another description,

[3bob]

Edited January 14, 2010 by 3bob

[Encephalon]

So what is Nirvana, which is beyond suffering, really about? It cannot only be about consciousness! The Nirvana that the Buddha realized must exist beyond consciousness, according to his own teachings.

When the mind awakens to its true nature, the State of Presence is realized. But when one awakens to the true nature of Presence itself, the Unmanifested is realized. The Unmanifested is also called "Being" or "the Absolute." Being is the source from which Presence arises and is prior to Presence. In Buddhism the term "Emptiness" is used for Being.

 

I think your your second sentence is subject to considerable debate. The written accounts I've read, and the definitions rendered by monks I've known, state unambiguously that Nirvana is simpy perfect mental health, the capacity to interpret your experience without the filters of the Three Poisons - greed, hatred, and delusion - which, according to both Buddhist psychology and modern psychology, are the three most primitive thought-forms the mind is capable of generating before you have to go subcortical.

 

I think this point simplifies the matter and vitiates the remainder of your paragraph.

 

Just tryin' to keep it simple.

 

As a general rule, I've had to become wary of introductions that begin with "Buddhism states...," or with "Any ism states..." I'm firmly rooted in the growing camp of agnostic, humanistic Buddhists, and Buddhism is no more a monolithic voice than is Christianity.

[3bob]

So what is Nirvana, which is beyond suffering, really about? It cannot only be about consciousness! The Nirvana that the Buddha realized must exist beyond consciousness, according to his own teachings.

When the mind awakens to its true nature, the State of Presence is realized. But when one awakens to the true nature of Presence itself, the Unmanifested is realized. The Unmanifested is also called "Being" or "the Absolute." Being is the source from which Presence arises and is prior to Presence. In Buddhism the term "Emptiness" is used for Being.

 

I think your your second sentence is subject to considerable debate. The written accounts I've read, and the definitions rendered by monks I've known, state unambiguously that Nirvana is simpy perfect mental health, the capacity to interpret your experience without the filters of the Three Poisons - greed, hatred, and delusion - which, according to both Buddhist psychology and modern psychology, are the three most primitive thought-forms the mind is capable of generating before you have to go subcortical.

 

I think this point simplifies the matter and vitiates the remainder of your paragraph.

 

Just tryin' to keep it simple.

 

As a general rule, I've had to become wary of introductions that begin with "Buddhism states...," or with "Any ism states..." I'm firmly rooted in the growing camp of agnostic, humanistic Buddhists, and Buddhism is no more a monolithic voice than is Christianity.

 

Hello Blasto,

 

Debate is ok with me and can be fair enough. "viviates" (a seldom seen word by me :-) sounds to be more or less a matter of opinion - whether of a small group, an individual, or of a school to embrace such means of viviatation. (spelling?)

 

The paragraph was not mine, although it rings true to me. The post was submitted as an alternative to what I've heard and more or less taken as the often monolithically (to borrow your meaning) described and held voices related to certain terms as they are commonly used by various schools. (when to me such terms are basically just pointers to beyond such names) May I suggest we take what we find useful and leave the rest - considering that this is a wide open and sometimes wild public forum... :-) Btw. I can see how people who are devoted to the Taoist schools may not be so pleased with all the variety here; many thanks for your tolerance.

 

Om

Edited January 15, 2010 by 3bob

[Encephalon]

vitiate

[xabir2005]

Edited January 15, 2010 by xabir2005

[3bob]

[xabir2005]

Hello Xabir,

 

"... The multi-dimensional reality of I AM holds the possibility for the reality of the personal within the heart of the universal..." (which will not compute logically with many interpretations given by many schools)

 

Anyway, the underline above rings true to me; and if it does not for someone else then that is their business and not mine to change, nor theirs to change of mine.

 

Good fortune,

Bob

 

Om

For me, there is no duality between 'universal' and 'personal'. There is no universal consciousness in which personality appears.

 

No-self does not contradict personality. What we call personal thoughts and actions, is simply thoughts arising without thinker, actions arising without actor.

 

I don't have the bullshit thought that 'just because there is no doer, I cannot practice'. Practice happens without doer.

[3bob]

I see no disconnect

anywhere,

 

Om