How does one think and perceive when they are in Nirvana?

It is my understanding that one doesn't.

The same but from more points of view. In other words, it's the end of egocentrism.

There is no need to 'think.' In fact, thinking will keep you from achieving nirvana. As to how you 'perceive', I don't think any human language can express this. You have to experience it to know.

Ray,

If I may, I'd like it re-direct you to a Discussion on Emptiness; I'm sure you'll gain a lot of information

Okay, but "who" experiences "what"?



Thanks anyway, but it says I have to log in, lol.

How do Buddhists justify emptiness?

Ray, part of the problem in this kind of discussion is that we are forced to use a human language, English in this case. A Budhist would, most likely, answer you that there is no 'who', only a transcendant oneness. And as for the 'what,' that, too, transcends anything we may know in ordinary conciousness.

I've tried reading the sutras before and it confused me. I've read more about Buddhism by what people wrote, and they make sense but when I read the sutras, it was very hard to grasp.

If you would like to know more about Buddhism, you might start by reading the extensive posts by JLNobody and myself on various threads here in the religion and Spirituality forum. Give them a read, and then if you still have questions I'm sure one of us can be help.

You should be aware that Buddhism has many schools and sects, and not all are in agreement over every question. Theravada Buddhism is based on Pali texts that are the oldest and most austere of Buddhist writings. Mahayana texts are generally in Sanskrit, with later works in Tibetan, Chinese, and Japanese among other languages. The Mahayana branch of Buddhism has more divisions than Theravada and the differences in doctrine are much more radical. Mahayana first appeared a couple of hundred years after the Great Decease, and developed the notion of the Bhodisatva. With the rise of Mahayana, Buddhist iconography bloomed and began to spread rapidly through Asia and the Middle East. Buddhism reached it's zenith in India with the reign of Asoka, and then declined to near non-existence there.

Tantric Buddhism is common in Nepal and Tibet, and is amalgamated with a native shamanistic religion (Bonpa). His Holiness the Dali Lama is the ranking Tantric clergy, and has great prominence with most of the other world Buddhists. There are a number of Pure Land sects, of which the Nicheran Sho-shu are perhaps best known. The Pure Land sects come closest to the Abrahamic notions about the nature of reality. Chan, or Zen, is the most austere of the Mahayana schools, and it is reasonably close to the Theravadan in outlook.

Common to all the schools and sects is the Deer Park sermon, the first and most definitive text in our religion. There are the Four Nobel Truths, and the Eight-Fold Path. That is fundamental, and everything else that follows is commentary and explanatory. Also central to Buddhism are the denial of self/soul and god(s). Most Buddhist Schools and sects accept the notion of reincarnation, but only in a very special way. What most Westerners think of as reincarnation is the transmigration of souls. In Buddhism there are no souls, and so that definition of reincarnation is a non-starter.

Anyway, that should get you started. First, read what has already been written in these threads so that JLNobody and I won't have to say the same things over and over again. Then ask whatever you wish.

Ah, but why not join yourself? You will be able to find translations of the Sutras, of philosophies and meanings that each sect (as Asherman clearly described) there. I do not intend to promote another forum, but merely direct you in the direction of a very informative site =)

Also, at risk of 'promoting' even more, an excellent source on Sutras, translations and information is http://www.buddhanet.net

I hope you find the answers you're looking for. =)

Buddhistnet and E-Sanga are both excellent sites for both beginners and those more experienced in Buddhism. Wish that these had been available when I was doing graduate work, they would have made studies much, much easier. Intellectual understanding and study of the sutras is good, but they are only roadsigns. You have to walk the path yourself, and the journey's end not the study is the goal. Along the path, which is sometimes hard and even tedious, there are rewards as one's understanding and practice deepen. Many begin the journey, but few pursue it to the end. Thats all right, and all sentient beings benefit from the effort ... even when it is not crowned with total success.

Pay attention!

Thanx people.
Asherman, my grandfather is in the mahayana branch and yeah we sort of pray to the boddhisatvas. I did some research on the theravadan branch, because they're the oldest branch, and the ideas seem to be the same except that they don't have boddhisatvas and I think they don't emphasize as much on emptiness? I have doubts about the tantric branch because I've read somewhere before that some sects in it practiced things that are pretty disturbing and non-buddhists in core. That might be some other sect though, not tantric.

I have a question on the "life is suffering" noble truth. I've read some interpreting it as "there is suffering in life" but I've also read the literal interpretation of it. The question I have is, is life something to suffer through or is it just that we are stuck in this suffering life until we reach nirvana? It seems really pessimistic when I look at it this way.

I've applied Buddhism in my life before, and it did help me out, that is until I see the many different interpretations on the net.

I've been to Buddhanet, and it's the site that got me intrigued on the philosophical aspect of buddhism.

I'm Soto Sect, and that of course colors my thinking in ways that Buddhists in other Schools and sects might not concur.

Sentient life is suffering, but not unrelieved suffering. Life has both positive and negative. Thre is joy in youthful good health, and pain in the decline of old age. One is happy to eat, and unhappy to suffer from overeating, or starvation. One is happy at the birth of a child, and saddened by the death of loved ones. We are happy in love, and torn by jealousy. For every winfall there is a downfall. We seek to hold on to the present, or relive the past, and change takes it all away. The future we either desire, or fear, is always ahead of us, as we are haunted by the past. When our desires are fulfilled we exault, but are soon discontented again.

If we go no further than this, indeed life may be a dreary burden. But, what is the cause of suffering? Can a sentient being transcend and defeat the suffering that is so natural to all living things? How does one go about relieving their own suffering and the suffering of other beings? The Tagatha answered those questions. Yes, though one has to look beyond the Deer Park Sermon for a more complete examination of the cause of suffering. Yes, Buddhist practice can mitigate and reduce suffering by some considerable margin. Any sentient being may achieve the same degree of Enlightenment that Siddhartha found beneath the Bo Tree. The Eight-Fold Path was designed more for the monastic community than for laymen, but it is an essential roadmap that Buddhists pay close attention to.

Both Tanricism and the Pure Land Schools hold some doctrines that are quite a stretch from what I believe are fundamental to Buddhism. Adoption of shamanistic beliefs into Buddhist doctrine can be confusing to the laymen. Over reliance on the compassion of Bhodisatvas and "gradual purification" also plays well with many Buddhists who live in the world. You might want to read one of my several posts about the various sorts of religious experience ... Direct experience, the Dogma and Doctrine movement, and the presistence of folk ways and religious expectations.

Thanks for the link, Sanctuary. I registered. And thanks for bringing Asherman back to the discussion.
Ray, regarding the principle that "life is suffering," that is a fundamental fact of life. As I see it (and my perspective is also colored by my exposure to Soto zen), this suffering has nothing to do with pleasure and pain as we normally pursue and avoid them. If that were all there is to it, we would be fortunate to be very wealthy dope addicts: feeling "good" all the time. Suffering (dukkha), as I see it, has to do with the presence of one's ego-orientation, and the existential dread it produces, i.e., feeling there is some thing (self) to protect and promote and that that "thing" is profoundly vulnerable, like an exposed nerve, to a world that surrounds and is separate from it. The cure for this kind of deep and constant suffering (whether conscious or not) is the realization of the illusion of ego. But that's a long discussion. As Asherman notes, there have been many such discussions (usually in the unfortunate form of debates) in these A2K forums. Look for discussions about dualism and non-dualism.

Good to hear your input, Asherman and JLNobody. I'm a rank novice but the truth of what you guys espouse seems so self-evident that it's calming just to read it. Thnx.

Here is a quote found in E-sangha (thanks, Sanctuary) that might lend some "intellectual" credibility to Buddhism:

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity." -  Albert Einstein