Another Question

[liz1216]

What is the difference between enlightenment and nirvana? :think:
Thanks

[beesting42]

Who said there is a difference?

[sonrisa]

enlightenment never had kurt cobain

:)

[beesting42]

oh yeah, uh huh uhuh! :lol:

[venom mama]

enlightenment is a level of conscience that you are able to gain here in this reality




nirvana is a whole other plane of existence

[NeverMind]

i still like the kurt cobain explanation

[sahyo]

enlightenment is a level of conscience that you are able to gain here in this reality




nirvana is a whole other plane of existence



:lol:

[DoWalker]

It's a thin line.

"Enlightenment" is wisdom, particularly with regard to what is permenant and what is fleeting. If you can correctly discern that which causes suffering every time, you are enlightened.

"Nirvana" is a state of consciousness resulting from living correctly when you are enlightened. In other words, if you see the correct path, you are enlightened. If you walk it, you are in Nirvana.

Fellow Buddhists: How'd I do?

[bito]

Enlightenment = 13 letters
Nirvana = 7 letters

Difference = 6 letters

[Nick_A]

Hi Liz

What is the difference between enlightenment and nirvana?
Thanks

This distinction has become very difficult for me to both understand and express since they do overlap.

Briefly, I understand enlightenment as the conscious manifestation of intuitive knowledge. By this I mean that man, as a microcosm, a mini universe, is born with the capacity for enlightenment but does not have the consciousness to recognize it or the inner unity to retain any conscious awareness. It is the experiential understanding of the dharma that begins with the inner perceptions that all things are one so from that perception, there is no individuality. It begins there but does not end there. This beginning divides into the diversity of creation

Unfortunately, as it must be, various beings called "experts" began trying to make sense of it all and as a result, over time the whole idea of cosmology was forgotten and the scale of being that begins at wholeness and decends into diversity got lost in the shuffle..

Dharma can mean the teachings of the Buddha but in a more general sense it is the laws of world creation in constant interaction that produce samsara. So enlightenment is the conscious recognition of the truth of the dharma which for me is the continuous flows of involution and evolution which though beginning as unity, surely is not the complete picture.

Nirvana for me is a state of being beyond the effects of the sufferings of samsara. It is the Ark that floats on top of the churning seas of emotion with the ability to calm the seas.

Here IMO it is also easy to go wrong and think that the key to nirvana is to avoid suffering. In a sense this is true during meditation but in life it is something else. A person is like a mixture. In the calm state of meditation, attributes of the mixture natural for meditation rise to the top. But being a mixture, external events dictate what aspects of the mixture will be on top. So a person finishes meditating and goes to work. On the way to work he sees he is beginning to run late. He starts cursing out this one and that one and remarking against all this stuff that is happening to his perception of himself making him "late" while forgetting all about nirvana. He may become fearful and just hide in his thoughts losing any contact with reality. Many things are possible having nothing to do with either enlightenment of nirvana. Since as a mixture, we lack inner unity, what else is possible? This is the way it is. So for me the key isn't avoiding suffering but instead learning how to suffer. Without this, the Eightfold path can only touch ones personality and not their "being" which is the real intent.

As I see it, both enlightenment and nirvana exist in us as potentials. It is only from the influence of experts IMO that for some reason a state of nirvana or enlightenment seems possible for us as we are .

Nirvana would be that active living state of being which would allow us not to be effected by and pulled into the chaos below. But as we are can stub our toe and that's the end of nirvana. We really are much further from it than we think we are but our imagination and fears conceal this distance.

Who is able to objectively experience the dharma and become a conscious expression of it? Yet enlightenment is precisely this. It sees oneself as it is and in context.

The words have great meaning but the real question for me is how I can grow to be able to appreciate them free from fear and imagination.

[DoWalker]

Dharma can mean the teachings of the Buddha but in a more general sense it is the laws of world creation in constant interaction that produce samsara.

Since Buddhism and Taoism overlap in many parts of the world, could it be said that this definition of the Dharma is also the Tao?

So for me the key isn't avoiding suffering but instead learning how to suffer.

But as we are can stub our toe and that's the end of nirvana.

I respectfully disagree with this part. Our bodies feel the pain of a stubbed toe, but if we can let go of the feeling that somehow we've been wronged by the world because we stubbed our toe, our wish that we hadn't stubbed our toe, and our self-pity about our pain, we do not suffer in the Buddhist sense of the word.

[Nick_A]

I respectfully disagree with this part. Our bodies feel the pain of a stubbed toe, but if we can let go of the feeling that somehow we've been wronged by the world because we stubbed our toe, our wish that we hadn't stubbed our toe, and our self-pity about our pain, we do not suffer in the Buddhist sense of the word.

Ideally no but in normal life we do. We forget ourselves and just react in our habitual reactions. This is one of the things I strongly value in esoteric Christianity. The whole Crucifixion leading to the Resurrection describes the transformation possible from knowing how to suffer. But as we are, such a thing is inconceivable. We simply could not retain any sense of conscious presence that could keep the suffering in perspective. It first requires a growth of our being towards inner unity that can keep them in perspective not by avoidance but by acquiring some inner presence that does not allow these emotions to dominate as we interact with life..

[DoWalker]

The whole Crucifixion leading to the Resurrection describes the transformation possible from knowing how to suffer.

Interesting. Are you refering to Jesus' last words on the cross "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit" as final acceptance of earthly suffering?

[Nick_A]

Interesting. Are you refering to Jesus' last words on the cross "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit" as final acceptance of earthly suffering?

Luk 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Its not as much acceptance alone but for the purpose of consciously witnessing. It is sacrificing our egotism for the sake of becoming ourselves in such an intense condition that goes far beyond lip service. There is no power in acceptance alone since there is no choice. The struggle and the suffering at that level between the body wishing to deny and the will to consciously witness invites, at that level, "reconciliation" from, as I understand it, the Holy Spirit. The psychic and emotional energies of our lower levels that normally are our life become replaced by the spiritual energy that develops through this reconciliation, that which can bring union with God.

This has become easier for me to appreciate since cosmology has become natural for me to consider in spiritual matters. Yet I know I am in a minority. I know cosmology, or levels of being, exists in Buddhism but it seems to be ignored as Buddhism IMO becomes more secular.

I don't know how you regard cosmology but I cannot see how this Sutra could be appreciated without it. Would you and some Buddhists be willing to discuss it with me on a separate thread? I'd really appreciate learning how it is understood. I know it is difficult to speak of.

http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/mahayana-...ahood-sutra.htm (http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/mahayana-writings/demonstration-of-buddhahood-sutra.htm)

[DoWalker]

This has become easier for me to appreciate since cosmology has become natural for me to consider in spiritual matters. Yet I know I am in a minority. I know cosmology, or levels of being, exists in Buddhism but it seems to be ignored as Buddhism IMO becomes more secular.

I do not yet understand cosmology. If you could give me a better idea of it, I would be happy to discuss it.

I reread the sutra, and appreciate the thoughts on the nature of emptiness, but I'd like to respond to your idea that Buddhism is becoming more secular.

If by "secular" you are implying a watered-down version of practice, I hope you are wrong. If what you mean is that people are worrying less about statues, incense, holidays, rites, and the trappings of Buddhism, I say this is a good thing. Buddha would approve. The beauty of Buddhism to me is that it is a personal spiritual journey, with minimal dogma to complicate what sould revolve around simplicity.

[Nick_A]

Hello DoWalker

Cosmology is difficult to deal with especially if you're not familiar with this type of reasoning. Rather than me becoming long winded, I'll invite you to read these two links.

The first deals with the first chapter of a book on cosmology reproduced on a website. I won't be insulted if you decide not to bother since it does take some real effort. It is from the following book by Jacob Needleman: "A Sense of the Cosmos; The Encounter of Modern Science and Ancient Truth (Doubleday)

It can be found on: http://www.rawpaint.com/library/intro.html

It will be seen as the following:

Jacob Needleman's Chapter One: The Universe
The Universe as A Teaching
Pragmatism and Desire
A Conscious Universe
What Is Consciousness?
Microcosmic Man
The "Parable" of Geocentrism
The Face of Reality
Against the Literal Mind
Heliocentrism

The second is a Buddhist understanding of cosmology centered around Mount Meru.

http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/buddhacosmo.html

A mountain like this in my understanding is symbolic of cosmology but as in the Christian Genesis, one must know how to read it.

By secular, I mean the lack of the direction of cosmology, its inner space, and the relative place of the human psych within it.

[Buddhafly]

Hello all.
I still find "The world extends around Mount Meru"
stuff a little hard to grasp. I first read on it last year and kind of scratched my head and attempted to visualize this.

Currently I am working on the premise that everything is
inside each of us. For me, that is almost as difficult to grasp as
Mount Meru. <_<

[Thomas Knierim]

What is the difference between enlightenment and nirvana?

Enlightenment means perceiving reality as it is, without any distortions and delusions. This sounds simple, but in reality it is very deep. The distortions and delusions are a part of our physical and mental conditioning. They are not easily recognized. Enlightenment occurs in Samsara.

Nirvana is unconditioned Being; it is apart from Samsara. Neither existence, nor non-existence. Since there is no conditioning In Nirvana, there is no enlightenment. Both Nirvana and Samsara are two aspects of the ground of being.

Next question. :P

[Nick_A]

Hi Buddhafly

Currently I am working on the premise that everything is
inside each of us. For me, that is almost as difficult to grasp as
Mount Meru.

This is what is meant by man being a microcosm. This mini universe is structured the same as the vast scale of creation itself. The difference is primarily in size and the material densities of their composition. I'm beginning to believe that Western forms of Christendom have lost this understanding so much so as to make re-birth or this change of being impossible to consider logically. I see the same in Buddhism but it hasn't been in the West long enough to be completely abandoned.

I've read for example that in the idea has existed in Christianity that the scale of understanding that now only is seen in the external world was appreciated more as an internal experience. By this I mean that the supplicant, priest, bishop, archbishop, and Divine King must be experienced in man as a microcosm and not just external titles. This is an experience of the body, sometimes called the "vertical body" that is very difficult to perceive and one of great values of the physical body as we experience in that it allows for just this experience necessary for our own evolution. It is an aspect of "seeing oneself" that IMO is essential for a balanced inner growth.

Mount Meru I believe is symbolic of a scale of being. Climbing a mountain is synbolically moving from one level of existence to another.

[DoWalker]

Cosmology is difficult to deal with especially if you're not familiar with this type of reasoning. Rather than me becoming long winded, I'll invite you to read these two links.

Whew! Finally found the liesure time to devote to those. Thanks for the links. I don't want to offend, but I didn't think much of them. I think the influence of the Chinese, particularly Confucianism, Taoism, and the aadvent of Zen, have changed the Buddhism of China, Japan, and Korea, (and me.) It's fundimentally different from the Buddhism of Tibet, Thailand, et. al., and I think this is one of those differences.

I'd argue that unless you're treating this cosmology metephorically, it could be harmful to good practice. Instead of opening ourselves and allowing our illusions to fall away, we start falling into the bad habits of fundimentallists of other religions -- the dogma overshadows the message.

I don't even see much value to it metaphorically, though I could be swayed on this point by good logic. Climbing a mountain requires great exertion, but the path to enlightenment is to simplify your llife and thoughts -- arguably striving to stop exerting.

[Nick_A]

Hello DW

Thanks for reading. I must admit to being at a complete loss with all this. It does seem that there is so much emphasis on the fact that we shouldn't think of the value of doing anything. Vicente put up a link to a course in consciousness that stresses that we are nothing but awareness. You say stop exerting. But these words are I believe misleading

I'd argue that unless you're treating this cosmology metephorically, it could be harmful to good practice. Instead of opening ourselves and allowing our illusions to fall away, we start falling into the bad habits of fundimentallists of other religions -- the dogma overshadows the message.

There is a difference between esoteric thought and esoteric thinking. Concepts, symbols, myths, etc. I believe are designed to align the lower mind with the higher mind leading to the presence of esoteric thinking. Normally they are separated by our false sense of self.

I don't believe you can just open yourself and allow things to fall away. You can begin but your personality compensates for it by gradually refilling with something else including imagined awareness.

If we are constructed cosmologically in the same manner as the external universe, it would seem that somehow to grasp this aligns the entire organism. Where in a normal state, man's lower nature would be guided by his higher nature, we, in the fallen state, in contrast are guided by unconscious habits and the conflicts between them have resulted in so much attachment necessary to somehow justify this objectively absurd condition. As we are existing within this chaos, we are cut off from higher awareness.

Cosmology explains the normal connections between the higher and lower, spiritual and animal natures within ourselves.

Enlightenment is a wonderful thing but what good is it if it is impotent? Is the purpose of Man, just to exist as blank awareness of universal laws? Is this what is meant by being made "in the image"? When was impotence considered part of the image?

Enlightenment is very attractive to me but it is so not for escapism but in order "To Be" in the healthy human sense which unites the higher and lower.

I don't see spirituality as passive but as active. It isn't lack of exertion but knowing when and how to exert. For example, the great amount of our muscular tensions are completely useless exertions so we must learn how to relax. Is this passive? No, it requires active attention to quiet the muscles. This is an action in response to the normal passive reaction of useless habitual tension. Then we may have the ability to exert ourselves when necessary. Any good cat knows this. They can be completely relaxed but when necessary can exert with the best of them. Exertion isn't the problem, it is the tool of "Will". Useless habitual exertion is and we lack the consciousness to discriminate as we should between them.

I'm convinced that the real question here is if man has a purpose for existence that is more than just habitual life on earth. If not then why not pursue escapism.

I agree that we must, through the light of conscious attention, gradually release illusion. But I believe that man has a purpose beyond earthly reaction which requires him "to be". In order "to do" it is first necessary "to be' which requires more then being content with Man as a "seed" or a potential. Man's higher purpose is connected with the ability "to do" in relation to the scale of being seen in cosmology. I believe it's not something we can rightly comprehend since we only see a distorted view through the ideas of a corrupted ego.

There is mechanical exertion and conscious exertion. The former can only turn in circles while the latter I believe is part of the process that leads to inner freedom.