Nirvana is a  term used to describe the profound peace of mind that is acquired with liberation.  It is the state of being free from suffering.

The word literally means "blown out" (as in a candle) and refers, in the Buddhist context, to the imperturbable stillness of mind after the fires of desire, aversion, and delusion have been finally extinguished. (loosely quoting Wikipedia here...)

So...I'm curious if you all believe that Atheists as a general rule are able to reach this level of liberation? Do you think it's possible for Theists to do so? Do you believe that all/most Atheists reach Nirvana? How do you know when you've reached it? Once you've reached it how do you know you'll be able to stay there? Is it just in your mind or is there more to it? What could be a scientific explanation for the state of Nirvana?....Do you believe that Nirvana is attached to any kind of religious dogma since it's roots are found in Buddhism? Isn't Buddhism a religion? If not, then why not. If you believe Nirvana is rubbish, then tell me why.

Views: 3906

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

So 'Nirvana' is not reached by the individual mind, because that version of 'Nirvana' is at best an analogue of the real thing. Similar to a 'virtual reality' model only appearing to be the real one.

I stand corrected, but did suggest that a first iteration of the 'idea' is not the 'thing' itself. Only 'reducing' does not get us to that final state....

That's right or as Lao-tzu says, "The scholar learns something every day, the man of tao unlearns something every day, until he gets back to non-doing."

Most people say that I "non-do" better than anyone they know - ask Strega how well I non-fixed my table.

I told you to read the book first, but oh no, Vodka knows best, eh?

Not exactly - vodka comes first, THEN the table dancing!

I non-discipline my children...does that make me a good father or a bad father?? ;)

This whole thing seems like an attempt by 'non-doers' to enlarge their standing contrasted with 'doers'. Being 'mostly' a 'doer' myself, but with the sense that 'doing less' could be a desirable future state, I still feel that the number of 'non-doers' could be just a little too high. I expect that the difference between 'non-doers' and 'doers' is similar to 'prudists' and 'nudists, with the need for experience as the primary socialization.

So if you aspire to be a 'doer', find simple things to fix, take them apart, keep track of the parts, understand some of the inter-workings, read manuals, be willing to screw up-but learn something from the screw up, use safety equipment-but don't be affraid, and don't give up! The more you do, the more you understand, unless your a total dolt..;p)


I understand it this way:

"Before I studied the art, a punch to me was just like a punch, a kick just like a kick. After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick no longer a kick. Now that I've understood the art, a punch is just like a punch, a kick just like a kick. The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum." - Bruce Lee


We can say that we are not our thoughts or emotions. 

Our thoughts and emotions about an object are less important than the object itself, they are insubstantial and transitory compared with the object itself. 

Did you find that in a fortune cookie Paynton, or are you just becoming further and further removed from reality?

Hey, I live my life by fortune cookies! ;)

"Man does not live by bread alone --" Then too, you never get a fortune with a loaf of bread.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service