Mahaparinirvana: The last step in spiritual evolution?
-
Sirs,
After reading some books on Buddhist philosophy,I am very much attracted by this philosphy.Few questions from me to know more of Buddhism, please not everything is a serious question. I am hoping someone with more knowledge/wisdom can answer them.
- Is Mahaparinirvana(state Buddha) achieved the final stage in spiritual evolution?
- What happens to the soul in this condition?Is it in another state/planet and not in earth?
- Why did Buddha have difficulties(pain,sickness etc) even after achieveing this state?
- Is it possible for anyone to achieve this state after 40 days of continous meditation?As Buddha who had no teacher or experience in meditiation could?
- By following the current practises(clothes,non veg food etc) all Buddhist followers too reach this state?
- I understand sufferings are caused by past actions,so pleasures should also be the result of good actions as well. How can misery/pain really have an effect on the soul which is not affected by our mind or body?
- What is the necessity of creation? Why couldn't all be as it was before time and stay as it is?Instead of life forms to be created(souls start a journey) and finally attains liberation and merges with ultimate?By this premise the samsara as it is called is the prime cause isn't it?
- Whay was Gautama the Buddha? Was he destined to be or he was the first guy who meditated 40 days straight? If he was destined why was he?
Thank you -
Is Mahaparinirvana(state Buddha) achieved the final stage in spiritual evolution?
It is so in the Theravada tradition, not so in the Mahayanist tradition
What happens to the soul in this condition?Is it in another state/planet and not in earth?
Buddhism is a teaching of ‘no soul doctrine’. Your question of what happened to an individual who have attained arahantship can be equate with the simile of, where does a fire goes when the fuel is expanded? The question where he has gone does not apply anymore.
Why did Buddha have difficulties (pain,sickness etc) even after achieveing this state?
It is normal for any individual to have pain, sickness even if they have attained Buddhahood, one can’t run away from it. In his case, has achieved a state of mind which the Buddhist termed ‘neither-pain nor not-pain’ condition. It means he is no more affected by such conditions.
Is it possible for anyone to achieve this state after 40 days of continous meditation?As Buddha who had no teacher or experience in meditiation could?
It is not just being able to continuously meditate for 40 days and one is able to achieve that state. It involves for most, a lifelong practice of the purification of one’s morality, the mind with the help of meditation and the perfection of Wisdom. This is in the context of the Theravada tradition.
By following the current practises(clothes,non veg food etc) all Buddhist followers too reach this state?
What is stated above are just some of the practices basically in helping in the purification of morality. One has to go much further than that to attain Nibanna.
I understand sufferings are caused by past actions,so pleasures should also be the result of good actions as well. How can misery/pain really have an effect on the soul which is not affected by our mind or body?
Again Buddhism is a no soul doctrine. We do not believe such thing as a soul existed. It is the grasping of the mistaken ‘I’ that is causing all this pain and misery.
What is the necessity of creation? Why couldn't all be as it was before time and stay as it is?Instead of life forms to be created(souls start a journey) and finally attains liberation and merges with ultimate?By this premise the samsara as it is called is the prime cause isn't it?
I take it creation here means a return to the human realm or any other realms. This is something that Buddhist teaching of non-self is trying to teach us. It is to get out of all this 'self' creation. By the way, attaining liberation does not mean a merger with an ultimate. That is the teaching of the Advaita Vedanta and also some other similar schools of thoughts. In Buddhism liberation does not in any way means merger with a higher Being.
Whay was Gautama the Buddha? Was he destined to be or he was the first guy who meditated 40 days straight? If he was destined why was he?
He is Buddha of this period, there is supposed to be other Buddhas of the pasts and they will be Buddhas in the future. Buddhism is not about thing such as fate or destiny. He is supposed to have cultivated for many lifetimes before he was able to attain to the state he was in his last life.
-
Why did Buddha have difficulties (pain,sickness etc) even after achieveing this state?
Buddha still had old karmas to experience. In other words, all Buddhas and arahants, although no longer creating new karma for new rebirth, are still experiencing the effects of their previous karmic action (mostly from past lives). They will experience them until Parinirvana when they no longer take new samsaric births. As for the rest of us, we just cycle in the 6 realms again and again, until we too attain Nirvana (the termination of afflictions, the end of passion, aggression and delusion).
That being said, a Buddha does not experience mental suffering and anguish in the face of physical pain. The Buddha does not experience the second dart (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.nypo.html)- Whay was Gautama the Buddha? Was he destined to be or he was the first guy who meditated 40 days straight? If he was destined why was he?
It does not come due to 'destiny' but due to his great effort and hard work in practice. He practiced for three aeons as a bodhisattva perfecting all his virtues and qualities before he could attain Buddhahood. This does not mean to attain enlightenment and liberation we all have to practice three aeons, as we can attain awakening and liberation in this very lifetime by following the Buddha's teachings. But in order to become a supreme Nirmanakaya Buddha for the benefit of all sentient beings, according to the Jataka tales it takes a long way of practice. If you merely what to become a liberated arahant then one life is enough. Also one can become an awakened bodhisattva in one life according to Mahayana Buddhism but not a full-fledged Buddha (Vajrayana may disagree).
Nevertheless it is an undisputed fact that countless practitioners since the Buddha has attained awakening and liberation, so we too should strive for awakening and liberation ourselves.
What is the difference between a Buddha and a liberated arahant? A Buddha is also a liberated arahant, but he is more than that. As Buddha himself said:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.058.than.html
The Blessed One said, "The Tathagata — the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one — is the one who gives rise to the path (previously) unarisen, who engenders the path (previously) unengendered, who points out the path (previously) not pointed out. He knows the path, is expert in the path, is adept at the path. And his disciples now keep following the path and afterwards become endowed with the path.
"This is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing between one rightly self-awakened and a monk discernment-released."
- What is the necessity of creation? Why couldn't all be as it
was before time and stay as it is?Instead of life forms to be
created(souls start a journey) and finally attains liberation and
merges with ultimate?By this premise the samsara as it is called is
the prime cause isn't it?
There is no creation nor is there a God.The world exists only when we think about it; creation stories are for children. In reality the world is created every moment. ~ Jean Klein
As for transmigration, there is no beginning point, and no creation. There is no point in which "souls start a journey" (other than the point that Buddhism does not accept the doctrine of a soul as Aik TC already pointed out), there is no starting point.
This is what Buddha taught:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.013.than.html
Is it possible for anyone to achieve this state after 40 days of continous meditation?
Yes it is definitely possible to attain liberation in 49 days of meditation, in fact 7 days is also possible, some people attain liberation in 1 day or upon meeting the Buddha at the first time.
For most people however, it takes years of practice. But it is definitely achievable and one should not think of it is as a very difficult endeavor. The problem with most people is not that they cannot attain enlightenment but they aren't interested enough to really go deeply into this. It's just like playing piano, if you are serious about it there is no reason why you cannot master it in some years time. -
Please read this article regarding the "no soul teaching", you will understand it better: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2009/03/conceptions-of-self-in-western-and.html
-
There is no soul in Buddism?No concept of Karma as well?Some one could easily kill himself and be free from this world can't he, if there is no where to return to? And this would also be the get out of 'I self' created.
What is stated above are just some of the practices basically in helping in the purification of morality. One has to go much further than that to attain Nibanna.
What is the thing that makes some achieve Nibanna and others not from a group who practise
similar things?
Buddhism is not about thing such as fate or destiny. He is supposed to have cultivated for many lifetimes before he was able to attain to the state he was in his last life.
Why is it so difficult to achieve nibanna in Buddhism? What is the reason for many births as
preparation?
PS: All these questions in the spirit of enquiry.
-
in Buddhism, actualization is of paramount...if some1 ask lot of Qs but don't practice it, high chance tat s/he will have more Qs than in the beginning...just like a kid asking different adults the feeling of ejaculation, he will only get more confuse but once he exp it personally, all the Qs will be answered by itsell...tat y a true Buddhist asks n cultivate at the same time...if not all the Q n A will yet be another ouroboros.
-
There is no soul in Buddism?No concept of Karma as well?Some one could easily kill himself and be free from this world can't he, if there is no where to return to? And this would also be the get out of 'I self' created.
The concept of karma is an important teaching in Buddhism which is also linked to the teaching of Rebirth. Karma is about one’s intentions and there will always be good, neutral or bad results arising from such intentions. It does not mean that if you committed suicide you are freed from this world and from all those karmas one has created by oneself in this and other previous lives.
When the Buddhist talk about ‘non or not self’, it is referring to the individual’s mistaken beliefs that this ‘I self’ made up of form, feeling, cognition, mental formation and consciousness (a result of our past karma) is a permanent entity. To the Buddhist, this ‘I self’ is an ever changing entity. One need to meditate and for most people, it is a slow process that may take more than a lifetime before coming to the realization that this ‘Self’ is impermanent. This is from the viewpoint of the Theravada teaching.
What is the thing that makes some achieve Nibanna and others not from a group who practice similar things?
Not two persons are the same spiritually, the more advance one is the faster one will attain to the cessation of Suffering. By the way, Nibbana is not a destination. It is the realization to the truth that all existences are impermanent, not self and is suffering.
Why is it so difficult to achieve nibanna in Buddhism? What is the reason for many births as preparation?
Whether it is difficult or not is a subjective question. For most of us, it is a lifelong practice, for others it may take more than one lifetime to be spiritually advanced enough to attain to Nibbana. The question of how long one needs to take should not be a point of contention or worries. As Buddhist, here and now, we are encouraged to live life by the eightfold noble path, which is the 4th Noble truth – The Cessation of Suffering. As pointed out in the above posting by An Eternal Now, one may not necessary need many lifetimes to prepare to attain to Nibbana.
-
In Buddhism do some one give Nirvana like a gift/result of devotion?
I still don't get how without soul there can be belief of karma carried over to next birth.is it a difference in terminology or concept?
Sir jlowbog, I agree with you there on intellectual knowledge vs experienced knowledge. But having an ejaculation is something achievable in few minutes(for a normal person). It seems many people follow Buddhism but no one is guaranteed Nirvana even following all these practises.But given a chance of Nirvan provided you follow Noble Path.
When some one do something bad to us, what is adviced in Buddhism? It could be a balance of Karma or creation of new karma.Any way to differentiate?Many Buddhist texts speak of Monks knowing their time and way of death to balance their karma.Eg: death by fire because he burned some animals by fire etc.
Also how can Karma affect anything?Everything is just a mechanical action.Saying bad thing/Beating some one is just some action of muscles. Some one could do this to a rock and have no ill effect but to a person, it could?So the action doesn't matter but the result?
And what is action?if i could afford to do nothing in life, just exist and reduce contact with world?This would reduce the creation of Karma, wouldn't it?
PS: May be it sounds silly,but its really to know.
-
In Buddhism do some one give Nirvana like a gift/result of devotion?
No, it is the result of practicing the Noble Eightfold Path by one's effort. Nirvana cannot be given.
It seems many people follow Buddhism but no one is guaranteed Nirvana even following all these practises.But given a chance of Nirvan provided you follow Noble Path.
Actually, the Buddha does give guarantee that one will certainly attain liberation by practicing the teachings. The problem is that we are not putting enough effort, most people are not bothered with practicing. Many people have attained liberation and many continue to do so.
His assurance:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.bpit.html404. Indeed, bhikkhus, whosoever practises these four methods of Steadfast Mindfulness in this manner for seven years, one of two results is to be certainly expected in him: arahatship[125] in this very existence, or if there yet be any trace of Clinging left, the state of an an�g�mi.[126]
Let alone seven years, bhikkhus, whosoever practises these four methods of Steadfast Mindfulness in this manner for six years... for five years... for four years... for three years... for two years... for one year
Let alone one year, bhikkhus, whosoever practises these four methods of Steadfast Mindfulness in this manner for seven months, one of two results is to be certainly expected in him: arahatship in this very existence, or if there yet be any trace of Clinging left, the state of an an�g�mi.
Let alone seven months, bhikkhus, whosoever practises these four methods of Steadfast Mindfulness in this manner for six months... for five months... for four months... for three months... for two months... for one month... for half-a-month...
Let alone half-a-month, bhikkhus, whosoever practises these four methods of Steadfast Mindfulness in this manner for seven days, one of two results is to be certainly expected in him: arahatship in this very existence, or if there yet be any trace of Clinging left, the state of an an�g�mi.
405. Because of these beneficial results, I have declared at the beginning thus: "Bhikkhus, this is the one and only way for the purification of the minds of beings, for overcoming sorrow and lamentation, for the complete destruction of physical pain and mental distress, for attainment of the noble Ariya Magga, and for the realization of Nibb�na. That only way is the practice of the four methods of Steadfast Mindfulness."
Thus spoke the Bhagava. Delighted, the bhikkhus received the words of the Buddha with respectful appreciation.
I still don't get how without soul there can be belief of karma carried over to next birth.is it a difference in terminology or concept?
On rebirth:
http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4215
Continuing consciousness after death is, in most religions, a matter of revealed truth. In Buddhism, the evidence comes from the contemplative experience of people who are certainly not ordinary but who are sufficiently numerous that what they say about it is worth taking seriously into account. Indeed, such testimonies begin with those of the Buddha himself.
Nevertheless, it’s important to understand that what’s called reincarnation in Buddhism has nothing to do with the transmigration of some ‘entity’ or other. It’s not a process of metempsychosis because there is no ‘soul’. As long as one thinks in terms of entities rather than function and continuity, it’s impossible to understand the Buddhist concept of rebirth. As it’s said, ‘There is no thread passing through the beads of the necklace of rebirths.’ Over successive rebirths, what is maintained is not the identity of a ‘person’, but the conditioning of a stream of consciousness.
Additionally, Buddhism speaks of successive states of existence; in other words, everything isn’t limited to just one lifetime. We’ve experienced other states of existence before our birth in this lifetime, and we’ll experience others after death. This, of course, leads to a fundamental question: is there a nonmaterial consciousness distinct from the body? It would be virtually impossible to talk about reincarnation without first examining the relationship between body and mind. Moreover, since Buddhism denies the existence of any self that could be seen as a separate entity capable of transmigrating from one existence to another by passing from one body to another, one might well wonder what it could be that links those successive states of existence together.
One could possibly understand it better by considering it as a continuum, a stream of consciousness that continues to flow without there being any fixed or autonomous entity running through it… Rather it could be likened to a river without a boat, or to a lamp flame that lights a second lamp, which in-turn lights a third lamp, and so on and so forth; the flame at the end of the process is neither the same flame as at the outset, nor a completely different one… -
I still don't get how without soul there can be belief of karma carried over to next birth. is it a difference in terminology or concept?
The Buddhist law of kamma is about the working of cause and effect, of action and reaction of intentional action. It also points to the negation of a self. It does not affirm the existence of a permanent self or a permanent soul. In fact, kamma and a permanent self or soul are quite conflicting. When we talk about kamma, it is about change, movement, flux, impermanence, about operating on dependent conditioning. It is a process. On the other hand, the soul or a permanent self is taken as an unchanging, everlasting, indestructible absolute entity. Buddhist no-soul or non-self doctrine looks at all living beings as a process. Life, death and rebirths are just significant events and doors through which this whole process takes place.
Also how can Karma affect anything? Everything is just a mechanical action. Saying bad thing/Beating someone is just some action of muscles. Someone could do this to a rock and have no ill effect but to a person, it could?
When we talks about mechanical action, it is a reference to instinctive action, actions that are pre-dominant of the Animal kingdom rather than the human realm. But when human goes around saying bad things or beating up someone or even a rock, it is not just about action of one’s muscles. An intention is present in most instances before such actions are executed. That intention is more important than whether it is a living being or an inanimate object that you are beating up.
As pointed in early posting, actions can be wholesome or unwholesome cumulating in good or bad results or neutral where no result arises. Results does not necessary have to appear immediately or in this life itself.
So the action doesn't matter but the result?
Here we are referencing kamma which is about intentional action. Intentional action good, bad or neutral comes about due to each individual personality, moral, ethical, religious values etc and in Buddhism how far one has progress on our path of purification.
Of course, there are actions that are unintentional or instinctive. These kinds of actions also do at time bring about some form of reaction as well, especially if it is carried out on another living being. Good or bad consequences and fruits occurring from all actions performed by individuals are just the products that one has to bear now or in future.
And what is action?if i could afford to do nothing in life, just exist and reduce contact with world?This would reduce the creation of Karma, wouldn't it?
Even if you can afford to do nothing in life and live in a cave on solitary confinement, reduce your wholesome or unwholesome intentional actions, you will still not be able to escape the potential fruitions of other past kamma committed in this and other previous existence. In other word, you can try and run away but you certainly cannot hide forever.
-
Hi... no such thingy as soul:
Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta: To Vacchagotta on FireWhat do you think, Vaccha: If a fire were burning in front of you, would you know that, 'This fire is burning in front of me'?"
"...yes..."
"And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, 'This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"
"...I would reply, 'This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.'"
"If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out'?"
"...yes..."
"And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"
"That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From what i know, ignorance is the requisite condition for karma... then karma give rise to consciousness... So if you were asking why there's karma when there is no soul, i think dependent origination explains it -
sir bio hawk...the concept of karma is too subtle, the permutations of cause n effect is just too vast to trace, probing too deep into this subject can make a person goes bonkers. we, as human, be4 enlightenment, is suffice to understand n use it as a deference tool fr committing evil deeds. eg. we only need to know food can keep us full but we don't go n trace back wat food we ate each day fr young.
Training n cultivation last for kalpas of lifetimes, so its not fair to use just tis lifetime to gauge...n we all will attain Buddhahood eventually.
I tot enlightenment n ejaculation r inspontaneous kinds of exp...however be4 we can achieved tat...we must put in efforts...for enlightenment, training n cultivation of our mind n body, for ejaculation, stimulations of our mind n body. -
Sir jlowbog,2009novice and Aik TC,
I have understood your replies as:In Buddhism there is no soul but a self which has to be negated. And when this is done, it's Nirvana in Buddhism. There are consequences of intention which can come later(this life or next).
- Isn't self then the soul?
- A person sleeping has negated his so called self,death so as well. And in next birth its a new self?So in the next birth a new self has been created and the old one is no more(negated,destroyed)
- ignorance is the requisite condition for karma... then karma give rise to consciousness. --> How can ignorance exist just exit in the first place?
-
No, there is no soul nor inherently existing self (only a conventionally imputed self), and nothing needs to be negated.
Self-view of a person and objects are all unfounded.
As I wrote in: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/eternalism-nihilism-and-middle-way.html
The Buddha rejected the extremes of eternalism and nihilism and taught the middle way which is free from extremes. This post examines what each of these mean with pictorial aid.
Water
Eternalism
There is a water. Water truly exists. Hydrogen and oxygen are attributes of the water.
Nihilism
The water does not exist. OR The water that exists now annihilates later.
Middle Way
Co-dependently arisen hydrogen and oxygen are empty of water, but is conventionally called water. Hydrogen and oxygen are not attributes of an entity "water" (no such thing can be pinned down), not contained by an entity called "water", nor is there a "water" that is "made up of" hydrogen and oxygen. Rather, two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms co-dependently arising ARE what is conventionally imputed as water.
Self
Eternalism
Self view is the held position that there is a self. Self truly exists. Self may be seen as attributeless (as some attributeless pure consciousness as in advaita), or a self that owns or contains attributes, or an agent that manifests, owns, observes, or controls, its aggregates. The precise view of self varies from eternal, partially eternal, to nihilistic (for a lengthy discourse by Buddha on the numerous "thicket of views", refer to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html). From an eternalist perspective, the self remains unchanged despite the changes in life. It remains unchanged even after bodily death. It is either seen as the unchanging self [as an individual soul], or the Self [as an infinite Self or Presence] that is unaffected by the passing aggregates or phenomena.
Nihilism
The self does not exist. OR The self in this life annihilates upon death. There is no karma, cause and effect, or rebirth.
Middle Way
Co-dependently arisen five aggregates are empty of self, but is conventionally called self. Seeing is not a self seeing, but is simply the experience being seen. Volition is not via a doer, but is simply action-activity-process, co-dependently arisen. Consciousness is not a self, it is simply auditory consciousness manifested dependent on ear, sound and attention, so on and so forth. Taste of chocolate has nothing to do with a taster but is simply the process or seamless activity of biting, tongue touching chocolate, consciousness of taste, etc. Ultimately, whatever dependently originates is also empty of any true existence (five aggregates are also empty) - but appearances are not denied.
Now replace "water" or "self" with anything - mind, matter, Buddha-nature, Truth, awareness, cars, houses, atoms, universe, etc. All applies the same way.
Diamond Sutra: "Subhuti, all dharmas are spoken of as no dharmas. Therefore they are called dharmas."
Anuradha Sutta: "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
Ted Biringer: "...According to Dogen, this “oceanic-body” does not contain the myriad forms, nor is it made up of myriad forms – it is the myriad forms themselves. The same instruction is provided at the beginning of Shobogenzo, Gabyo (pictured rice-cakes) where, he asserts that, “as all Buddhas are enlightenment” (sho, or honsho), so too, “all dharmas are enlightenment” which he says does not mean they are simply “one” nature or mind."
Thusness (2008): The key is in "emptiness" so that there is complete non abiding and (non-)staying (thus avoiding eternalism) and "luminosity" so that there is aliveness and clarity without falling into nihilism.
Note: does that mean that conventionally self truly exists? No. Conventional truths are not in fact true nor existing but are merely deluded projections as a result of ignorance. Five aggregates are deludedly conceived as a self. Such a self may conventionally be considered true, yet there is actually no truth to it. It is merely a false name used by the enlightened for pragmatic purpose, but taken to be true and existing by the ignorant. Nagarjuna: "Since the Jina proclaims that nirvana alone is true, what wise person would not reject the rest as false?"
The diagrams are inspired by Julian Baggini's speech on Ted talk: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2012/05/is-there-you.html -
err don't call me sir leh... i'm learning just like u.
Somehow i don't agree negating self is equal to Nirvana... i can only say it's one of the requirements of stream entry... there are still more work to do e.g. uprooting ignorance and passion etc..
many people refer self as soul or some permanent, eternal entity... it's the same meaning.
next new birth is also not self. Just like fire burning on grass is grassfire, fire burning on wood is woodfire etc... it should be based on dependent origination.
for ignorance i think, is like a baby that doesn't know how to walk yet... so yeah... everyone is born with ignorance...
my views for now
-
thanks AEN.. ya nothing needs to negate