Path: Supernews!kudonet.com!not-for-mail From: nagasiva@yronwode.com (nagasiva) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.zen,alt.philosophy.zen Subject: Various: Impermanence and Emptiness Followup-To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.zen,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.misc,sci.philosophy.meta,talk.religion.buddhism Date: 30 May 1997 10:33:42 -0700 Organization: KudoNet On-Line Services Lines: 68 Sender: tyagi@bjt.net Message-ID: <5mn31m$rdi@kudo20.kudonet.com> References: <336cde6a.38662268@news.telepac.pt> <336e232a.3595040@news1.electriciti.com> <336FCEA2.436C@idt.net> Reply-To: nagasiva@yronwode.com (nagasiva) NNTP-Posting-Host: kudo20.kudonet.com X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 (NOV) Xref: Supernews alt.magick.tyagi:12472 alt.zen:61014 alt.philosophy.zen:13988 [from talk.religion.buddhism: wsnyder@powergrid.electriciti.com (Bill Snyder)] On Sun, 04 May 1997 19:15:03 GMT, cjc@mail.telepac.pt (Carlos Joao) wrote: >One of the most basic principles of buddhism - buddha dharma - is the >idea of impermanence (anitya, anicca) . But can we consider nirvana as >a principle of permanence? I would not call it a principle of impermanence. But also it is in no sense in conflict with the principle of impermanence (anitya or sunyata). Put it this way: when you live in the recognition of the impermanence of all things, you then will not at all cling to or crave for the eternal possesion or the long-lasting possession or even the momentary possession of anything. To live thus, in the cessation of clinging and craving IS nirvana. But to cling to or crave for the possession (eternal, long-lasting, or momentary) of this and that is to live in dukkha, i.e., in samara, and is at the same time a rejection of the principle of impermanence as the organizing principle of one's life. Living in nirvana, is living in the awareness that there are no permanences to be found (and hence to be craved or clung to) either within or outside of the forms of perception (skandhas). Living in samsara is living in the illusory awareness that there are permanences to be held fast to and on which one's living depends. Bill Snyder ======================================================================= [from talk.religion.buddhism: Ardie Hell ] Bill Snyder wrote: > Living in nirvana, is living in the awareness that there are no > permanences to be found (and hence to be craved or clung to) either > within or outside of the forms of perception (skandhas). Living in > samsara is living in the illusory awareness that there are permanences > to be held fast to and on which one's living depends. Rather nirvana is a permanent state which transcends impermanence and falls outside of all dharmas, including the five skandhas. Throughout the Paali Nikaayas it is called by different names such as "emancipation", "the supreme", "the transcendent", "the uncreated", "the immaterial", "the further shore", "the impershible", etc. For one who attains nirvana it is a trancendent fact, and not merely a particular kind of awareness which sets aside everything sensory or conceptual. Too often both scholars and the general public fall into this trap, understanding nirvana to be the same as abstract thought, or worse still, to be a state of utter extinction. But such views are not consistent with the context of the canon which supports anything but a negative view of nirvana. At least for the Buddha it was a positive state. With reagard to your last remark, it is not enough to believe that samsara is like unto a matrix of false permanences which keep appearing like 'crop circles in England' in which we are duty bound to play skeptics. More, Buddhism demands that we also see the *deathless*, as the Buddha calls it, and win nirvana thus reaching the yonder shore of authentic permanence. Ardivana -- (emailed replies may be posted) ------- join the AMT syncretism!!! see http://www.abyss.com/tokus ---------- call: 408/2-666-SLUG!! AAK! - Authorities Against Knowledge ** Knowledge is an enslaving illusion.