his martyrdom was no more miraculous..... — Gnomon

When being immolated, there is some period of time, perhaps many seconds, of continued awareness and presumably awareness of pain. The fact that this monk was able to remain literally unmoved by this horror is what seems super-normal. The death of a suicide bomber, by way of contrast, is absolutely instantaneous.

(Incidentally, I read some years back that the Islamic myth of the ‘72 virgins’ that would greet a martyr in heaven might have been the result of the mistranslation of an early text. The scholar concerned said the term translated as ‘virgins’ might instead have referred to a particular kind of date which was considered a luxurious delicacy. However the Islamic world being as it is, the kind of scholarship that was applied by the ‘critical Christianity’ movement was strictly forbidden, and nobody was ever allowed to follow up the idea.)

When being immolated, there is some period of time, perhaps many seconds, of continued awareness and presumably awareness of pain. — Wayfarer

Apparently, what adepts in meditation are able to do, is to be rationally aware of the pain, without suffering the emotional sensations. Self-confidence guru Tony Robbins' disciples, who walk on hot coals, seem to adopt a trance-like state of mind, that allows them to ignore their innate fear of fire, and to let their body's natural defenses control the minor damage from superficial burns. the fact that some do get fairly serious injuries indicates that it's Faith, not Magic at work. Again, I don't have that much self-confidence, and don't feel the need to prove my overcoming Faith. I'm OK with mundane pragmatic beliefs. :gasp:

The physics of hot coals :
https://tonyrobbinsfirewalk.com/physics-of-hot-coals/

I find there are generally two kinds of reactions to the suggestion of anything supernatural: shocked rejection, on the one hand (the most common reaction); or fascination, on the other. The ‘middle way’ tries to avoid such extremes.

↪Gnomon
I find there are generally two kinds of reactions to the suggestion of anything supernatural: shocked rejection, on the one hand (the most common reaction); or fascination, on the other. The ‘middle way’ tries to avoid such extremes. — Wayfarer

I agree. That's why my personal philosophy, based on the Enformationism worldview, is the BothAnd Principle, which can be visualized in the Yin-Yang symbol, and practiced in the Buddha's Middle Path between extremes, and summarized in Aristotle's Golden Mean of moderation. Since appearances can be deceiving, when something seems "supernatural", I reserve judgment until I can know what happens behind the smoke & mirrors. Until then, I'll call it simply "preternatural", or "weird". :smile:

The BothAnd Principle is a corollary to the thesis of Enformationism, in that it is a mashup of both Materialism and Spiritualism, of both Science and Religion, of both Empirical and Theoretical methods.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

scientific rationalism, is a leaky sieve.// — Wayfarer

Haha it is a leaky sieve indeed. Especially when one targets the concept of “objectivity” With regard to “objective observation as a fundamental basis for scientific method”. Discerning what is objective and what is not is (as far as I can tell) most likely a continuum with no discernible strict limit dividing the two, as well as the possibility of “relativity” playing a larger part than we give credit for.

Agree. Mind you I don’t want to fall for sloppy relativism either. In Buddhism there are plenty of rules, it’s not at all ‘anything goes’. But that is in the service of a greater freedom.

However, his sacrifice may also have been a supreme example of altruism. — Gnomon

How is immolating oneself an example of altruism??

Some historical background for the practice of auto-cremation in Chinese Buddhism:

/.../
In Chinese Buddhism, for example, self-immolation has a long and well-documented history. From written records, we know of several hundred Chinese Buddhist monks, nuns, and laypeople who offered up their bodies for a variety of reasons—though not usually in protest against the state—from the late 4th century to the present. The majority burned themselves to death, often in staged public spectacles. (Scholars use the term auto-cremation for this rather than the more common self-immolation, which means “self-sacrifice.”) The numerous accounts and discussions of self-immolation in Chinese records make it clear that many Buddhist authors did not condemn it as an aberrant or deviant practice but understood it as a bodily path to awakening. For Chinese Buddhists, in fact, auto-cremation belonged to a set of practices collectively known as “abandoning the body.”
/.../
The mass of data that we have about self-immolation in Chinese history shows that self-immolation was not considered a marginal or deviant act. On the contrary, it was relatively common and largely respected within the tradition. In fact, the Chinese example has motivated Buddhist practitioners well into modern times. It is known, for example, that Thich Quang Duc, the scholarly Vietnamese monk who burned himself to death in 1963 to protest the South Vietnamese government’s treatment of Buddhists, was conversant not only with the scriptural sources for auto-cremation—he chanted the Lotus Sutra every day—but also with the history of Chinese auto-cremators who had gone before him.
/.../
https://tricycle.org/magazine/self-immolation/

How is immolating oneself an example of altruism?? — baker

Self-immolation per se is not altruistic, especially if it's a cop-out on life, like some cases of suicide. But in this case, the monk sacrificed his own life for the betterment of his society. It was a political protest. But most politically motivated demonstrations only risk imprisonment. So this dramatic demonstration of love for others may have contributed to the eventual downfall of the Deim regime, which was being supported by the US military. As a Buddhist monk, he was not likely in favor of Communism specifically, but of regime-change in general. :smile:

John 15:13 : There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

But in this case, the monk sacrificed his own life for the betterment of his society. — Gnomon

Please explain how his suicide contributed to the betterment of his society.

So this dramatic demonstration of love for others

Where is the "love for others" in his killing himself?

may have contributed to the eventual downfall of the Deim regime, which was being supported by the US military.

How?? By shocking them into having mercy for the Vietnamese Buddhists?

As a Buddhist monk, he was not likely in favor of Communism specifically, but of regime-change in general.

He was a Mahayana monk, not a Theravada one, so different rules apply.
Still, as far as Buddhist monks go, it's strange for a monk to get involved into social and political issues, given that a Buddhist monk is said to have renounced the world.


(Too bad you have to quote a Christian scripture to defend the acts of a Buddhist.)

Please explain how his suicide contributed to the betterment of his society. . . . How?? By shocking them into having mercy for the Vietnamese Buddhists? — baker

That's beside the point. I was just guessing that his radical political statement of solidarity with his fellow Buddhists, was intended to accomplish that goal. Ironically, Vietnam eventually fell to the communists, who were not noted for their tolerance of any religion. Here, judge for yourself.

The Story Behind The Burning Monk :
https://time.com/3791176/malcolm-browne-the-story-behind-the-burning-monk/

Ngo Dinh Diem : but his own Catholicism and the preference he showed for fellow Roman Catholics made him unacceptable to Buddhists,
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ngo-Dinh-Diem

(Too bad you have to quote a Christian scripture to defend the acts of a Buddhist.) — baker

I wasn't "defending the acts of a Buddhist". Just giving an example of mind-over-matter, which is claimed to be an almost magical power of meditation. For the record, I don't believe in Magic . . . except, of course, for Stage & Movie Magic. I don't know if the monk achieved Nirvana, but if "good works" count for anything in Buddhist tradition, he should go down in history as a saint, right alongside all the Catholic and anti-catholic martyrs, who were burned at the stake for their pro or con beliefs.. :cool:

In Buddhism, desire of any kind leads to suffering. Nirvana is the absence of desire, a presence of mind which is neither for or against whatever IS in the present moment.

I don't know if the monk achieved Nirvana, but if "good works" count for anything in Buddhist tradition, he should go down in history as a saint — Gnomon

That's the official party line, yes -- that he was a saint. But if you stick around Buddhism -- different schools of Buddhism -- long enough, you'll see that not all Buddhist opinions view those self-immolations so favorably.

It's just that it's not likely that those different opinions will ever become mainstream, given that Buddhist monks aren't supposed to publicly criticize other monks.

In Buddhism, desire of any kind leads to suffering. Nirvana is the absence of desire, a presence of mind which is neither for or against whatever IS in the present moment. — Present awareness

What is your canonical support for this claim?

The words attributed to the Buddha have formed the basis of the Buddhist religion. After achieving enlightenment, the Buddha taught that “desire is the root cause of all suffering” and that “everything is impermanent, so avoid attachment and cultivate appreciation for all that IS, here and now.
My understanding of Nirvana is that it is not a goal of meditation but rather a resulting state of mind, once all mental disturbances cease.

The words attributed to the Buddha have formed the basis of the Buddhist religion. After achieving enlightenment, the Buddha taught that “desire is the root cause of all suffering” and

that “everything is impermanent, so avoid attachment and cultivate appreciation for all that IS, here and now. — Present awareness

Again, what is your canonical support for this claim?

My understanding of Nirvana is that it is not a goal of meditation but rather a resulting state of mind, once all mental disturbances cease.

Are you enlightened? Have you attained at least stream-entry?
If not, you have to base your understanding on someone else's words, on some text. It's this text I'm asking about.

There is no such thing as an enlightened person, there is only an enlightened moment. All religions are based on someone else’s words. If you google Buddhism, the text will be there.

Wikipedia gives the following definition:

“As expressed in the Buddha's Four Noble Truths, the goal of Buddhism is to overcome suffering (duḥkha) caused by desire, attachment to a static self, and ignorance of the true nature of reality (avidya).[7] Most Buddhist traditions emphasize transcending the individual self through the attainment of Nirvana or by following the path of Buddhahood, ending the cycle of death and rebirth.[8][9][10]”

There is no such thing as an enlightened person, there is only an enlightened moment. All religions are based on someone else’s words.

If you google Buddhism, the text will be there. — Present awareness

At 27 posts, you should be able to already post links.


There are all kinds of things circulated around as being "the teachings of the Buddha".
One would hope that the people who are making those claims would have enough respect for the Buddha not to ascribe to him words he didn't say, or words for which there is good reason to believe or suspect he did not say them.

That's the official party line, yes -- that he was a saint. But if you stick around Buddhism -- different schools of Buddhism -- long enough, you'll see that not all Buddhist opinions view those self-immolations so favorably. — baker

Your doctrinal criticisms of Buddhism are going off-topic. The OP was not asking about the veracity of Buddhist doctrine, but only if any human mind can achieve an altered state in which the sufferings of life, and the fear of death are of no consequence. Personally, I doubt that doctrinal Nirvana per se is achievable, but it's obvious that some human adepts (such as the flaming monk) can approach a similar state of indifference to the outside world. I don't doubt that the mind can adopt measurable "altered states". But, when Mind Magic is attributed to those states, I might ask : "what is your canonical [empirical] support for this claim?". :cool:

OP -- Existence of Nirvana :
"Does the existence of a state of mind that actively pursues it’s own death . . . .
, 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."

Altered States of Consciousness :
https://hraf.yale.edu/ehc/summaries/altered-states-of-consciousness

The OP was not asking about the veracity of Buddhist doctrine, but only if any human mind can achieve an altered state in which the sufferings of life, and the fear of death are of no consequence. — Gnomon

Such states are trivially possible. Just ask any meth addict.

The salient point is, and this is where veracity issues come into play, 1. whether such an altered state can be brought about deliberately, and 2. whether the person can be in such a state and still go about their daily life in a productive way.

"Deep meditation" and trance states are fine, but of entirely no use, if you can't handle being stuck in traffic for three hours with three crying children in the backseat.

Yes, and the same may be said about Jesus Christ. In the days before tape recorders and YouTube videos, hearsay was about all most had to go on and the stories would be embellished over hundreds of years of repetition. It does”t really matter whom said what or if anyone said anything, what matters most is does any of what was reported as being said, make any sense to you?

It does”t really matter whom said what or if anyone said anything, what matters most is does any of what was reported as being said, make any sense to you? — Present awareness

One cannot just ascribe to someone some words just because they "make sense to one". That's bestial.

"This makes sense to me, therefore, [insert name of favorite religious/spiritual figure] said it" --?????

It does”t really matter whom said what or if anyone said anything, what matters most is does any of what was reported as being said, make any sense to you?
— Present awareness
One cannot just ascribe to someone some words just because they "make sense to one". That's bestial.

"This makes sense to me, therefore, [insert name of favorite religious/spiritual figure] said it" --????? — baker

I agree. However, I’m not suggesting that one puts words in a religious figures mouth, but rather that the accuracy of what was actually said thousands of years ago, by various religious figures, is debatable. My point is this: regardless of word accuracy, does what was said resonate within you as being true?

My point is this: regardless of word accuracy, does what was said resonate within you as being true? — Present awareness

Do you mean the things you ascribed to the Buddha? No.

My point is this: regardless of word accuracy, does what was said resonate within you as being true?
— Present awareness
Do you mean the things you ascribed to the Buddha? No. — baker

Good.

Those whom seek nirvana, will not find it and those whom do not seek nirvana will also not find it and yet nirvana may still be found, nevertheless!

Those whom seek nirvana, will not find it and those whom do not seek nirvana will also not find it and yet nirvana may still be found, nevertheless! — Present awareness

*sigh*
Are you enlightened?

If I were to play the fool, perhaps temporarily don the mantle of so-called divine madmen, I would say, in accordance with @Wayfarer's philosophy and in line with the Buddhist practice of avoiding dualistic paradigms, "neither is it true that there's such a thing as nirvana, nor is it true that there's no such thing as nirvana"
:lol:

If I were to play the fool, perhaps temporarily don the mantle of so-called divine madmen, I would say, in accordance with Wayfarer's philosophy and in line with the Buddhist practice of avoiding dualistic paradigms, "neither is it true that there's such a thing as nirvana, nor is it true that there's no such thing as nirvana"
:lol: — TheMadFool

Well said! The hat of a divine madman suits you!

*sigh*
Are you enlightened? — baker

I haven’t experienced an enlightened moment, therefore I do not KNOW what enlightenment IS, do you?

So you don't have personal experience, nor can you quote actual sources, but still you can make claims about nirvana ...