that I will be silent until then.

Yes, I think that it all comes down to recognising the limits of our knowledge during discussions. We are moving in an age where so much information is available to us. Personally, I read many books on a daily basis, and enjoy this, but I am aware that understanding of profound ideas needs to be supported with the experiential level. Information does not transform us into qualified teachers and I think that this is the main thing which people have to remember when we are in the exploration and discussion of ideas which are of an esoteric nature. — Jack Cummins

And they are so "esoteric" to a large extent because people feel so free to share all kinds of opinions about them, even though they don't have the required attainment. It's what gives those ideas that characteristic air of hocus pocus.

Ideas are becoming less esoteric because so much information is available. I just believe that we should be a bit on the side of caution, and be honest about limits of our knowledge, so that we don't contribute to such discussion becoming hocus pocus.

A few things I want you two to shed light on.

1. I'm not quite sure of this but I've been told Buddhism is identified more as a mystical tradition rather than your everyday, garden variety, religion. Anyway, a week ago I watched this video on mysticism and one statement caught my attention and that statement is "to be conscious without being conscious of something". I take that to mean, to draw an analogy, that consciousness is like a vessel - it can contain stuff (thoughts & perceptions) but it can be, with meditation, emptied of its contents and just as the vessel remains even when its devoid of anything, consciousness too persists even when it isn't thinking or perceiving something. Call this container consciousness

2. I believe that the notion of consciousness that's around is at odds with container consciousness - the Wikipedia entry on consciousness defines it as awareness of either the self or one's environment and what that means is without an object (self/the environment) to become aware of, consciousness is nonexistent. Call this content consciousness.

3. Nirvana, in my humble opinion, makes sense, given that, knowingly or not, Buddhism puts such an emphasis on deep meditation, only within the context of container consciousness. The idea is to extinguish thoughts and perceptions and not consciousness itself. Discard the contents but keep the container; a very counterintuitive suggestion/recommendation given that in everyday life its the contents that tend to be valuable rather than the packaging (container) they come in. Emptiness? Sunyata?

I hope that you don't think that I am being nitpicking. — Jack Cummins

No not at all. I appreciate you highlighting this. Upon reconsidering I think it was a mistake for me to borrow the term Nirvana out of its original context. I often struggle to use the right words when speaking of metaphysical things/ states of mind. As is often the case with philosophy attempting to define your thoughts for others without accidentally misappropriating things is tré difficult.

Perhaps I shouldn’t use this word. In essence I was pondering the existence of some “opposite/contrasting” state (That I will now leave unnamed haha) to that of suicide. One that is not typical to the average Human experience just as suicide is not typical of the average human experience but is an extreme end.

I might instead describe parameters without naming the phenomenon. Suicide once committed is permanent. So this alter ego state would also be (once established) permanent for the remaining lifespan of the person.
Instead of losing all hope, this state would be a self generating state of full hope/optimism that is unperturbed by suffering/ bad luck and negative experiences. Instead of suffering one is in a state of tranquility despite circumstances.

In essence if suicide is the lowest point one can go in the experience of good and bad, what is the the highest state. Does it exist?

Possible contenders: dare i mention them may be a state “True peace”, “ego death”, some form of “mania/ ecstasy or euphoria” or maybe “total love of life” or “sustained love” , a “hyper-empathy” maybe?

I hope this clarifies the state of mind I’m asking about.

"Nirvana" literally means "snuffing-out of a candle". Which may indicate why suicidal people may find the notion of nothingness preferable to sufferingness. :smile: — Gnomon

Interesting.i would follow up with a question; can one commit mental suicide instead of physical suicide? A snuffing out of the power of life to dictate whether one feels good or bad. A total control of your own state of mind where you can live in holistic permanence.

Yes. I like to call them "onotophobia" (existential dread, angst, depair, etc) and "ontophilia" (peak or religious experiences). — Pfhorrest

How would you suggest one comes to be ontophilic? (Asking for myself :P )

Very hard to practice, for people with possessions, families, and ambitions — Wayfarer

The issue I would have with this is that many would consider relinquishing yourself of desires towards your family (be it ones of affection, love, friendship, protection, desire for providence or benevolent feelings towards family - all of which require a sort of “favouritism” or “emotional bias” towards your family over strangers) appears to be Inconsiderate, unfair or maybe even irresponsible- in the especially in the sense of Parental duty to their children.

How does one resolve to treat everyone equally (love thy neighbour) without being chastised for not putting family first?

I will give two examples for this. The first being a mother throwing herself int traffic to save her child verse a mother throwing herself into traffic for a stranger while her child sits and observes from safety. Which is more noble? Preserving herself to ensure her child isn’t left without a parent or to see a stranger as equally worth saving?

The second example: in a situation where you were forced to choose between the well-being of your family and the well-being of an equal number of random strangers ... to be relinquished of attachment you would have to say “I cannot choose my family over them.” Which one would imagine your family would be astonished by/ resentful of. I think it’s even likely that faced with such a situation most people would even allow the suffering of more then the count of their family members if it guaranteed their families well-being. I wouldn’t say this is strictly moral/ just but it’s certainly human. And likely a typical response.

A footnote: doctors probably face this dilemma when confronted with conflict between their “professional duty of care” and “potential child neglect” - not being their for their children/ being estranged from them in order to facilitate life improving treatments for other people.

Yes, I think what you were talking about was more about the opposite state to suicide rather than the spiritual topic of Nirvana and I think that is worth discussing as a philosophical problem.

I believe that finding ways to cope in the face of despair is part of this. I had 2 friends committed suicide while I was at University and 1 about a year or 2 later, and this led to the becoming extremely depressed. I am someone who does believe in finding opposites to the states of feeling despairing.

I call it the process of seeking peak experiences and Abraham Maslow talks about this in his whole description of self-actualization. Colin Wilson has also explored the search for heightened states of awareness and has focused on how artists and writers have sought this. These writers are not just talking about using drugs to achieve this but accessing states of mind conducive to creativity and heightened states of self awareness. It probably is not completely separate from some of the states of awareness known to meditators.

I feel that I have known moments of heightened self awareness, often while creating art or listening to music. However, it is not always easy to tap into these states at will. I do believe that meditation is one way. But I believe this is an important area of discussion, so I hope that many people contribute to this.

How would you suggest one comes to be ontophilic? — Benj96

I find that, aside from simply allowing myself to ignore the meaningless craving for meaning that ontophobia brings on, the way to cultivate ontophilia is to practice the very same behaviors that it in turn inspires more of. Doing good things, either for others or just for oneself, and learning or teaching new truths, both seem to generate feelings of empowerment and enlightenment, respectively, and as those ramp up in a positive feedback loop, inspiring further such practices, an ontophilic state of mind can be cultivated.

I also find that it helps to remain at peace and alleviate feelings of anxiety and unworthiness by not only doing all the positive things that I reasonable can do, as above, but also excusing or forgiving myself from blame for not doing things that I reasonably can't do.

Meditative practices are essentially practice at allowing oneself to do nothing and simply be, to help cultivate this state of mind. A popular prayer also asks for precisely such serenity to accept things one cannot change and courage to change the things one can. And the modern cognitive-behavioral therapy technique called Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is also entirely about committing to doing the things that one can do and accepting the things that one cannot do anything about.

It is of course very hard to do this sometimes, so it helps also to cultivate a social network of like-minded people who will gently encourage you to do the things you reasonably can, and remind you that it's okay to not do things that you reasonably can't, between the two of which you can hopefully find a restful peace of mind where you feel that you have done all that you can do and nothing more is required of you, allowing you to enjoy simply being.

Simply connecting with other people in itself helps to cultivate feelings of meaningfulness, as it is precisely that connectedness that constitutes meaning in any sense.

How does one resolve to treat everyone equally (love thy neighbour) without being chastised for not putting family first? — Benj96

Modern people sometimes say that the Buddha acted selfishly by abandoning his home and family. I think the response to that is that, first, his family was not materially deprived by his absence. But second, it is comparable to going off to defend the country in a time of war. Nobody would say a soldier who did that would be acting selfishly, because it requires sacrifice of self. As did the Buddha's spiritual quest, which was undertaken for the greater good of humanity, not for selfish reasons.

Within Buddhism itself, there is recognition that emotional detachment is not simply indifference or coldness or not caring. On the contrary, the Buddhist view of compassion is that it should be extended to all beings - which, I think, is also the meaning of 'love thy neighbour'. In Mahāyāna there is recognition of the role of the lay-person who may indeed be a bodhisattva even if a married householder. This is the subject of a famous text in Asian Buddhism, the Vimalakirti Nirdesa.

I'm not quite sure of this but I've been told Buddhism is identified more as a mystical tradition rather than your everyday, garden variety, religion — TheMadFool

Buddhism is famously 'a religion without God'. For the early Western discoverers of Buddhism, this was the ultimate perplexity, as 'religion' can only ever be about God. I recall reading a letter by a Catholic missionary to Ceylon which reported that the Buddhist monks were serene and scrupulously virtuous, even despite 'lacking in religion'.

Even now, many Western adherents of Buddhism will say that it's 'really' a philosophy or a way of life, as distinct from a religion. But I'm sure that's because of the way 'religion' has been defined or understood in Western culture. Religion is intellectually disreputable in secular culture, and a lot of people don't want to associate with it. But Buddhism is a religion, because its aim is soteriological - to escape the endless round of rebirth in saṃsāra.

As for it being mystical - mysticism is a very slippery term. Buddhism is quite prosaic in some ways. On the other hand, the 'eight levels of jhana' (meditative trance states) are prominent in early Buddhism.

The idea is to extinguish thoughts and perceptions and not consciousness itself. Discard the contents but keep the container; a very counterintuitive suggestion/recommendation given that in everyday life its the contents that tend to be valuable rather than the packaging (container) they come in. Emptiness? Sunyata? — TheMadFool

If you said that in an essay on Buddhist philosophy, you'd get an 'F', unfortunately.

In one school of Buddhism, there is a concept called 'storehouse consciousness' (ālayavijñāna) - but it is controversial and by no means accepted in all Buddhist schools.

Understanding the Buddhist philosophy of mind is a large topic but Buddhism doesn't posit an eternal substratum or persisting core of consciousness - it's a big no-no. There is no eternally-persisting anything in Buddhism. That's why, again, many of the early Western scholars characterised it as nihilistic - but it's not that, either.

All I could do is recommend readings on the topic, but it would be a big list.

Interesting.i would follow up with a question; can one commit mental suicide instead of physical suicide? — Benj96

Well, "going crazy" (psychotic) might be one way to escape from awareness of the psychic sufferings of reality. But, I don't recommend it. Also, I suppose that some cynics might consider prematurely reaching Nirvana (quenching the flame) via meditation to be a form of "mental suicide". In a more literal sense, the self-immolating monk apparently committed suicide, while meditating, but without actually quenching the flames. Yet, again, I don't recommend it. :sad:


Thich Quang Duc, a Buddhist monk, burns himself to death on a Saigon street on June 11, 1963, in protest of alleged persecution of Buddhists by the South Vietnamese government. (Malcolm Browne/AP)