Nirvana

Summary

The provided text discusses the concept of Nirvana, distinguishing it from common misconceptions and explaining its true nature according to Buddhist philosophy, emphasizing the absence of a personal self and the attainment of omniscience.

Abstract

The article "Nirvana" delves into the philosophical and spiritual aspects of the term, clarifying that it is not related to the American rock band of the same name. It asserts that Nirvana is not a transient state of euphoria, such as a heroin high or a concept of heaven, nor is it a place of endless bliss or a soul's resting place. Instead, Nirvana is presented as a state of existence where all questions are answered, and all uncertainties are resolved, synonymous with omniscience in Mahayana Buddhism. The text critiques the Mahayana perspective that Hinayana Nirvana is a personal escape from Samsara, arguing that the concept of a personal Nirvana is a contradiction since the realization of Nirvana involves the relinquishment of the self, which is central to Buddhist teachings. The author, Wolfstuff, suggests that true Nirvana is the embracement of primordial emptiness, which is the essence of everything and negates the existence of a personal self that could enter Nirvana.

Opinions

The author rejects the notion that Nirvana is akin to a drug-induced high or a celestial paradise.
Nirvana is described as a state devoid of questions and uncertainties, a form of omniscience.
There is a critique of the Mahayana view that Hinayana Nirvana is a solitary pursuit, arguing that such a perspective misunderstands the Buddhist concept of selflessness.
The author asserts that the idea of a "personal nirvana" is inherently flawed because it implies the retention of a self, which is antithetical to the essence of Nirvana.
True Nirvana is seen as the recognition and merging with primordial emptiness, which is indivisible and beyond the dichotomy of self and other.
The author expresses a desire to engage with Mahayana elders to correct the misconception of "personal nirvana," emphasizing the singularity and inclusivity of true Nirvana.

What It Is and What It Is Not

Apart from being a U.S. band from the 1980s, which is not what I’m talking about here, there are many other things that Nirvana is not.

It’s not a heroin high.

It’s not heaven.

It is not a place of infinite bliss.

It is not a soul hotel.

Although, to be honest, I have long hoped that it would be; would be an extraterrestrial rush advancing upon you out of nowhere and then arriving, welcoming you into inexplicable and forever bliss. Yes, I knew from a lot of reading (a lot of reading) that this wasn’t it, but there is quite a gap between reading (intellectual grasp) and experience (spiritual grasp), and it took me quite a while to bridge that gap — in some ways I’m still bridging it.

As a result of this bridge, today I view Nirvana as that state or condition of existence where there are no more questions. Each and every possible uncertainty certained and each and every possible question answered. The word used in Tibetan and Mahayana Buddhism is omniscience — the state of knowing everything, to quote the dictionary, but that by the light of the Mahayana folks, is a step beyond what they term Nirvana.

For they, (I say they even though these days I count myself among them) take a slightly different view of Nirvana, which according to much reverent speculating and commenting is a Hinayana (Theravada) goal; the Mahayana practitioner, the Bodhisattva, aims beyond, above that, for the full enlightenment they call omniscience.

Too, too often I have read in Mahayana scriptures that Hinayana Nirvana is a personal nirvana, a personal escape from the “endless” (I quote this word for there is no such thing as endless in our cyclic existence through lives and lives and lives) and cruel fate of Samsara.

I would like to sit down with some of these Mahayana elders, many of whom lived hundreds of years ago, and point out that there is no such thing as “personal nirvana”, and that there could not possibly be.

For Buddha nature, the primordial emptiness (Sunyata) that is nothing but pure potential, is single, and not even single as opposed to dual or multiple, it simply is, and this, if anything, is true Nirvana. But it is also Samsara, it is everything, and in truth, there is no “self” to arrive at and enter a “personal” nirvana. Should a practitioner reach and embrace this emptiness he or she would in effect “merge” (strange word, this but the only one that comes close) back into primordial awareness while also leaving all “the rest” of himself outside or behind. Just doesn’t compute, does it?

Anyone who professes that the Hinayana practitioner, for lack of compassion for his fellow beings, enters a personal nirvana, a nirvana for the “self” in other words, is also saying that this practitioner retains his “self”, the very self, the giving up of which, the letting go of which, is in fact the key to entering Nirvana. This is a severe contradiction in terms and I am surprised that the Mahayana elders did not see that.

Put another way: were you to enter a personal nirvana you would also be leaving yourself behind — quite a feat.

I know that omniscience is a big word and its implications beyond measure, but I believe that this is what True Nirvana is:

No more questions.

Nirvana

What It Is and What It Is Not

My Essays

An Index

Wolfstuff

So, who am I? Really really. I could tell you that I was born in northern Sweden during a snow storm, and subsequently…