After the death of a person who has attained nirvana, liberation, or perfection, what happens? You do not simply gain non-existence (like the sunyavadis, the worshippers of the void), Gautama Buddha says the experience is unexplainable, Krishna says that you will share his own opulences. But what does that mean, what really happens after you escape from this cycle of birth and rebirth?

Nothing.

But it isn't nothing, at least not according to Gautama-Buddha and Krishna, nothingness is the void (sunya) or pradhana....

Nothing special.

Where do you draw this conclusion? It seems like something beyond special. While alive if you achieve nirvana, liberation, or perfection (siddhim), you will gain the highest point of happiness, the highest knowledge, fearless, free from all forms of suffering (fear, anger, sorrow, etc...)

Gautama Buddha says that the experience after parinirvāṇa (nirvana after death) is outside of all concievable experience...

Krishna says "A person who gives up all fruitive activities and offers himself entirely unto Me, eagerly desiring to render service unto Me, achieves liberation from birth and death and is promoted to the status of sharing My own opulences [ātma-bhūyāya]" (SB 11.29.34)

Seems like something special to me...

Nirvana is just a fleeting holisitic mind-state, its not the endgame of existance and you certainly wont be perfect or enlightened just from the experience alone.
After nirvana comes mediocre, drab life. You still have to live it and get on with it :D

Nirvana is just a fleeting holisitic mind-state, its not the endgame of existance and you certainly wont be perfect or enlightened just from the experience alone.
After nirvana comes mediocre, drab life. You still have to live it and get on with it :D

This does not agree with any scripture...I'm wondering where you guys draw these conclusions...

For instance in the dhammapada Gautama Buddha describes an enlightened person as being fearless, wise, enjoying the highest point of happiness, yet for some reason this is not the way it is portrayed...

"He is full of power.
Fearless, wise, exalted.
He has vanquished all things.
He sees by virtue of his purity.
He has come to the end of the way" (Dhammapada, 26.)

Also how can things be worse after nirvana? You gain the very very highest point of happiness, and enjoy every moment...

"But the master finds joy in giving
And happiness is his reward.
And more -
For greater than all the joys
Of heaven and earth,
Greater still and than dominion
Over all the worlds,
Is the joy of reaching the stream" (Dhammapada, 13.17-18)

I don't see the contradiction.

I don't see the contradiction.

"Nothing special" vs "Unlimited power, happiness, etc..."
"After nirvana comes mediocre, drab life" vs "full knowledge, fearlessness, power, etc.."

Exactly, what's the difference?

"Nirvana" is simply "understanding"

Understanding about the very nature of your being.

When you die with Nirvana, you get absorbed into the cosmic consiousness - the very consciousness that is part of the creation.

If you chose to come back to further the creation process, you can (a la Buddhism)..if not, you do what the stars and planets do at a level inconceivable to humans....

Humanity is just the beginning of an ever evolutionary process....

enjoy the process....

"Nirvana" is simply "understanding"

Understanding about the very nature of your being.

When you die with Nirvana, you get absorbed into the cosmic consiousness - the very consciousness that is part of the creation.

If you chose to come back to further the creation process, you can (a la Buddhism)..if not, you do what the stars and planets do at a level inconceivable to humans....

Humanity is just the beginning of an ever evolutionary process....

enjoy the process....
But Nirvana is not the same as right understanding (which is part of the Noble Eight-Fold path)

As for the stars and planets, you will become more powerful than all the devas in the universe if you achieve the "most difficult accomphishment", you will finally have full-fledged freedom, free at last from all this, able to whatever desired, with unlimited power, unlimited freedom, the highest knowledge, etc....

Also the uncreate, unmade, unborn, etc...is not the same as cosmic consciousness...

Oh well I guess I'll fully understand if I achieve nirvana while in this life, all this speculation is useless, I'll just meditate on true knowledge...

Nirvana (Devanagari निर्वाण) is attained through enlightenment.

Enlightenment is Bodhi (बोधि)

Bodhi (बोधि), the Pāli and Sanskrit word for "awakening" or "enlightenment", is an abstract noun formed from the verbal root budh (awake, become aware, notice, know or understand), corresponding to the verbs bujjhati (Pāli) and bodhati or budhyate (Sanskrit).

After the death of a person who has attained nirvana, liberation, or perfection, what happens? You do not simply gain non-existence (like the sunyavadis, the worshippers of the void), Gautama Buddha says the experience is unexplainable, Krishna says that you will share his own opulences. But what does that mean, what really happens after you escape from this cycle of birth and rebirth?
even while there are descriptions like this .......

CC Madhya 6.266: "There are five kinds of liberation: sālokya, sāmīpya, sārūpya, sārṣṭi and sāyujya.

PURPORT

Sālokya means that after material liberation one is promoted to the planet where the Supreme Personality of Godhead resides, sāmīpya means remaining an associate of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, sārūpya means attaining a four-handed form exactly like that of the Lord., sārṣṭi means attaining opulences like those of the Supreme Lord, and sāyujya means merging into the Brahman effulgence of the Lord. These are the five types of liberation.

..... one who is attached to god does not desire the liberation of merging .....

CC Ādi 5.31: Those who attain brahma-sāyujya liberation cannot gain entrance into Vaikuṇṭha; their residence is outside the Vaikuṇṭha planets.

CC Ādi 5.32: Outside the Vaikuṇṭha planets is the atmosphere of the glowing effulgence, which consists of the supremely bright rays of the body of Lord Kṛṣṇa.

CC Ādi 5.33: That region is called Siddhaloka, and it is beyond the material nature. Its essence is spiritual, but it does not have spiritual varieties.


...... because such a liberation is bereft of any varieties or activities

so one has the option of accepting a liberation with varieties, relationships and activities or the choice of accepting a liberation where there is no distinction between knowledge, the knower and the process of knowledge (Sayujya - merging into the absolute) (there is no "I" to even talk of having an experience of liberation)

- which one would you prefer?

This does not agree with any scripture...I'm wondering where you guys draw these conclusions...

You draw it from personal experience, scripture will only tell you so much and useally in a pretty dogmatic way.
The nirvana experience in itself is meaningless, it wont make you instantly wise and perfected. It all about what you decide to take from it.
I know people whove had these types of experiences whove gone onto to live their lifes with zero responsibility to the people around them, so its really no garantee of anything.


Also how can things be worse after nirvana? You gain the very very highest point of happiness, and enjoy every moment...
How long does it take to truely forget a moment? because thats all it is really, you dont forget it but like all memories it becomes hazy after a while and you have to ultimately deal whats lying in front of you.
Its not like the matrix where you 'see the code' and turn into this super-hereo, you still have to deal with day-to-day drudgery. ;)

I would say, in agreement with buddhism, that the bliss of nirvana is the single moment of complete realization--something that will never occur again in that person's lifetime. After that single moment of ultimate bliss, life is normal except for the fact that the enlightened one has lost ego, has lost discontent, has lost personal desire, has lost bias, has lost overpowering emotion.

Desire remains in the form of remnants of his past life--the neccessities of his own body to follow the path like an arrow that cannot stop flying through the air once let loose. Emotion remains but only because of an earthly body--the enlightened mind is now able to overpower the body.

In other words, the mind is no longer processes of the body, it is the network of connections forged in the pureness of enlightenment--in finally seeing the relationships of the universe as they truly are and imprinting those relationships into the connections within the mind. Enlightenment is like making a (seemingly or truly) infinitely accurate and to scale map of universal relations out of the mind.

"Learned Audience, the Wisdom of Enlightenment (Bodhiprajna) is inherent in every one of us. It is because of the delusion under which our mind works that we fail to realize it ourselves, and that we have to seek the advice and the guidance of enlightened ones before we can know our own Essence of Mind. You should know that so far as Buddha-nature is concerned, there is no difference between an enlightened man and an ignorant one. What makes the difference is that one realizes it, while the other is ignorant of it..."

The Platform Sutra of the 6th Patriarch, Hui Neng

You draw it from personal experience, scripture will only tell you so much and useally in a pretty dogmatic way.
The nirvana experience in itself is meaningless, it wont make you instantly wise and perfected. It all about what you decide to take from it.
I know people whove had these types of experiences whove gone onto to live their lifes with zero responsibility to the people around them, so its really no garantee of anything.


How long does it take to truely forget a moment? because thats all it is really, you dont forget it but like all memories it becomes hazy after a while and you have to ultimately deal whats lying in front of you.
Its not like the matrix where you 'see the code' and turn into this super-hereo, you still have to deal with day-to-day drudgery. ;)
I'm guessing you don't have many spiritual experiences then....your view of spirituality is very different from mine. In the beginning when I first experienced the deepest states of relaxation, I thought that was great, but something still wasn't right, then I experienced the happiness from the brahmarandra (crown chakra), and that was even better, but then I experienced a happiness even greater than all of these, in this state I could even feel that the feeling of from the crown chakra was "not me", hard to explain, but its beyond the greatest feeling

In a way I do see it as seeing 'the code' (the actual truth) and turning into this super-being. No longer do you have to deal with the day-to-day drudgery, if you did, then the point of attaining nirvana is meaningless.

even while there are descriptions like this .......

CC Madhya 6.266: "There are five kinds of liberation: sālokya, sāmīpya, sārūpya, sārṣṭi and sāyujya.

PURPORT

Sālokya means that after material liberation one is promoted to the planet where the Supreme Personality of Godhead resides, sāmīpya means remaining an associate of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, sārūpya means attaining a four-handed form exactly like that of the Lord., sārṣṭi means attaining opulences like those of the Supreme Lord, and sāyujya means merging into the Brahman effulgence of the Lord. These are the five types of liberation.

..... one who is attached to god does not desire the liberation of merging .....

CC Ādi 5.31: Those who attain brahma-sāyujya liberation cannot gain entrance into Vaikuṇṭha; their residence is outside the Vaikuṇṭha planets.

CC Ādi 5.32: Outside the Vaikuṇṭha planets is the atmosphere of the glowing effulgence, which consists of the supremely bright rays of the body of Lord Kṛṣṇa.

CC Ādi 5.33: That region is called Siddhaloka, and it is beyond the material nature. Its essence is spiritual, but it does not have spiritual varieties.


...... because such a liberation is bereft of any varieties or activities

so one has the option of accepting a liberation with varieties, relationships and activities or the choice of accepting a liberation where there is no distinction between knowledge, the knower and the process of knowledge (Sayujya - merging into the absolute) (there is no "I" to even talk of having an experience of liberation)

- which one would you prefer?
These scriptures do not seem to agree with what Krishna says. He describes only one real liberation (the escape from the cycle of birth and rebirth).

"But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, unchanging, fixed and immovable — the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth — by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me" (BG 12.3-4)

According to Krishna even those who worship Brahm can achieve him...

You are all speculating on things that you have not experienced. And speculating as if you know or can know by quoting and analyzing translated texts written by people who may or may not have experienced these things.
I wish their was a Zen master there to hit you all with a stick.

So typical of today's generation, "We can't wait, we want it now".

I never studied what Krishna said. Even the Buddha's texts aren't that accessible to the layman. I prefer the Chinese or Japanese Zen Buddhists, more direct, less religious baggage.

You are all speculating on things that you have not experienced. And speculating as if you know or can know by quoting and analyzing translated texts written by people who may or may not have experienced these things.
I wish their was a Zen master there to hit you all with a stick.

What is an epiphany but a small dosage of enlightenment.

I think you are wrong... slightly.

After the death of a person who has attained nirvana, liberation, or perfection, what happens?
You get all the hos.

You are all speculating on things that you have not experienced. And speculating as if you know or can know by quoting and analyzing translated texts written by people who may or may not have experienced these things.
I wish their was a Zen master there to hit you all with a stick.

I agree and disagree. I agree that speculation is useless, so much more knowledge is gained by simply concentrating on true knowlege rather than speculating...

But I also disagree, these people (Gautama Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, etc...) obviously have experienced these things...

In a way I do see it as seeing 'the code' (the actual truth) and turning into this super-being. No longer do you have to deal with the day-to-day drudgery, if you did, then the point of attaining nirvana is meaningless.


Being attatched to a "code" or the attainment of nirvana is a hindrance to the process. Your still feuling your ego by thinking ur going to accomplish something thats going to make everything better. Accept life is suffering and expect nothing else. When joyous moments come your way enjoy, but grasping too tightly will only drive you in the other direction once the moment flees. I don't think you reach Nirvana and are finally finished. I think u continue on the middle path, staying centered, untill we die and finally enter nirvana. We can't understand what we are like after nirvana because humans always project themeselves in2 any void they percieve. Nirvana is the end of rebirth. The scripture is a guide to get there, but not the actual territory u must traverse.

Being attatched to a "code" or the attainment of nirvana is a hindrance to the process. Your still feuling your ego by thinking ur going to accomplish something thats going to make everything better. Accept life is suffering and expect nothing else. When joyous moments come your way enjoy, but grasping too tightly will only drive you in the other direction once the moment flees. I don't think you reach Nirvana and are finally finished. I think u continue on the middle path, staying centered, untill we die and finally enter nirvana. We can't understand what we are like after nirvana because humans always project themeselves in2 any void they percieve. Nirvana is the end of rebirth. The scripture is a guide to get there, but not the actual territory u must traverse.

In a way I agree, and in another way I disagree. You should detach from all things, but however after attainment of nirvana how can attachment exist?

Also what you talk about, enjoying some moments, and suffering at other moments, this is not the highest perfection, this is not nirvana, this is not the awakening, this is suppression of deep-rooted feelings. Suppression is not the way. The true nirvana, the true attainment, the true awakening is enjoying every infinitismal moment, if you are not truly, on every level enjoying every moment then you haven't achieved the most difficult accomplishment, you are living in suffering....this is what I've found to be true in my own personal search for the truth....

I'm guessing you don't have many spiritual experiences then....your view of spirituality is very different from mine. In the beginning when I first experienced the deepest states of relaxation, I thought that was great, but something still wasn't right, then I experienced the happiness from the brahmarandra (crown chakra), and that was even better, but then I experienced a happiness even greater than all of these, in this state I could even feel that the feeling of from the crown chakra was "not me", hard to explain, but its beyond the greatest feeling

In a way I do see it as seeing 'the code' (the actual truth) and turning into this super-being. No longer do you have to deal with the day-to-day drudgery, if you did, then the point of attaining nirvana is meaningless.
Well i dont want to get into 'my spirituality trumps your spirituality' its not really a competion, as i said its entirely relative to what you choose to take from it.
I mean, post-nirvana you still have to pay the bills and deal with - stomach aches, and heavy traffic. I guess you can learn to approach these things differently and with more serenity. But nirvana in itself (for me at least) doesnt solve the core problem of being human.
Its like if an ant suddely experienced his consciousness beyond that of an ant and become the whole for a brief while - yes it would blow the ant's mind but hed still have to get on with the business of being an ant. :p

=Kuervo Rugama;1345718]Being attatched to a "code" or the attainment of nirvana is a hindrance to the process.

Yep, attainment of nirvana will ultimatley just lead you down another series of blind alleys if you become obsessed with re-experiencing it.

Remember the old fortune cookie saying:

If you have already arrived
You problably never left.

After liberation you become imprisoned again.

Well i dont want to get into 'my spirituality trumps your spirituality' its not really a competion, as i said its entirely relative to what you choose to take from it.
I mean, post-nirvana you still have to pay the bills and deal with - stomach aches, and heavy traffic. I guess you can learn to approach these things differently and with more serenity. But nirvana in itself (for me at least) doesnt solve the core problem of being human.
Its like if an ant suddely experienced his consciousness beyond that of an ant and become the whole for a brief while - yes it would blow the ant's mind but hed still have to get on with the business of being an ant. :p

Well you may still have to pay bills and go through heavy traffic, but it won't feel bad, its difficult to explain until you experience it. You'll be able to freely do whatever you desire, you'll have the real freedom because the source of suffering is gone forever. So you could change all those bad situations easily and instantaneously.....

Also I am not really a fan of serenity, goodness, deep-relaxation and things like that....they're all in the mode of goodness, just another aspect of material energy, eventually I became disgusted by these things, only enjoying the true happiness, not the "suppression hippie deep relaxation lets all pretend we're happy and be good" type of happiness, the one where in reality you really truly are happy.....

Well you may still have to pay bills and go through heavy traffic, but it won't feel bad, its difficult to explain until you experience it. You'll be able to freely do whatever you desire, you'll have the real freedom because the source of suffering is gone forever. So you could change all those bad situations easily and instantaneously.....

hmm are you saying post-nirvana type experience you never get angry/upset/pissedoff/disallusioned?

hmm are you saying post-nirvana type experience you never get angry/upset/pissedoff/disallusioned?

Right...nirvana is the "greatest bliss" as Gautama described it....it is the complete removal of the source of suffering (desperation, craving, attachment), therefore how can you become fearful, angry, upset, doubtful, etc....if the actual cause of all of these things is completely gone?

You will finally be free, free at last, enjoying what you had always been seeking, what you always desired all your life, this is what I call the true purpose of life.....

Unconsciously (or unknowingly) everyone is seeking this freedom, this manifests itself as desires like money for instance, people see money as the solution to all their problems, the freedom from suffering, so they become attracted to it, however in reality the source of suffering has no external cause...after the attainment of money problems will continue to arise, things will go wrong, you will still be able to become angry, fearful, sorrowful, etc....but after the attainment of the highest perfection how can these things exist?

These scriptures do not seem to agree with what Krishna says.

its not an idle isolated reference

SB 3.29.13: A pure devotee does not accept any kind of liberation — sālokya, sārṣṭi, sāmīpya, sārūpya or ekatva — even though they are offered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

SB 9.4.67: My devotees, who are always satisfied to be engaged in My loving service, are not interested even in the four principles of liberation [sālokya, sārūpya, sāmīpya and sārṣṭi] (sanskrit - sālokya-ādi-catuṣṭayam — the four different types of liberation (sālokya, sārūpya, sāmīpya and sārṣṭi, what to speak of sāyujya), although these are automatically achieved by their service. What then is to be said of such perishable happiness as elevation to the higher planetary systems?


He describes only one real liberation (the escape from the cycle of birth and rebirth).
as evidenced above. such a notion of liberation has 5 or at least 4 categories, according to perspective

"But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, unchanging, fixed and immovable — the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth — by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me" (BG 12.3-4)

According to Krishna even those who worship Brahm can achieve him...

the answer lies in the verses that surround the one you quoted, namely

BG 12.1: Arjuna inquired: Which are considered to be more perfect, those who are always properly engaged in Your devotional service or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?

BG 12.2: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Those who fix their minds on My personal form and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith are considered by Me to be most perfect.

and

BG 12.5: For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.

in other words why does krishna declare such a path as more difficult? (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/7/19/en)

Right...nirvana is the "greatest bliss" as Gautama described it....it is the complete removal of the source of suffering (desperation, craving, attachment), therefore how can you become fearful, angry, upset, doubtful, etc....if the actual cause of all of these things is completely gone?

You will finally be free, free at last, enjoying what you had always been seeking, what you always desired all your life, this is what I call the true purpose of life.....

Unconsciously (or unknowingly) everyone is seeking this freedom, this manifests itself as desires like money for instance, people see money as the solution to all their problems, the freedom from suffering, so they become attracted to it, however in reality the source of suffering has no external cause...after the attainment of money problems will continue to arise, things will go wrong, you will still be able to become angry, fearful, sorrowful, etc....but after the attainment of the highest perfection how can these things exist?
Well nirvana is just an altered state of consciousness as i see it, its not really something you have to be 'spirtual' to attain.
Given the correct circumstances anyone can have these types of experiences, they seem to be fundamentally hard-wired into us.
The 'freedom from attainment' aspect of it (if that's your bag) is really more a intergrated life philosophy. Im pretty sure the nirvana experience has never been offered up as an all-in-one solution to lifes problems - although i may be wrong, im not 'that' familiar with buddism really, more taoism.

Do you really just 'never' have a bad thought/bad day atall though? im not trying to infer that you dont, i just find it incredibly suprisingly when people claim that theyre free from all suffering.

yeah apparently nothing atall and your dead thats it. you dont exist.

alot of buddhists believe you get to be in complete heaven, but if your ego is gone and your desires are gone then you wont want anything and you will be void of existence

you wont exist if it all goes!, you wont go to heaven you will be erased.

thats why me and buddhism dont get along because i dont actually want that, i like living and i like the "eternal struggle cycle" wich is actualy quite enjoyable to me . bunch of buddhist pussies trying to escape the universe with there tails between there legs. :)

i talk to quite a few buddhists on a regular basis at the shaolin temple, me and the abbot always have a good old debate about existence, my daoist philosophy always kicks his zen ass, :)

buddhists are cool they are probably the nicest "group/type" of people i have ever come across in this world. but i dont like nirvana i like actualy doing stuff and not bieng non existent, my goal is to convert the abbot so he wont escape and he has to come back and start all over again.

convert a buddhist today! dont let the bastards escape.


:) peace.

its not an idle isolated reference

SB 3.29.13: A pure devotee does not accept any kind of liberation — sālokya, sārṣṭi, sāmīpya, sārūpya or ekatva — even though they are offered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

SB 9.4.67: My devotees, who are always satisfied to be engaged in My loving service, are not interested even in the four principles of liberation [sālokya, sārūpya, sāmīpya and sārṣṭi] (sanskrit - sālokya-ādi-catuṣṭayam — the four different types of liberation (sālokya, sārūpya, sāmīpya and sārṣṭi, what to speak of sāyujya), although these are automatically achieved by their service. What then is to be said of such perishable happiness as elevation to the higher planetary systems?


as evidenced above. such a notion of liberation has 5 or at least 4 categories, according to perspective
I was not aware of these liberations, they are not mentioned in the BG, or in really any other places, but you are right, devotees will not be interested in these, doesn't really change anything though....

This kind of reminds me of early Buddhist schools who claim that through devotion and other means you can achieve pure eternal abodes, and from their achieve nirvana..


the answer lies in the verses that surround the one you quoted, namely

BG 12.1: Arjuna inquired: Which are considered to be more perfect, those who are always properly engaged in Your devotional service or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?

BG 12.2: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Those who fix their minds on My personal form and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith are considered by Me to be most perfect.

and

BG 12.5: For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.

in other words why does krishna declare such a path as more difficult? (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/7/19/en)
Right but the point is that achieving Krishna's nature is still possible by other means besides devotion, Krishna considers devotion to be the best way...


Well nirvana is just an altered state of consciousness as i see it, its not really something you have to be 'spirtual' to attain.
Given the correct circumstances anyone can have these types of experiences, they seem to be fundamentally hard-wired into us.
The 'freedom from attainment' aspect of it (if that's your bag) is really more a intergrated life philosophy. Im pretty sure the nirvana experience has never been offered up as an all-in-one solution to lifes problems - although i may be wrong, im not 'that' familiar with buddism really, more taoism.

Do you really just 'never' have a bad thought/bad day atall though? im not trying to infer that you dont, i just find it incredibly suprisingly when people claim that theyre free from all suffering.
I haven't gone a day without having negative thoughts, however I have experienced that different true happiness, difficult to describe.....

yeah apparently nothing atall and your dead thats it. you dont exist.

thats why me and buddhism dont get along because i dont actually want that, i like living and i like the "eternal struggle cycle" wich is actualy quite enjoyable to me . bunch of buddhist pussies trying to escape the universe with there tails between there legs. :)

i talk to quite a few buddhists on a regular basis at the shaolin temple, me and the abbot always have a good old debate about existence, my daoist philosophy always kicks his zen ass, :)

buddhists are cool they are probably the nicest "group/type" of people i have ever come across in this world. but i dont like nirvana i like actualy doing stuff and not bieng non existent, my goal is to convert the abbot so he wont escape and he has to come back and start all over again.

convert a buddhist today! dont let the bastards escape.

:) peace.
But this contradicts the views of Gautama Buddha and others...they do not describe it as the void...which is just like deep sleep, rather they describe it as an experience outside of all concievable experience....I am guessing it is like infinity itself...

to stop suffering you have to accept death and be happy about pain, and realise it will happen to everyone, we all feel pain,

basically be happy for everything and stop caring about anything bad, you will suffer if you care about badness,

if you see everything as good you will never suffer, but you will feel pain still, but you have to love the pain, and embrace it, if you never want to suffer again you have to view everything as good and part of the world, realise everything happens and you cant stop certain things,

acceptance is key.



haha,

peace.

But this contradicts the views of Gautama Buddha and others...they do not describe it as the void...which is just like deep sleep, rather they describe it as an experience outside of all concievable experience....I am guessing it is like infinity itself...

exactly.

i used to follow buddhism too, they say that nirvana is reached and you are void of your ego,

so if your ego is gone, then you do not desire anymore like you used to, without desire combined with ultimate power and your own reality you will cease to exist due to your own power creating your non existence, as you have no desire or ego,

think about it,

peace.

exactly.

i used to follow buddhism too, they say that nirvana is reached and you are void of your ego,

so if your ego is gone, then you do not desire anymore like you used to, without desire combined with ultimate power and your own reality you will cease to exist due to your own power creating your non existence, as you have no desire or ego,

think about it,

peace.
Nah I disagree, from personal experience the highest happiness (nirvana) is far beyond the simple void of deep relaxation....what happens must be some type of infinite experience...but for now we can only speculate...

But for people who worship emptiness, the void, they will attain just that, the void, deep sleep, not the highest happiness

I don't really like that term ego, from my personal experience there really is no ego, there is only impulses that compel you to think and act in certain ways, when you destroy these defiling impulses then you become "egoless" but there was no ego in the beginning at all, just impulses...

you sound like the damn abbot, thats it im getting my buddhist whacking stick out,

:) see when you rid yourself of selfishness, and you become totaly selfless, you lose your desire to want happyness for yourself, when you have totaly extinguished your earthly urges for pleasure, you no longer desire this magical heaven like existence and are totally at ease with not existing atall, because you have become perfect in every way, you no longer need to attatch yourself with the emotion of happyness, so therefore no longer need to fulfill your desire to have everything you ever wanted,


peace.

I was not aware of these liberations, they are not mentioned in the BG, or in really any other places,
they are mentioned in various puranas - the Bg is an overview of vedic knowledge, not a detailed reference to every detail

but you are right, devotees will not be interested in these,
a devotee is not interested in sālokya, which is the concept of liberation for the buddhist/impersonalist

doesn't really change anything though....
depends on whether you are interested in having a conscious sense of self or not in a liberated state - which is after all the OP for this thread



Right but the point is that achieving Krishna's nature is still possible by other means besides devotion, Krishna considers devotion to be the best way...
in regards to krishna's nature

BG 18.55: One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of Me by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.

what someone is understanding by salokya is eternity (sat), as opposed to eternity(sat), knowledge(cit) and bliss(ananda), since salokya liberation is bereft of any element of consciousness

you sound like the damn abbot, thats it im getting my buddhist whacking stick out,

:) see when you rid yourself of selfishness, and you become totaly selfless, you lose your desire to want happyness for yourself, when you have totaly extinguished your earthly urges for pleasure, you no longer desire this magical heaven like existence and are totally at ease with not existing atall, because you have become perfect in every way, you no longer need to attatch yourself with the emotion of happyness, so therefore no longer need to fulfill your desire to have everything you ever wanted,


peace.

So it is good to judge desire as bad.
Why can't buddhist be direct and honest about their dualism?

you sound like the damn abbot, thats it im getting my buddhist whacking stick out,

:) see when you rid yourself of selfishness, and you become totaly selfless, you lose your desire to want happyness for yourself, when you have totaly extinguished your earthly urges for pleasure, you no longer desire this magical heaven like existence and are totally at ease with not existing atall, because you have become perfect in every way, you no longer need to attatch yourself with the emotion of happyness, so therefore no longer need to fulfill your desire to have everything you ever wanted,


peace.
Do you base this on personal experience or what you speculate? Because I base what I'm saying on personal experience...the highest happiness is great...whats the point of life without happiness? You can speculate and do all types of things if you derive no happiness it is useless....Buddhists advocates say desire is the cause of suffering, but its not, its craving, like Gautama says...

Do you base this on personal experience or what you speculate? Because I base what I'm saying on personal experience...the highest happiness is great...whats the point of life without happiness? You can speculate and do all types of things if you derive no happiness it is useless....Buddhists advocates say desire is the cause of suffering, but its not, its craving, like Gautama says...

Desire may not cause visible suffering. But simply a motivation bringing something towards one's self, or towards one's cause will take it away from somewhere else. If one has no desire, then one is satisfied with what comes about naturally. It is not a loss of happiness, rather it is eternal happiness because you are satisfied with everything around you that comes unbeckoned. And so you are happy and you do not cause suffering for your happiness.

Craving is not seperate from desire, it is just a stronger manifestation of it. Because it is stronger, it weakens the conscious justification for that desire. So the person does not appreciate the object of desire as much.

Desire may not cause visible suffering. But simply a motivation bringing something towards one's self, or towards one's cause will take it away from somewhere else. If one has no desire, then one is satisfied with what comes about naturally. It is not a loss of happiness, rather it is eternal happiness because you are satisfied with everything around you that comes unbeckoned. And so you are happy and you do not cause suffering for your happiness.

Craving is not seperate from desire, it is just a stronger manifestation of it. Because it is stronger, it weakens the conscious justification for that desire. So the person does not appreciate the object of desire as much.
This isn't true. To be desireless is to be like the void, you have no motivation, no emotion, no high-energy, no sense of fulfillment, no true happiness, but you do have peace, great peace....but not happiness...the feeling is exactly like deep sleep

Now the highest happiness, you have high-energy, a sense of fulfillment, and true happiness, plus you also do not experience any forms of suffering, this is nirvana, this is the highest perfection. Again I base this off personal experiences.

As Gautama Buddha says:
"I never see what has been done; I only see what remains to be done."

Indicating that he had the highest happiness, as well as high-energy, fulfillment, etc...

Craving is the cause of suffering. Desire is nothing more than a good thought, think of all the times you suffered, it was because of craving, desperation, attachment, etc...not because of hopes, dreams, and other good thoughts...teaching people to suppress these things does not lead to happiness

But if you insist upon giving up all your hopes, dreams, and good thoughts, go ahead and see if you derive happiness from it...

In my interpretation, desire is an image of the future. When we indulge in desires, we necessarily ignore the present. An unhealthy attachment to these future images, and their disconnect with the present situation can cause suffering. I think it's possible to live entirely in the present and still be energetic and happy. When we are no longer attached to our desires, we can indulge in thoughts of the future that deal with planning and motivation with no ill effects.

In my interpretation, desire is an image of the future. When we indulge in desires, we necessarily ignore the present. An unhealthy attachment to these future images, and their disconnect with the present situation can cause suffering. I think it's possible to live entirely in the present and still be energetic and happy. When we are no longer attached to our desires, we can indulge in thoughts of the future that deal with planning and motivation with no ill effects.
I agree with this completely, you should always remain unattached, but you shouldn't suppress your deep-rooted emotions, this causes unhappiness, you can still have desires and be non-attached

they are mentioned in various puranas - the Bg is an overview of vedic knowledge, not a detailed reference to every detail

a devotee is not interested in sālokya, which is the concept of liberation for the buddhist/impersonalist

depends on whether you are interested in having a conscious sense of self or not in a liberated state - which is after all the OP for this thread



in regards to krishna's nature
Thanks for pointing this out I didn't know about this


BG 18.55: One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of Me by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.

what someone is understanding by salokya is eternity (sat), as opposed to eternity(sat), knowledge(cit) and bliss(ananda), since salokya liberation is bereft of any element of consciousness
But the translation is spurious, the word 'only' isn't there anywhere

bhaktyā — by pure devotional service; mām — Me; abhijānāti — one can know; yāvān — as much as; yaḥ ca asmi — as I am; tattvataḥ — in truth; tataḥ — thereafter; mām — Me; tattvataḥ — in truth; jñātvā — knowing; viśate — he enters; tat-anantaram — thereafter

While Krishna certainly prefers devotion over all methods, he also mentions knowledge (as well as karma yoga, dhyana yoga, etc...):
"By becoming fixed in this knowledge, one can attain to the transcendental nature like My own. Thus established, one is not born at the time of creation or disturbed at the time of dissolution" (BG 14.2)

"All these devotees are undoubtedly magnanimous souls, but he who is situated in knowledge of Me I consider to be just like My own self. Being engaged in My transcendental service, he is sure to attain Me, the highest and most perfect goal" (BG 7.18)

As for Supreme Lord, he is unknowable, like Brahman, but the origin of Brahm, the origin of the unborn...

This isn't true.

How do you know?

Craving is the cause of suffering. Desire is nothing more than a good thought, think of all the times you suffered, it was because of craving, desperation, attachment, etc...not because of hopes, dreams, and other good thoughts...teaching people to suppress these things does not lead to happiness

But if you insist upon giving up all your hopes, dreams, and good thoughts, go ahead and see if you derive happiness from it...

Yes, think of all the times you suffered. You suffered because you desired something else. You desired a different experience that gives you happiness.

I am not saying that to reach nirvana you must give up your hopes and dreams. I am saying that when you do reach nirvana, your hopes and dreams will not be yours--they will be inherent in the being of all things collectively. To have individual hopes and dreams is to take something from something else for your own individual benefit over other things and people.

Yes, think of all the times you suffered. You suffered because you desired something else. You desired a different experience that gives you happiness.

I am not saying that to reach nirvana you must give up your hopes and dreams. I am saying that when you do reach nirvana, your hopes and dreams will not be yours--they will be inherent in the being of all things collectively. To have individual hopes and dreams is to take something from something else for your own individual benefit over other things and people.
What you're describing completely agrees with what i said, the source of suffering is craving, you reason you suffer is because "you desired a different experience" in other words you had craving caused by insecurities and impulses.....

The suffering is not because you had hopes, dreams, good thoughts, its because of the defiling impulse, the insecurity, the craving, the desperation, there's a big difference.....all suffering is caused by varying degrees of these defiling impulses...

So it is good to judge desire as bad.
Why can't buddhist be direct and honest about their dualism?


i wouldent say desire is bad or good, it depends on your opinion of good and bad i guess its subjective,

i cannot answer the second question you should ask a buddhist for a direct answer to that one maybe? i dont know i prefer to hit them with bamboo sticks.


peace.

Do you base this on personal experience or what you speculate? Because I base what I'm saying on personal experience...the highest happiness is great...whats the point of life without happiness? You can speculate and do all types of things if you derive no happiness it is useless....Buddhists advocates say desire is the cause of suffering, but its not, its craving, like Gautama says...

i base this on what buddhists say, none of this is my personal opinion really, i guess you could call it personal experience within debates between me and other buddhists.

i study/practice shaolin gong fu at a temple wich has alot of buddhist monks there (not just shaolin zen buddhist but other types also) and certain monks say to me that if you reach nirvana then your ego and selfish desires would already be ridden, and you will have powers and your paradise etc,

so in return i say to them, so if i have no ego or desire for selfish wants then i wouldent want anything atall and i would cause myself to be non existent.

without pain you cannot know pleasure, without sad you cannot know happyness, without evil you cannot know good, just as the dao versus read, each comes from the other and depends on the other. without one the other will not exist.



peace.

But the translation is spurious, the word 'only' isn't there anywhere

bhaktyā — by pure devotional service; mām — Me; abhijānāti — one can know; yāvān — as much as; yaḥ ca asmi — as I am; tattvataḥ — in truth; tataḥ — thereafter; mām — Me; tattvataḥ — in truth; jñātvā — knowing; viśate — he enters; tat-anantaram — thereafter
the word tattvatah is repeated twice
perhaps you would have a case if you could produce a verse that explicitly states how krishna can be known through brahman (since there are numeorus statements that declare brahman can be known through krishna)

While Krishna certainly prefers devotion over all methods, he also mentions knowledge (as well as karma yoga, dhyana yoga, etc...):
and these descriptions of different yoga conclude in the devotional aspect

eg

BG 6.47: And of all yogīs, the one with great faith who always abides in Me, thinks of Me within himself, and renders transcendental loving service to Me — he is the most intimately united with Me in yoga and is the highest of all. That is My opinion.

BG 5.29: A person in full consciousness of Me, knowing Me to be the ultimate beneficiary of all sacrifices and austerities, the Supreme Lord of all planets and demigods, and the benefactor and well-wisher of all living entities, attains peace from the pangs of material miseries.


"By becoming fixed in this knowledge, one can attain to the transcendental nature like My own. Thus established, one is not born at the time of creation or disturbed at the time of dissolution" (BG 14.2)
this verse is an intro to the subject of the three gunas, but even the next verse establishes that krishna is the source of brahman

BG 14.3: The total material substance, called Brahman, is the source of birth, and it is that Brahman that I impregnate, making possible the births of all living beings, O son of Bharata.

also confirmed in Mundaka Upanisad (3.1.3)

“One who sees that golden-colored Personality of Godhead, the Supreme Lord, the supreme actor, who is the source of the Supreme Brahman, is liberated.”

(the sanskrit is brahma-yonim - source of brahman)

"All these devotees are undoubtedly magnanimous souls,

meaning as previously established
BG 7.16: O best among the Bhāratas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me — the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute.

all 4 of these devotees are great souls

but he who is situated in knowledge of Me I consider to be just like My own self.

meaning one who fulfills the criteria of the previous verse

BG 7.17: Of these, the one who is in full knowledge and who is always engaged in pure devotional service is the best. For I am very dear to him, and he is dear to Me.

is considered to be situated in full knowledge

Being engaged in My transcendental service, he is sure to attain Me, the highest and most perfect goal" (BG 7.18)
confirms the path of bhakti

As for Supreme Lord, he is unknowable, like Brahman, but the origin of Brahm, the origin of the unborn...
the reason that brahman is considered difficult for one who is embodied

BG 12.5: For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.

is that brahman is not knowable - it involves only the element of eternity (knowledge, the process of knowledge and the knower are homogenized in brahman - try and understand that :eek: )

paramatma realization (seeing god in the heart of all living entities)involves eternity and knowledge (the knowledge element is knowing the distinction between the consciousness of god an d the consciousness of the living entity, even though both consciousnesses are eternal)

bhagavan realization involves the added element of ananda or happiness, since eternity and knowledge ar ethere with the added element of service, or loving reciprocation between god and the living entity bereft of the dysfunctionalism of ignorance (associated with material consciousness)

all three, bhagavan, paramatma and brahman , are nondualistic aspects of the absolute - much like the sun disc in the sky, and the diffusion of sunlight are the inseparable qualities of the sun

What you're describing completely agrees with what i said, the source of suffering is craving, you reason you suffer is because "you desired a different experience" in other words you had craving caused by insecurities and impulses.....

The suffering is not because you had hopes, dreams, good thoughts, its because of the defiling impulse, the insecurity, the craving, the desperation, there's a big difference.....all suffering is caused by varying degrees of these defiling impulses...

craving is desire. All I am saying is that desire causes suffering, maybe not in yourself, but somewhere. If you lose your ego, then you lose your desire and you let things come to you. You allow your body to need things, which you may find. But your mind is content with whatever happens to come.

Also, not all suffering is from a 'defiling impules'. A lot of it is because of a lack of, or a desire or craving for something.

"What happens after nirvana, liberation, perfection?"

Inherent in the question is the error of the concept of 'after'.

The 'understanding' within the 'states' mentioned includes understanding of the 'illusory' nature of 'time', like all of 'perceived existence'..
So, there is only 'after' in the delusional dream of life of those that have not (yet?) 'awakened' .

It is the 'after' comment/concept, though, that allows for the mind to roam and play (or appear to do so, though it is just 'memory'). But it does obfuscate and obscure any real 'meaning' to the question.

Meister Eckhart;-

"I say that next to God there is no nobler thing than suffering. Right suffering is the mother of all virtues, for right suffering so subdues the heart, it cannot rise to pride but perforce is lowly."
(Suffering being the endurance of 'pain')

Meister Eckhart;-

"I say that next to God there is no nobler thing than suffering. Right suffering is the mother of all virtues, for right suffering so subdues the heart, it cannot rise to pride but perforce is lowly."
(Suffering being the endurance of 'pain')

I disagree, suffering is the root of all evil, if there was no suffering there would be nothing wrong in the world, life would be enjoyable....but the only way to actually escape suffering is to attain nirvana...other methods are only temporary solutions...

Your disagreement is noted.
Peace

I disagree, suffering is the root of all evil, if there was no suffering there would be nothing wrong in the world, life would be enjoyable..
'Wrong'??? According to what 'standard' do you 'judge'?
Shallow words at best..
Suffering is, as I have said, the endurance of pain. That IS life. Suffering ends with the end of life.

..but the only way to actually escape suffering is to attain nirvana...other methods are only temporary solutions...
So, do you speak from 'personal experience', 'imaginative fantasy' or a 'belief infection'?

'
Suffering is, as I have said, the endurance of pain. That IS life. Suffering ends with the end of life.

to this one could easily say .....

So, do you speak from 'personal experience', 'imaginative fantasy' or a 'belief infection'?

raises the issue on what authority do we begin a discussion on the end of life/liberation/salvation etc

'Wrong'??? According to what 'standard' do you 'judge'?
Shallow words at best..
Suffering is, as I have said, the endurance of pain. That IS life. Suffering ends with the end of life.


So, do you speak from 'personal experience', 'imaginative fantasy' or a 'belief infection'?

I speak purely from personal experience...suffering is horrible I don't know why people just give up and say I'll just have to deal with it when they can change things....although at some point I was just like that too until I experienced how non-suffering is....according to psychology whether you realize or not you unconsciously desire happiness, and end to all suffering...

Suffering is the cause of all action.

Suffering is the cause of all action.
Thats not true speaking from personal experience when you experience the greatest happiness, the highest joy you feel like taking action (as Gautama Buddha said), you feel like changing everything for the better......

you feel like changing everything for the better......

If you feel like changing it for the better then that means you are suffering a worse environment than you would be happy with; you crave for there to be specific change.

If you feel like changing it for the better then that means you are suffering a worse environment than you would be happy with; you crave for there to be specific change.

It is not craving, it is not desperation, it a good thought, a good feeling, there's a very clear difference. However I will agree that deep-relaxation causes what you're talking about. You feel like nothingness a very useless void. But for people who achieved the actual highest form of freedom, power, and bliss, its just like Gautama Buddha says:
"I never see what has been done; I only see what remains to be done"

Ill try to help you.

Since you asked, why do you think it matters what happens after nirvana?

---
If you understand "it", all things are One;
if you do not, they are different and seperate.
If you do not understand "it", all things are One;
if you do, they are different and seperate.

You feel like nothingness a very useless void.
I was not talking of a "useless void". If that is what you imagine, then we are talking of different experiences. What I am talking about is knowing the path of everything and in doing so, you don't need to exact your own will, because your will is the same as everything around you. It is the opposite of void and the opposite of useless. You feel everything and help everything.

to this one could easily say .....

So, do you speak from 'personal experience', 'imaginative fantasy' or a 'belief infection'?
It is easy to say anything. That doesn't give the silly wordplay any meaning. Shall we accept that I speak from experience, both 'personal' and and the 'personal' of others. Join the experiment if you like. If you have never felt pain in your life, and if allowed to continue, will feel none (all highly unlikely) than you will still be the anomaly. This is simple stuff, really.. (silly word games aside..)

raises the issue on what authority do we begin a discussion on the end of life/liberation/salvation etc
The authority of all available evidence that can and has been garnered on the subject, available for critical evaluation.

I speak of 'end' knowing that there is no 'sequence' or 'end'. I speak in common parlance and 'meanings' for ease of understanding.
And I speak from experience.
Happy? Understand? Not too difficult either.

Do you have a point?

I speak purely from personal experience...suffering is horrible I don't know why people just give up and say I'll just have to deal with it when they can change things....although at some point I was just like that too until I experienced how non-suffering is....according to psychology whether you realize or not you unconsciously desire happiness, and end to all suffering...
Psychology be damned! Useless..
We seem to have different definitions of 'suffering'. Otherwise you couldn't have stated that you 'experienced how non-suffering is' (unless you just meant a 'moment' without pain .. and age counts here..)
The definition I use is that 'suffering=the endurance of pain' (for however long a period).

If pain weren't of value, evolution would have weeded it out a long time ago, not enhanced our receptive capabilities. Personal comfort seems a rather shallow perspective for validating anything other than 'personal comfort' (from which springs people's concepts of 'right', 'wrong', 'evil', 'good, 'bad'.. etc.. all related to one's comfort.. again, seems shallow..)

Well.. getting rapidly bored with the subject..so..
Peace

VitalOne said; ...desire happiness, and end to all suffering...

Bye the bye.. suffering (pain) does not necessarily, again, preclude 'happiness'. They are not inextricably linked, nor necessary 'context' for definition.

If you feel like changing it for the better then that means you are suffering a worse environment than you would be happy with; you crave for there to be specific change.
Exactly! 'Judgemental prideful dissatisfaction with what 'is' leads to the 'suffering' of unhappiness!
Damn 'pride' again!
Spot on!

Nameless“


Originally Posted by lightgigantic
to this one could easily say .....

So, do you speak from 'personal experience', 'imaginative fantasy' or a 'belief infection'?
”
It is easy to say anything. That doesn't give the silly wordplay any meaning. Shall we accept that I speak from experience, both 'personal' and and the 'personal' of others. Join the experiment if you like. If you have never felt pain in your life, and if allowed to continue, will feel none (all highly unlikely) than you will still be the anomaly. This is simple stuff, really.. (silly word games aside..)

the thread is discussing the notion of activities after liberation - obviously a discussion on what we have suffered in our material experience is not the right authority to begin such a discussion (unless you are trying to decry the very notion of liberation)
“
raises the issue on what authority do we begin a discussion on the end of life/liberation/salvation etc
”
The authority of all available evidence that can and has been garnered on the subject, available for critical evaluation.
is personal experience of pain such an authority?
of course pain and suffering may lead to an inquiry about the nature of liberation, but to say that the end of suffering is the end of life is a bit out to field, since you are not at the end of life (and probably not at the end of suffering either)

I speak of 'end' knowing that there is no 'sequence' or 'end'. I speak in common parlance and 'meanings' for ease of understanding.
And I speak from experience.
Happy? Understand? Not too difficult either.

Do you have a point?
my point is that such experiences, while valid to the degree that they shape our determination in this world (after all, what else would we call on) are not sufficient to determine the nature of life after liberation, simply because our experience is not even at the point of liberation (what to speak of the point after liberation)

So can the subject be discussed in relation to one's experiences?
yes, but our experiences in relation to personalities (eg saintly persons) and statements (eg scriptures) deemed credible in the field

Psychology be damned! Useless..
We seem to have different definitions of 'suffering'. Otherwise you couldn't have stated that you 'experienced how non-suffering is' (unless you just meant a 'moment' without pain .. and age counts here..)
The definition I use is that 'suffering=the endurance of pain' (for however long a period).

If pain weren't of value, evolution would have weeded it out a long time ago, not enhanced our receptive capabilities. Personal comfort seems a rather shallow perspective for validating anything other than 'personal comfort' (from which springs people's concepts of 'right', 'wrong', 'evil', 'good, 'bad'.. etc.. all related to one's comfort.. again, seems shallow..)

Well.. getting rapidly bored with the subject..so..
Peace
Suffering is anything contrary to the highest point of happiness which consists of high-energy, a sense of fulfillment, and inner joy....

I still don't understand why you would want pain...this type of ignorance is what causes more suffering in the world......

See that boredom you experience, it is suffering stemming from a defiling impulse, an insecurity, it only exists as that....

Suffering is anything contrary to the highest point of happiness which consists of high-energy, a sense of fulfillment, and inner joy....
According to your own personal subjective understanding and definition.. Ok..
On the other hand, 'you' understanding and 'definition' does not in any way constrain or alter 'my' personal experience nor my understanding, from 'this' perspective. I already gave the definitions that I accept when using the word 'suffering'. In that light, my words are clear.

I still don't understand why you would want pain..
Please show me where I mentioned that 'I want pain', or anything else, for that matter? Perhaps if you just read and tried to understand what I actually write instead of attempting to interpret, with me right here... Just ask my intended meaning if unclear. That is how communication is achieved..

.this type of ignorance is what causes more suffering in the world.....
*Sigh* (no response)

I feel that we will continue to experience a failure to communicate as long as you think you 'know' what I mean by your personal interpretation rather than caring enough to inquire. I'm here to tell you that, actually, despite what you may think that you know of my 'words and intent', you don't. If you'd like to understand my intent and meaning, just ask for elucidation. If not, assumptions are a waste..
K?
Peace...

See that boredom you experience, it is suffering stemming from a defiling impulse, an insecurity, it only exists as that....
Nonsense... pure trash.. hahahaha..
I already told you that I do not adhere to your personal definition of 'suffering'. So, there is no application, here...
You spend way too much time thinking you know anything of 'me' or anyone else, while looking (in the mirror) through your own 'dark lens' of 'self' (false ego) and imagining any application to anyone 'else'..
All you can see is YOU!
That 'boredom' comment was just a figure of speech indicating a lack of interest in pursuing a rather obvious (to me, anyway) and superficial topic, with 'people' unwilling or unable to understand the basic concepts that I can use.. a waste of time.. ok?
Lighten up a bit..
Breathe...
Peace..

..raises the issue on what authority do we begin a discussion on the end of life/liberation/salvation etc
My resp;
The authority of all available evidence that can and has been garnered on the subject, available for critical evaluation, and personal experience. ”

is personal experience of pain such an authority?
On 'pain', yes.

of course pain and suffering may lead to an inquiry about the nature of liberation, but to say that the end of suffering is the end of life is a bit out to field
Not at all. I have already defined 'suffering'. It is not 'pain AND suffering' it is 'pain IS suffering'! Suffering is the 'endurance of pain'. Full stop! End of definition. This is my intended meaning when using the word 'suffering'. Like it or not, THAT is my intended definition when I use the word. Is it that difficult a concept? It is in the dictionary among the other definitions.. Whats the problem?
There remains absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is anything 'going on' after death, much less the 'living' mental perceptions and conceptions of 'pain/suffering'!

my point is that such experiences, while valid to the degree that they shape our determination in this world (after all, what else would we call on) are not sufficient to determine the nature of life after liberation, simply because our experience is not even at the point of liberation (what to speak of the point after liberation)
Our?
I speak from the 'perspective' of 'liberation/enlightenment/innocence/' whatever.. from experience.
I too can experience the 'linear communal illusion' of 'life'. And from that 'perspective' there is nothing different 'after' liberation/etc..'
Ok?
My words are experientially valid as I am Here, no idle speculation, no 'perhaps'..
Ok?
My experience is that the only difference, is not the beautiful unfolding nature of our illusions of 'life', but in 'access to' 'Consciousness', which (ineffably) cannot be 'discussed' but 'experienced'..

So can the subject be discussed in relation to one's experiences?
Only if actually experienced and validated.

yes, but our experiences in relation to personalities (eg saintly persons) and statements (eg scriptures) deemed credible in the field
Some are a bit more and some a bit less rigorous in finding support for the validity of experience. A 'belief virus' will accept anything and twist what it must to 'justify' the 'belief'. Science and logic and experiment validate and support. Emotions need to 'justify'. Agendas..

Nameless

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
..raises the issue on what authority do we begin a discussion on the end of life/liberation/salvation etc
”
My resp;
The authority of all available evidence that can and has been garnered on the subject,
ok

available for critical evaluation,
ok

and personal experience. ”
if a person is not liberated, what value is their expression on the nature of life after liberation?

“
is personal experience of pain such an authority?
”
On 'pain', yes.
how about liberation?

“
of course pain and suffering may lead to an inquiry about the nature of liberation, but to say that the end of suffering is the end of life is a bit out to field
”
Not at all. I have already defined 'suffering'. It is not 'pain AND suffering' it is 'pain IS suffering'! Suffering is the 'endurance of pain'. Full stop! End of definition.
and how does that define or qualify one for determining the nature of existence after liberation (assuming that you are working with the definition of liberation as that state that id liberated from pain/suffering ... otherwise what is it liberating us from?)

This is my intended meaning when using the word 'suffering'. Like it or not, THAT is my intended definition when I use the word.
I don't see any problem with your definition of suffering ... my inquiry was more into the liberation side of things, particularly in regards to your statement that the end of life is the end of suffering

Is it that difficult a concept? It is in the dictionary among the other definitions.. Whats the problem?
once again, no problem with your definition of suffering/pain


There remains absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is anything 'going on' after death, much less the 'living' mental perceptions and conceptions of 'pain/suffering'!
there remains no evidence for many things, like for instance that entity we call "the mind" is not evidenced (by empiricism - I assume that is what you mean by the word "evidence") either - but perhaps this is all a bit off topic since the thread deals specifically with the question of what happens after liberation, which assumes this body is not all in all to existence

“
my point is that such experiences, while valid to the degree that they shape our determination in this world (after all, what else would we call on) are not sufficient to determine the nature of life after liberation, simply because our experience is not even at the point of liberation (what to speak of the point after liberation)
”
Our?
I speak from the 'perspective' of 'liberation/enlightenment/innocence/' whatever.. from experience.
how can there be experience of liberation in the presence of suffering?


I too can experience the 'linear communal illusion' of 'life'.
I have no idea what that is, much less whether I or others also have experienced it

And from that 'perspective' there is nothing different 'after' liberation/etc..'
Ok?
I think you have to clear up what the linear communal illusion of life is

My words are experientially valid as I am Here, no idle speculation, no 'perhaps'..
I don't doubt that - but the question is are your experiences valid enough to determine the nature of life after liberation while your experiences involve suffering/pain?

Ok?
My experience is that the only difference, is not the beautiful unfolding nature of our illusions of 'life', but in 'access to' 'Consciousness', which (ineffably) cannot be 'discussed' but 'experienced'..
if that consciousness involves pain/suffering, how can it be liberated?


“
yes, but our experiences in relation to personalities (eg saintly persons) and statements (eg scriptures) deemed credible in the field
”
Some are a bit more and some a bit less rigorous in finding support for the validity of experience. A 'belief virus' will accept anything and twist what it must to 'justify' the 'belief'. Science and logic and experiment validate and support. Emotions need to 'justify'. Agendas..
which is why I originally opened with attention to whether your statement that the end of suffering is the end of life is a belief virus since by logic and science you are at the end of neither life nor suffering

Boy, you guys are brainy. Or sober. I can't quite decide which is worse.

Also, if by "nirvana" you mean "poop", as I suspect: Both liberation and perfection.

You are welcome.

if a person is not liberated, what value is their expression on the nature of life after liberation?
Of no more 'value' than their opinion of the nature of liberation.
Are you asking me a 'personal' question, somewhere, here?

how about liberation?
Of course. Inquire as you like.

and how does that define or qualify one for determining the nature of existence after liberation (assuming that you are working with the definition of liberation as that state that id liberated from pain/suffering ... otherwise what is it liberating us from?)
I have no truck with your 'definition'.
Classic 'definition' is an experiential 'understanding'/experience of the One.. 'Enlightenment/liberation' is a state of 'grace', 'innocence', 'born again' (regained state of 'innocence'), 'enlightenment', One with Tao, 'Dharma', 'Void'.. all the metaphors.. 'no person' to experience the One.. blah.. you just gotta be Here..
*__-
'It' just is non transferrable on an internet post, or otherwise! Just gotta pay the dues.
I can answer your questions with words, and whether they fall off the monitor onto the floor, or you reverse engineer this wisdom into a liquor that you can sip and enjoy, or throw them back into my face like beavers flinging feces into the sun, or whatever.. makes no real difference..

I don't see any problem with your definition of suffering ... my inquiry was more into the liberation side of things, particularly in regards to your statement that the end of life is the end of suffering
People 'seek' liberation from their unhappiness, whatever the 'cause'. People that 'seek liberation', seek liberation from 'ignorance', from 'delusion'. It is 'delusion/ignorance' (false ego) that 'attaches' to the pain of existence (which, ultimately, is nothing more than a 'memory program') thereby causing 'unhappiness', which is what one really is trying to escape. Pain is just another tray on the buffet of human feelings. No different than joy, sad, grief, etc..

All these 'feelings' are co-arising with/within the phenomenon of a 'living human being'. While there is life, there is evidence of these 'feelings' With the cessation of what appears as 'life', all 'signs of life, including 'feelings' disappear with that appearance of life.
All evidence is that 'pain', a 'feeling', dies along with the biological organs that biologically 'give rise' to those 'feelings'. Feelings are no more than 'feelings', biologically produced in the hypothalamus.. short chain proteins.. peptides..
No living brain=no living hypothalamus=no living peptides=no 'feelings'=no 'pain'=no endurance of pain=no 'suffering after 'death'.
So there!
*__-
And if you still do not understand this simple point that I am making, you really don't want to understand (even though you are under no obligation to accept), or are nursing a 'belief virus' that will not allow 'conflicting info' into it's area of infestation..

once again, no problem with your definition of suffering/pain
Well, there you go and there you are! heheh


there remains no evidence for many things, like for instance that entity we call "the mind" is not evidenced (by empiricism - I assume that is what you mean by the word "evidence") either - but perhaps this is all a bit off topic
We can discuss this elsewhere/elsewhen as I 'see things a bit differently', which is where much, if not all, of this 'value' seems to lie..
If there is 'thought', there is your evidence of 'mind'.
The 'thought' is a 'lie', not 'real', and the 'concept of mind' is equally unreal illusion. Not 'mind', but 'memory'. Apparent continuity of 'memory' is imagined as 'thought'. It isn't, but it is the source of all delusion and unhappiness. Liberation frees you from this delusion.

since the thread deals specifically with the question of what happens after liberation, which assumes this body is not all in all to existence
*Flips all pages to end of book and displays the punchline*
Who are 'you'?
You are existence. If you draw and accept some arbitrary notion of 'seperation', perhaps you can imagine that, seperated from all existence, now (your true nature) you can be a 'galaxy'. Sweet, the 'perspective' of a galaxy! The patience! The drama! A few more false and arbitrary 'definitions/contextual definitions/boundaries' and you can be a planet, or a tree, or .. little and afraid and isolated us, trembling in the severe shadows created by our 'creation of things' with the 'belief virus taking us deeper and deeper into the deluision that we tearfully and pridefully tout as 'reality'!
No, that 'body' is not all to 'you', but that 'liberating' experience/understanding has to 'arise' from within. Otherwise, it is just intellectual detritus, meaningless until 'actualized' as experience, and THEN! all this bullshit seems to take on some sort ****Woah!!*** effect!
And it is a case of, I knew it all along! (go figure) Just came to 'Consciousness' Now!


how can there be experience of liberation in the presence of suffering?
No 'how'.
It 'happens'!
We do.
It is.
What is, is. Etc..
All appearance of 'liberation' happens within the appearance of 'life', in which, there is, inherently, the appearance of 'pain/suffering'. The nice thing about still riding that wheel, is that whatever pain that you experience, will (appear to) pass, and give way to a new ride for a few moments... And the wheel keeps turning.. (which is why one is wisely advised to not attach to that wheel of Maya/illusion).

I think you have to clear up what the linear communal illusion of life is
K.
I'm not sure what terms you are unfamiliar with.
Some moments of that which we perceive as 'life' are perceived in a 'linear fashion', one 'following' the next. That is a 'trick' of the mind/memory.
Rob't Anton Wilson likes to say that;
"The universe is a (simultaneous) non-simultaneously apprehended event." (Linear, temporally perceived)
Communal in that society collaborates in what is accepted as 'reality' or not within that society.. More communally accepted delusion. Non acceptance of the societal delusions has consequences for the authentic/honest 'indivi-dual'..
I hope that helps..


I don't doubt that - but the question is are your experiences valid enough to determine the nature of life after liberation while your experiences involve suffering/pain?
I have thoroughly answered your question. The problem is that you must crack the 'code', find the key!
'Code' is all that can be offered here, at best... Metaphor..

The nature of the 'answer' is that besides pointing out that the initial question is in error, goes on to point out that 'liberation' frees one from the false concepts of the mind. One of those 'false concepts' is the notion of 'time' (your 'before and after'). Thus, there is no 'after' liberation/enlightenment/Oneness...

if that consciousness involves pain/suffering, how can it be liberated?
Consciousness Is. It 'involves' nothing. It is false ego that is 'liberated', like a bullet to the brain! Without the obscurant dust of false ego all over the mirror of our perceptions, vision clears, vessel empties of 'false self' and can flow with 'Consciousness'. Like to experience the 'Consciousness' of a galaxy? Experience the Consciousness of a 'tree'? A universe?
'Consciousness' is One
It is called the 'Ground of all Existence', by, of all folks, Quantum Theory! And, of course, millennia of mystics who have paid their dues to 'see'...

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if a person is not liberated, what value is their expression on the nature of life after liberation?

Of course, for an intelligent reply, you would have to define 'value' and thus, 'to whom'?

Nameless
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if a person is not liberated, what value is their expression on the nature of life after liberation?
”
Of no more 'value' than their opinion of the nature of liberation.
Are you asking me a 'personal' question, somewhere, here?
all things are not equal - its not so much a personal question, at least not at this moment, but one for deeming logic - if a person has attained a state of liberation, their opinions regarding life after liberation are more valid than the opinions of one who is yet to approach a liberated state - kind of like a person who has actually learnt to and flown an airplane has more valid experiences to relate on the topic of flying airlplanes than a person who has never flown an airplane

“
and how does that define or qualify one for determining the nature of existence after liberation (assuming that you are working with the definition of liberation as that state that id liberated from pain/suffering ... otherwise what is it liberating us from?)
”
I have no truck with your 'definition'.
Classic 'definition' is an experiential 'understanding'/experience of the One.. 'Enlightenment/liberation' is a state of 'grace', 'innocence', 'born again' (regained state of 'innocence'), 'enlightenment', One with Tao, 'Dharma', 'Void'.. all the metaphors.. 'no person' to experience the One.. blah.. you just gotta be Here..

*__-
'It' just is non transferrable on an internet post, or otherwise! Just gotta pay the dues.
I can answer your questions with words, and whether they fall off the monitor onto the floor, or you reverse engineer this wisdom into a liquor that you can sip and enjoy, or throw them back into my face like beavers flinging feces into the sun, or whatever.. makes no real difference..

its not such a complex issue
if a person is liberated they are liberated from suffering and if a person is suffering they are not liberated p in otherwords liberation involves a very clear idea of what one is seeking liberation from

otherwise there would be no way to determine whether this gentleman is liberated or not

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p42/lightgigantic/yoga-ire20blog.jpg

“
I don't see any problem with your definition of suffering ... my inquiry was more into the liberation side of things, particularly in regards to your statement that the end of life is the end of suffering
”
People 'seek' liberation from their unhappiness, whatever the 'cause'. People that 'seek liberation', seek liberation from 'ignorance', from 'delusion'. It is 'delusion/ignorance' (false ego) that 'attaches' to the pain of existence (which, ultimately, is nothing more than a 'memory program') thereby causing 'unhappiness', which is what one really is trying to escape. Pain is just another tray on the buffet of human feelings. No different than joy, sad, grief, etc..
ignorance is the cause of pain and suffering

BG 5.21: Such a liberated person is not attracted to material sense pleasure but is always in trance, enjoying the pleasure within. In this way the self-realized person enjoys unlimited happiness, for he concentrates on the Supreme.

pain an suffering ends with liberation, yet life continues

All these 'feelings' are co-arising with/within the phenomenon of a 'living human being'. While there is life, there is evidence of these 'feelings' With the cessation of what appears as 'life', all 'signs of life, including 'feelings' disappear with that appearance of life.
All evidence is that 'pain', a 'feeling', dies along with the biological organs that biologically 'give rise' to those 'feelings'. Feelings are no more than 'feelings', biologically produced in the hypothalamus.. short chain proteins.. peptides..
No living brain=no living hypothalamus=no living peptides=no 'feelings'=no 'pain'=no endurance of pain=no 'suffering after 'death'.
So there!
*__-

there is some vague indication on the movements of the conceptualized self (that is which part of the brain corresponds to which feelings) yet there is no empirical evidence for the nature of the self as context (the entity who has a sense of " I am") - in other words you are not indicating life but merely the chemical counterparts that life utilizes - at the very least no scientist can take short chain proteins and turn them into conscious life


And if you still do not understand this simple point that I am making, you really don't want to understand (even though you are under no obligation to accept), or are nursing a 'belief virus' that will not allow 'conflicting info' into it's area of infestation..

once again - there is no scientific evidence for the constituent material elements of actual consciousness, so without even having to dally into issues of transcendence or spirituality, it seems that you are the one working with a belief virus
“


“
there remains no evidence for many things, like for instance that entity we call "the mind" is not evidenced (by empiricism - I assume that is what you mean by the word "evidence") either - but perhaps this is all a bit off topic
”
We can discuss this elsewhere/elsewhen as I 'see things a bit differently', which is where much, if not all, of this 'value' seems to lie..
If there is 'thought', there is your evidence of 'mind'.
bu that thought can not be reduced to a material representation - you may say that chemical x works in a certain way on the consciousness to produce emotional state y, but even if you have truck loads of chemical x you can not produce emotional state y unless you have consciousness (and since we can not synthesize consciousness, where does that leave us?)



“
since the thread deals specifically with the question of what happens after liberation, which assumes this body is not all in all to existence
”
*Flips all pages to end of book and displays the punchline*
Who are 'you'?
You are existence. If you draw and accept some arbitrary notion of 'seperation', perhaps you can imagine that, seperated from all existence, now (your true nature) you can be a 'galaxy'.
perhaps until the FBI kicks down your door
:m:

Sweet, the 'perspective' of a galaxy! The patience! The drama! A few more false and arbitrary 'definitions/contextual definitions/boundaries' and you can be a planet, or a tree, or .. little and afraid and isolated us, trembling in the severe shadows created by our 'creation of things' with the 'belief virus taking us deeper and deeper into the deluision that we tearfully and pridefully tout as 'reality'!
No, that 'body' is not all to 'you', but that 'liberating' experience/understanding has to 'arise' from within. Otherwise, it is just intellectual detritus, meaningless until 'actualized' as experience, and THEN! all this bullshit seems to take on some sort ****Woah!!*** effect!
And it is a case of, I knew it all along! (go figure) Just came to 'Consciousness' Now!
thats ok, but it boils down to what one ultimately identifies one's consciousness with - and once again its not necessarily so complicated - if one identifies with matter (even if somehow you think you are a galaxy) it is illusion since all matter, including galaxies, perish - liberation involves one's consciousness identifying with transcendence, which basically boils down to two options - does a liberated person identify their consciousness with the notion of being the supreme consciousness of existence or do they identify themselves as a conscious separated part and parcel of the supreme consciousness - answering this will largely answer whether there are any activities after liberation


“
how can there be experience of liberation in the presence of suffering?
”
No 'how'.
It 'happens'!
We do.
It is.
What is, is. Etc..
All appearance of 'liberation' happens within the appearance of 'life', in which, there is, inherently, the appearance of 'pain/suffering'. The nice thing about still riding that wheel, is that whatever pain that you experience, will (appear to) pass, and give way to a new ride for a few moments... And the wheel keeps turning.. (which is why one is wisely advised to not attach to that wheel of Maya/illusion).
all pain is experienced to be temporary and it is no grand achievement to have such experiences

“
I think you have to clear up what the linear communal illusion of life is
”
K.
I'm not sure what terms you are unfamiliar with.
Some moments of that which we perceive as 'life' are perceived in a 'linear fashion', one 'following' the next. That is a 'trick' of the mind/memory.
Rob't Anton Wilson likes to say that;
"The universe is a (simultaneous) non-simultaneously apprehended event." (Linear, temporally perceived)
Communal in that society collaborates in what is accepted as 'reality' or not within that society.. More communally accepted delusion. Non acceptance of the societal delusions has consequences for the authentic/honest 'indivi-dual'..
so if the ultimate underlying foundation of existence is illusion, how do you propose that one gets free from it, without simply adopting an illusory path (after all, anton wilson could simply be facilitating another aspect of illusion by propagating yet another societal delusion)


“
I don't doubt that - but the question is are your experiences valid enough to determine the nature of life after liberation while your experiences involve suffering/pain?
”
I have thoroughly answered your question. The problem is that you must crack the 'code', find the key!
'Code' is all that can be offered here, at best... Metaphor..
if one cannot see life past suffering, it is doubtful whether they have cracked the code

The nature of the 'answer' is that besides pointing out that the initial question is in error, goes on to point out that 'liberation' frees one from the false concepts of the mind. One of those 'false concepts' is the notion of 'time' (your 'before and after'). Thus, there is no 'after'
so one is always liberated?
This sounds like a very cheap definition of liberation if there is no point striving for liberation since one is already liberated yet one still experiences pain/suffering.


“
if that consciousness involves pain/suffering, how can it be liberated?
”
Consciousness Is. It 'involves' nothing. It is false ego that is 'liberated', like a bullet to the brain! Without the obscurant dust of false ego all over the mirror of our perceptions, vision clears, vessel empties of 'false self' and can flow with 'Consciousness'. Like to experience the 'Consciousness' of a galaxy? Experience the Consciousness of a 'tree'? A universe?
'Consciousness' is One
It is called the 'Ground of all Existence', by, of all folks, Quantum Theory! And, of course, millennia of mystics who have paid their dues to 'see'...
I don't know if that answers the question, since the very foundation of pain/suffering is separation

So, according to your incessant point here, you are arguing with what I offer from your great fund of fantasy and imagination. All egoic. As 'liberation', etc.. is not within your experience, one would think that you would close the mouth and try to understand something a bit.. different. Where is your experience? None. You imagine that 'this' means 'that' with no personal experience, and argue (ego). Gotta be who you are though..
But, I have said everything I have to here with the following, on the subject. If you have an intelligent, respectful, non-agendized or egoic question on a specific, I'll be happy to answer for your consideration, but I'm not feeling that there is anything you want to understand. You are already deep within your delusions and beliefs with no room for input. That is as it may be for the moment, perhaps another moment.

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if a person is not liberated, what value is their expression on the nature of life after liberation?

Me;
Of no more 'value' than their opinion of the nature of liberation.
Are you asking me a 'personal' question, somewhere, here?

You;
all things are not equal - its not so much a personal question, at least not at this moment, but one for deeming logic - if a person has attained a state of liberation, their opinions regarding life after liberation are more valid than the opinions of one who is yet to approach a liberated state - kind of like a person who has actually learnt to and flown an airplane has more valid experiences to relate on the topic of flying airlplanes than a person who has never flown an airplane

ME;
Your constant repetition of this 'point' has now become obvious to me (ok, I may be a bit slow..) that you are attempting to 'bait' me into some declaration of some 'authority' for the words that I offer, so that you can play some ego game.
Anyone willing to 'accept' something solely on the so called 'authority' of someone elses thoughts, etc.. is, as far as I can see, a fool. An intelligent person that is capable of critical thought would never think of such a thing. You would have plenty social company, though, if acceptance of 'authority' is your thing.
I will not play play into your game. That isn't why i'm here.
You can dismiss these words as you like if/as they have no meaning to you. No problem.
There is no argument here.
Perhaps they will have meaning to someone else.
Perhaps to you after a bit of 'life' experience.
Perhaps not.
So?
There is no argument here.
Peace

So, according to your incessant point here, you are arguing with what I offer from your great fund of fantasy and imagination.

its not quite so drastic - I think its quite straight forward - basically it boils down to determining whether liberation is a freedom or an involvement in pain and suffeing

All egoic. As 'liberation', etc.. is not within your experience, one would think that you would close the mouth and try to understand something a bit.. different.
and a good beginning point for such an understanding would be the experiences of persons who are accredited with having attained liberation in books of knowledge

Where is your experience? None.
my point exactly - if I am a fool suffering in the material world like everyone else, what is the point in me giving a personal opinion on the nature of liberation, or even worse, the nature of life after liberation

You imagine that 'this' means 'that' with no personal experience, and argue (ego). Gotta be who you are though..
and the question is whether one is a liberated or non-liberated person - just because I am not a brain surgeon doesn't mean that my opinions on brain surgery should be respected through out th e world


But, I have said everything I have to here with the following, on the subject. If you have an intelligent, respectful, non-agendized or egoic question on a specific, I'll be happy to answer for your consideration, but I'm not feeling that there is anything you want to understand. You are already deep within your delusions and beliefs with no room for input. That is as it may be for the moment, perhaps another moment.
would a person who is not liberated have an agenda in discussing the nature of life after liberation if they insisted in explaining it according to their own experiences?

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if a person is not liberated, what value is their expression on the nature of life after liberation?

Me;
Of no more 'value' than their opinion of the nature of liberation.
Are you asking me a 'personal' question, somewhere, here?

You;
all things are not equal - its not so much a personal question, at least not at this moment, but one for deeming logic - if a person has attained a state of liberation, their opinions regarding life after liberation are more valid than the opinions of one who is yet to approach a liberated state - kind of like a person who has actually learnt to and flown an airplane has more valid experiences to relate on the topic of flying airlplanes than a person who has never flown an airplane

ME;
Your constant repetition of this 'point' has now become obvious to me (ok, I may be a bit slow..) that you are attempting to 'bait' me into some declaration of some 'authority' for the words that I offer, so that you can play some ego game.
your argument is the ultimate in ego, since the only authority is your ego


Anyone willing to 'accept' something solely on the so called 'authority' of someone elses thoughts, etc.. is, as far as I can see, a fool.[/QUOTE
are people who go to doctors when they are sick fools?
are people who go to car mechanics to get their cars working fools?
are people who have legal issues solved by lawyers fools?
are people who go to IT schools to get an education in software fools?
etc etc
[QUOTE]
An intelligent person that is capable of critical thought would never think of such a thing.
in light of the above egs, I doubt it

You would have plenty social company, though, if acceptance of 'authority' is your thing.
also have a car that works, good health, cleared up legal scene and a university degree integral to my field of application

I will not play play into your game. That isn't why i'm here.
You can dismiss these words as you like if/as they have no meaning to you. No problem.
There is no argument here.
Perhaps they will have meaning to someone else.
indeed - perhaps - but the internet is a big big big big space

Perhaps to you after a bit of 'life' experience.
hope the good end of life's stick lands in your direction
:D

Perhaps not.
So?
There is no argument here.
Peace
peace indeed, the very foundation of liberation

BG 2.66: One who is not connected with the Supreme can have neither transcendental intelligence nor a steady mind, without which there is no possibility of peace. And how can there be any happiness without peace?

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if a person is not liberated, what value is their expression on the nature of life after liberation?

Of course, for an intelligent reply, you would have to define 'value' and thus, 'to whom'?

Nah. It's random speculation. And it has in fact been treated as mental wanking by the people who claim to be enlightened and whose words tend to come up in such discussions.

if a person is not liberated, what value is their expression on the nature of life after liberation?

Of course, for an intelligent reply, you would have to define 'value' and thus, 'to whom'? ”

Nah. It's random speculation. And it has in fact been treated as mental wanking by the people who claim to be enlightened and whose words tend to come up in such discussions.

To what do you refer when saying 'random speculation'? 'Unenlightened speculations' or all 'reports' regardless of 'personal experience'?

Nah.And it has in fact been treated as mental wanking by the people who claim to be enlightened and whose words tend to come up in such discussions.
Bye the bye, is this what is commonly called an 'appeal to authority' fallacy?
*__-

Nah. It's random speculation. And it has in fact been treated as mental wanking by the people who claim to be enlightened and whose words tend to come up in such discussions.
so in otherwords you think that there is no such thing as liberation - what premises do you base that conclusion on? (or are you more interested in stating your beliefs to the world or something like that?)

Of course, for an intelligent reply, you would have to define 'value' and thus, 'to whom'? ”


would a discussion on the value of a person not acquainted with brain surgery discussing how to carry out brain surgery require clarification?

Its really quite simply, if a person is not even close to liberation, what is the value of their personal views regarding life after liberation

What happens after nirvana, liberation, perfection?
There is no more after you reach nirvanic bliss. You become eternity. The physical body doesn't matter much then. After death it decomposes, like everything else.

There is no more after you reach nirvanic bliss. You become eternity. The physical body doesn't matter much then. After death it decomposes, like everything else.

So what happens after pairinirvana will forever remain unknown? All Gautama Buddha says is that its blissful...but what does that mean? He even says that you don't exist, nor not exist, nor neither exist nor not exist...what does that mean?

"Just as the destination of a glowing fire
struck with a [blacksmith's] iron hammer,
gradually growing calm,
is not known:

Even so, there's no destination to describe
for those who are rightly released
— having crossed over the flood
of sensuality's bond —
for those who have attained
unwavering bliss" - (Udana 8.10)

Well I'll still strive for nirvana...nirvana is the end of all suffering...

The best things can’t be said because they are transcendent. The second best things are misunderstood because they are using objects of time and space to speak of transcendence. The third best thing is conversation.

Under that theory, is there any difference between dying after Nirvana and dying without Nirvana?

Achieving the nirvana you die as a human being psychologically during the life of your body.
Then after only the body dies.
Without achieving nirvana during the life, upon physical death you die physically and psychologically.

Nirvana is understanding your own truths about happiness and love.

Foo Fighters?

No, seriously though. Did these sages not re-enter the world to then alleviate the suffering of all beings, and hasten their movement toward Nirvana?

I guess you reach it, then you figure "well, I left a whole lot of folks behind..."

Nirvana is other name for union with nirguna brahm, where you loose all context of being separate from the absolute truth or self or whatever you wanna call it. If you get the idea....

lemme know if i am not clear. mail me @ ricky.nj@gmail.com

Rick

My first encounter with this site was today. I googled the question -"after Nirvana what then" and this site came up! I was delighted needless to say! I just love watching the wheel go round and round!
At any rate - thank you - while I didn't find a succinct answer to my query I have formulated my own conclusion from all of the very worthy posts that had been generated.
What a lovely list!!!!!

Welcome to Sciforums Althaea. May you live long and prosper....

We hope to see you share your thoughts here.

-KMG