Is nirvana just the Buddhist version of samadhi, then? You seem to be implying that Buddhism is about realising there's no point in living, or even in realising that. I think you're inverting what the Buddha actually taught. I think it was more like: because the world has nothing that a truly enlightened one could desire (physically), the desire to find something 'greater' in yourself should always exceed any desire to find something in the world. But not to the extent of wilfuly starving, say.
You're saying "a condition isn't some thing"? That's a shift, I suppose, replacing "something" with "a condition". What else can you do with it?
Umm, not exactly. Here is the traditional rendition.... 1. The Nature of Suffering (Dukkha): "This is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering." 2. Suffering's Origin (Samudaya): "This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving [and aversion] which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." 3. Suffering's Cessation (Nirodha): "This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it." 4. The Way (Mārga) Leading to the Cessation of Suffering: "This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is: pañña/wisdom: right view, right intention, sila/virtue: right speech, right action, right livelihood, samadhi/attention: right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths Bodhi, Bhikkhu (trans.) (2000). The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya. Boston: Wisdom Publications. ISBN 0-86171-331-1. My edit to add the three groupings of the eightfold path. Suffering isn't exactly the right word either. Clinging, dissatisfaction, and attachment are also used. The roots of this dukkha are the craving and aversion caused by ignorance resulting in fear/hate and lust/greed. This comes from misunderstanding/refusing to understand the fundamental nature of existence: annica (impermanence) and anatta (no soul) and the resulting dukkha (dissatisfaction) that comes from being in this state. By practicing the eightfold path the true nature of existence is realized and the roots of suffering are cut off (Nibbana lit. extinguished) leading to a state of compassionate equanimity.
Can't we just all say that Nirvana in Buddhism is the cessation of Dukkha? Altough it is really general, since the sentence does not tell you much, it does sum it up in one way or another.
Actually, swarm's explination of the 8-fold path has 8 things inside. Wisdom, Virtue, and concentration are more like categories, while each "path" fits under a category.
Actually, I can actually see 3 categories, the first has two subjects, the second has three more (that's 5), the third has three as well. How many is that? 8 subjects and 3 categories is 11 things too.
The eightfold path is the "subjects" in your counting. The "categories" are what each grouping is striving to cultivate. But if it makes you happy to call that eleven then please do.
Enlightenment is like having your eyes too close to a just turned on fluorescent light and for a moment you are confused?
No, that would be "temporary blindness". Unless you accidentally found out the flourescent was actually a laser.
I haven't considered it too much but I think Western Enlightenment might be when a social collective's ratio of valuing truth vs. superstition increases on the side of truth; whereas, Eastern Enlightenment is the reverse.
In temporary blindness I don't see unpleasant white. That's what I saw in the version of enlightenment above. I am rooting for a gentle earth color, frankly.
How is white "unpleasant"? Is orange ok, or purple? (Sometimes, purple looks sort of red, or maybe "blue", but it's probably just my "eyesight").
It's like expecting it is something, and having that expectation dashed because there is no way to come to enlightenment through thought or reason.
White that is fluorescent is to my taste unpleasant. The white of a cloud or cetain stones and coral, oh, these I like just fine. It is a taste thing. If you on the other hand would not mind a nirvana or heaven lit only with fluorescent light, I wish you only the most pleasant time there.
It is hard to get to anything new ONLY via thought - if by this we mean that verbal stuff - and reason.
