Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Canute
Then I would greatly appreciate an explanation of Buda’s nirvana if not the ending of conscious existence.
Tentative answer coming up. Nirvana is inexplicable ex hypothesis in Buddhism. However that doesn't mean it cannot be alluded to, pointed to if you like.
Words are used by different people in different ways, but roughly speaking Nirvana is synonymous with emptiness, Brahman, oneness, fullness, is-ness and other terms. It cannot be referred to directly because, like Spinoza's God, it is an entity (non-entity) that has no external attributes. It is non-dual, and thus cannot be perceived, conceived, described, named etc, since all these was of knowing it are dual. 'Dual' in this sense is tricky to explain and I've never managed to do it well. (But Irish philosopher Wu Wu Wei and Chuang Tsu do it pretty well and would show up in a search).
There is nothing mystical about the idea but it can be very hard to grasp intellectually since all thinking is dual, and thus we are trying to think about something that cannot be properly thought about. (Told you I was no good at explaining).
One reason it can't be talked about properly is that it is an experience, not a thing, and experiences are impossible to communicate ('incommensurate' is the usual term). But there are deeper reasons. Any assertion about this experience (state of being) is wrong, because any assertion will inevitably assign properties to this state that it does not have. Thus it is wrong to say it exists, yet wrong to say it doesn't. There are two ways of looking at it, two aspects, and the correct way is to synthesise these into a unity. (A bit like saying that we can conceive of a wave, and we can conceive of a particle, but we can't conceive of something that could be both, yet such a thing must exist). In non-dual philosophy there are no 'antimonies' (or little else, depending on, yes, your point of view). (Existence is absolutely entirely dual, but emptiness, which underlies existence, is not).
Hmm. Got lost there. The main point is that Nirvana exists yet it doesn't, depending on which way you choose to look at it. We are forced to adopt a viewpoint in which these properties are either true or false, but all such viewpoints are untrue views. (It may help to relate this to Galilean relativity and motion).
This sounds as if Nirvana is out of reach of human knowledge. But this is not the case. Rather it is out of reach of human reasoning.
That's a rubbish explanation, sorry. If you try a search on 'non-dual', 'Advaita', sunyata etc. you'll do better.
Basically the epistemilogical logic follows Aristotle and Popper in that it asserts that certain knowledge is achieved only when the knower is identical with the known.
This is difficult to grasp, which may be why Plato asserted that we were chained to our perception of the world as shadows, not just that we preferred that point of view.
It is important to note that adherents of the non-dual world-view call it an 'affirmation' rather than a philosophy, theory or belief. This is because they claim to know it is true, as opposed to just speculating that it is. Considering the arrogance and boldness of this claim it is interesting that nobody has ever been able to successfully refute it.
Please note that I capitalized the first letter in Wisdom. Perhaps I should have used a different word and simply stated that in my concept, Wisdom is actually another name for the Designer of all things. The irreducible complexity of the universe we inhabit presumes such an unknown entity. Statistical probability for the chaotic formation of even the simplest structure, i.e., a human skin cell, is less than 0.
Your Wisdom sounds a lot like Plato's Ideas, and is not all that far from a Buddhist view of things. But in Buddhism there is no designer. Rather there is just the interaction of conscious beings, each of whom does a little of the design work, usually unintentionally. Thus humans create maize or, say, a general desire to stand on two legs creates the conditions under which a gene for standing upright can bestow fitness etc).
Unfortunately creationism has little to do with Buddhist philosophy.
In Buddhism creation is all there is. Everything is always beginning.
Then the question becomes how finite is the intellect of man?
Partly that is the question, but knowledge is not always dependent on intellect. This is where Goedel becomes relevant. Providing the answers to undecidable questions, as we know we can do, is a good example of how our knowledge can outstrip our reasoned proofs, under all circumstances.
Your word 'knowledge' implies that the conscious mind is ultimately able to comprehend or know infinite Wisdom. Of course the answer to that conundrum cannot be validated.
Not in third-person terms. But many claim that it can in first-person terms. Emptiness is not even name-able in third-person terms. (This is both an epistemilogical and ontological claim).
Okay, I'll go along with your analogy. But by what methodology did the Buddha find his teachings and search for an escape from Suffering? Apparently the word suffering is not an exact translation for the Buda’s self-realization process.
The concept of suffering is a quite sophisticted one, and central to Buddhism. But it is not the be all and end all of Buddhism. Suffering is in a sense a symptom, the cure for which lies in achieving a true understanding of reality, which in turn requires self-realisation. In other words Buddhism does not suggest tackling suffering head on any more than a doctor would deal with symptoms and forget their cause. It teaches how to achieve sufficient self-realisation to understand the truth about existence and by so doing to understand the nature of suffering and the means of transcending it.
It's a very practical approach (Buddhism has been called 'the serious pursuit of happiness') but not an easy one. Buddhists talk of progress towards bliss in terms of zillions of lifetimes. (In my own case I suspect even this might not be long enough). However they also talk about it in terms of being just one small step. Apparent contradictions are endemic to non-dual desriptions of things, if it wasn't then those descriptions wouldn't be non-dual).
The possibility that our assumed reality is in actuality a giant hologram in a timeless dimension.
Do you mean like this: (not my capitals)
FAR AWAY IN THE HEAVENLY ABODE OF THE GREAT GOD INDRA, THERE IS A WONDERFUL NET WHICH HAS BEEN HUNG BY SOME CUNNING ARTIFICER IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT STRETCHES OUT INDEFINITELY IN ALL DIRECTIONS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXTRAVAGANT TASTES OF DEITIES, THE ARTIFICER HAS HUNG A SINGLE GLITTERING JEWEL AT THE NET'S EVERY NODE, AND SINCE THE NET ITSELF IS INFINITE IN DIMENSION, THE JEWELS ARE INFINITE IN NUMBER. THERE HANG THE JEWELS, GLITTERING LIKE STARS OF THE FIRST MAGNITUDE, A WONDERFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD. IF WE NOW ARBITRARILY SELECT ONE OF THESE JEWELS FOR INSPECTION AND LOOK CLOSELY AT IT, WE WILL DISCOVER THAT IN ITS POLISHED SURFACE THERE ARE REFLECTED ALL THE OTHER JEWELS IN THE NET, INFINITE IN NUMBER. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT EACH OF THE JEWELS REFLECTED IN THIS ONE JEWEL IS ALSO REFLECTING ALL THE OTHER JEWELS, SO THAT THE PROCESS OF REFLECTION IS INFINITE
THE AVATAMSAKA SUTRA
FRANCIS H. COOK: HUA-YEN BUDDHISM : THE JEWEL NET OF INDRA 1977
That consciousness is on a continuum which never changes but for a short span of perceived time is able to choose a path for good or evil.
Roughly the Buddhist view.
Then please enlighten me as to the Buda’s search for nirvana.
As I understand it the Buddha set out to understand suffering and ended up understanding existence. He concluded that consciousness is fundamental and that in its limit state it is a non-dual experience that is eternally blissful. He asserts that 'we' all can achieve this state, but not without effort, introspection and the banishing of all our day to day assumptions in favour of certainties.
Human ignorance is a shared reality... [/B]
I suppose it is really. Buddhists call it confusion rather than ignorance, for it is possible to be very knowledgeable about that reality, but just be confused about how to put all that knowledge together in a way that makes sense.
Thus Buddhism has no disagreements with science over scientific matters, and considers physicalists confused rather than ignorant. In fact in certain respects Buddhists have great regard for ignorance.
In a lot of ways Theosophy agrees with Buddhism, so you might like this:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/homepage.htm
) that Buddhism is just another belief system (I think), seems to have a better understanding of what those 'beliefs' are. It's quite confusing.