How Do You Know Someone has Attained Nirvana?

This is a really big question, something that I think has persisted in the minds of Buddhists, both in the East and the West. The goal of the teaching is of course nirvana, and we are instructed to get teachings from those who have realized them. But how do we know? How can we tell whether those who are giving us the teachings and explanations of the Words of the Buddha have actually internalized them and made them part of their lives?

There is a story (and just as almost everything I know, this one is also from Deshung Rinpoche). A very learned monk was on his way to receive an honorary position at a temple. He was deeply read in all the sutras and could expound the teachings really well. However, he had not fully realized the teachings; that is, he had not become identical with the subject matter of what he was teaching. While he was traveling he met a poor peasant, and, out of kindness, he gave the peasant a tidbit of the Buddha’s teaching and told him always to keep it in mind and to practice it well. Then he left the peasant and continued his journey. He got to the temple which was his destination and stayed there as a respected abbot for many, many years. Meanwhile the poor peasant became deeply faithful in the teaching he got from the learned monk and became a monk himself.

Years passed. One day while he was at the temple the monk who used to be the poor peasant whom he had taught for a short while came to see him. From the look and the understandings shown through the outlook of the visiting monk, the learned abbot knew that he had really attained the Goal. He became surprised when he learned that the visiting monk was in fact the poor peasant whom he had given a short teaching while he was on the way to accept the position here. The learned monk said to himself, “I had studied all the texts. I had memorized a huge amount of the Buddha’s teachings and had taught countless number of students. Yet I had not attained the result myself. This monk who got just a short teaching from me instead had achieved it.”

So he became really subdued and asked the visiting monk for a teaching. Thus the teacher became student and vice versa. The visiting monk told him to be mindful and to practice the teaching well with no distractions. The learned abbot then followed that instruction and finally obtained Realization.

The message of the story is that it does not quite matter whom you get the teachings from. You could even get teachings from a radio or, in today’s age, from the Net, but if it is a genuine teaching and if you are persistent in practicing it, you will eventually be Realized. The point is not the actual identity of your teacher. The point is that you have unwavering faith in the teaching and in your belief that you are getting the teaching from an Enlightened One. What really matters is your mind.

So how does this story answer the topical question of this post? Maybe the story is not directly to the point. But perhaps that is the point. Sometimes we don’t really need to know that the one we are studying with is Realized or not. That would distract us from really practicing and being really mindful. It does not quite matter whether our flesh and blood teacher is Realized or not, that is in fact a matter for the teacher himself or herself to practice on his or her own. But for us students we need to look inside our own minds and practice from the insides of our hearts.

Filed under: Buddhism , attainment, Bodhisattva, Buddha, Buddhism, Deshung Rinpoche, freedom, liberation, nibbana, Nirvana

Nirvana, Parinirvana, Enlightenment, Buddhahood

A follower of mine on Twitter asked what are the differences between ‘nirvana,’ ‘parinirvana,’ and ‘Enlightenment.’ This is a very good question, but to answer it in Twitter is like walking with the feet tied together, so I have to answer this in more detail here. I have already gave an answer in Twitter, but my tweets there are necessarily too short. This might not be clear enough, especially for those who are new to Buddhism.

Nirvana is the goal of Buddhist practice. This is why people became a Buddhist in the first place, and it is the goal that the Buddha taught everybody to pursue since he began his teaching career soon after he had attained Enlightenment under the Bodhi tree. Etymolotically, ‘nirvana’ means ‘extinguished,’ like when a fire is extinguished, in Sanskrit one would say the fire is ‘nirvana.’ This sense of ‘being put out’ then is transferred to refer to the state where the suffering is ‘put out’. There is no more suffering. Thus, one gains total liberation from samsara.

‘Parinirvana’ literally means ‘being put out all around;’ that is, it is all extinguished. In this sense it means the same as nirvana, only that there is the emphasis on being totally extinguished. However, it is more commonly used to refer to the dissolution of the body of one who has already entered nirvana. So when one has entered nirvana while one is alive, his ego attachment is completely dead, and when that one finally ‘dies,’ it is said that he enters ‘parinirvana.’ In Theravada tradition this is only used for the Buddha.

‘Enlightenment’ is the state where one gains complete Knowledge. This is what the Buddha achieved under the Bodhi tree that enabled him to become a Buddha. A ‘Buddha’ means ‘one who is awakened.’ Those of us in samsara are not awakened because we live in the dreamworld of thought construction and conceptual fabrication, believing that they are real. So we believe that our egos, our “I’s” are real and so on. The Buddha, on the other hand, realizes that this is an illusion, and in reality there is nothing but pure state of naken, unadorned, expansive being. This is what an enlightened being knows. In Pali one says, sammasambodhi, meaning perfect, complete Knowledge (actually I have to put in the diacritical marks on the Pali or Sanskrit terms, but it takes time to do that and I don’t think it’s really necessary here as we are focusing more on the meaning.) ‘Knowledge’ here, by the way, does not refer to one’s ordinary, commonplace knowledge that relies on concepts, but the complete knowledge obtainable only when one lets go of all concepts. Thus ‘Knowledge’ with the capital ‘K’ refers to the state of complete knowledge, or the Buddha’s state of Enlightenment, and ‘knowledge’ with a small ‘k’ to refer to ordinary, conceptual knowledge.

Since all sufferings are caused by not realizing this truth, the state of complete Knowledge here is their direct antidote. So one who is enlightened naturally is free from any and all sufferings. So in a sense Enlightenment and nirvana mean the same in that they refer to the same situation. But literally they mean differently.

Now, there is still another distinction between those who have attained nirvana and have totally abandoned samsara, and those who, though they have attained nirvana but chose instead to remain in samsara to help beings. This is a key idea in Mahayana Buddhism. In Theravada, the goal of practice is to eliminate all causes of suffering and entered nirvana, becoming an ‘arahat.’ In Mahayana, on the other hand, that goal is commendable, but it is not the complete or ultimate goal of one’s practice. The aim of a Mahayana practitioner is not just to liberate oneself from samsara, but to be able to help all sentient beings to attain nirvana also. Thus the goal of the Mahayana practitioner is to become a Bodhisattva, or one who has the aspiration to attain Buddhahood, that is to become a fully enlightened Buddha, in order to be able to help beings.

So this is all for now. I’ll write more about all these in later posts. Those who would like to know more might want to read my earlier post on Nirvana and Samsara.

Filed under: Bodhisattva , Buddha, Buddhahood, Buddhism, enlightenment, Mahayana, Nirvana, Theravada

The Second Buddha – A Trailer

I came across this trailer for a movie about Guru Rinpoche, who brought Buddhism to Tibet and who became known as the second Buddha. The movie looks really great and deserves our full attention. The trailer is here:

Filed under: Tibet , Buddha, Guru Rinpoche, Padmasambhava, Tibet

Why Do We Practice?

One of the main topics during my talk yesterday was around the question why we came to Buddhism and became a practitioner in the first place. This is important because it points to our motivation in taking up the practice. What are our motivations?

For Thai people, this question may a bit sound strange. Since most of Thais are born into the Buddhist world, there does not seem to be a question of the motivation in coming to Buddhism. The religion pervades all aspects of the culture, so in a way one actually “comes” to Buddhism once one is born into a Buddhist Thai family.

This does not mean, however, that every child born in such a family immediately knows what there is to be known about Buddhism. Otherwise everybody would then become an arahat, and there would be no need to engage in the practice or to teach the Dharma. Furthermore, most Thais nowadays are caught up with works and daily living that they somehow ignore Buddhism. They come to get in touch with it only through rituals and ceremonies like making merits when they got a new house, a new position, or when they go to funerals. Rituals gradually lose their meanings.

This is why there is the growing phenomenon of Thai people coming “back” to Buddhism. I say “back” because Buddhism is pervasive as I have said, but somehow they have lost touch with it and due to some emerging circumstances they are realizing the value of Buddhism in their lives.

Many come to Buddhism this way because they suffer. Either they lost their loved ones, or have problems with their jobs, and so on. They believe that the Buddha’s teachings can provide a relief and a cure for their ills. This is perhaps the main motivation.

This is a good beginning. One has to realize the value of something before embarking upon it. Practicing Buddhism is a serious thing to do. One has to dedicate one’s whole life to it. It is not something that can gratify you in a short time. Nyima Dakpa Rinpoche once said that Buddhism had one big disadvantage over the other pain or suffering relievers such as Prazac or surfing the Net in that these provide instant gratification or relief. But it is short term, whereas if one succeeds in following the Buddha’s guidelines, then one achieves real, lasting relief, not only for this present life, of course, but forever.

The motivation for relieving one’s suffering, while a good beginning, is not nearly enough, however. Those who come to Buddhism because they have personal problems usually don’t go very far in their practice, simply because they are not really committed in devoting their lives into the practice. They want easy fixes, not unlike Prozac, something you pop up and voila, the pain is gone. But as we have seen Buddhism does not work like that.

This may be due to the fact that people are different. One kind of teaching is suitable to one kind of persons, but not others. But in any case in order to get anything substantial from the Buddha’s teaching, one has to go all the way. There may be some small benefits here and there if one practices only a little (even a little practice is better than no practice at all), but the real benefit is possible. And this is something most people do not realize.

Thais are brought up to believe that the lasting happiness, nirvana, is far away, forever out of their reach. So they are content with lesser aims. But when the lesser aims fail (which they very often do), they become disillusioned with the Buddha’s teachings. This is a pity, for the lasting happiness is there within their grasp. They just have to take a bit more effort.

So the reason why we practice is that we would like to attain the goal that the Buddha talked about and spent his entire working life teaching us to attain. No other aim, such as going to heaven, is not ultimately satisfactory. The point is that once one really understands some aspect of the teaching at the beginning, one is well on the Path toward the eventual Liberation. One just needs to continue further.

And of course there is the further goal of attaining Buddhahood for the benefits of beings. But more on that later…

Filed under: Thailand , Buddha, Buddhism, suffering, Happiness, Thailand, practice, motivation, practitioner, culture, gratification, pain

Is This the Best Possible World?

Prowling the net the other day I came across a review of a book by Steven Nadler on “The Best of All Possible Worlds” which is about the thoughts of German philosopher Leibniz, who thought that this world is the best possible world. Things could not be better than what it is now. 

What concerned Leibniz was the problem of “theodicy,” a word coined by him to denote an systematic attempt to justify and explain the problem of evil. What has plagued the monotheistic thought for a long time. Since God is supposed to be all-powerful and all-loving, how could it be that there are evils in the world? How is it that there are earthquakes, tsunamis, wars, famine, violations of human rights, all these nasty events that destroy a large number of lives, while God the all powerful could have prevented them through his power? He has all the motivation since he is all loving. Why did God let all these things happen? If he could not have prevented them, then he is not all powerful. But if he knew it all along, then he is not all loving. Either way this is a trouble for the theologian. 

For Leibniz, as is perhaps well known or at least as Nadler related the story, we need to take a larger perspective. Perhaps the tsunamis have their purposes, their place in the grand scheme of things. Here are the words by Michael Dirda, reviewing Nadler’s book:

The attempt to justify the ways of God to men — theodicy, a term coined by Leibniz — lies at the heart of the matter: “Why is there any evil at all in God’s creation?” Essentially, Leibniz’s answer is: Consider the whole. Explains Nadler, “It is not that everything will turn out for the best for me or for anyone else in particular. Nor is it necessarily the case that any other possible world would have been worse for me or for anyone else. Rather, Leibniz claims that any other possible world is worse overall than this one, regardless of any single person’s fortunes in it.” What is good for the whole isn’t necessarily good for every one of its individual parts or components. As Nadler emphasizes, summarizing Leibniz, “all things are connected and every single aspect of the world makes a contribution to its being the best world.”

So the world is as good as it can be. It cannot be any better; any other possible worlds are all worse. Leibniz has one nifty argument for this which is not mentioned in the review. Imagine that there are two things which are alike in all respects — not a thing that distinguishes one from the other. But Leibniz’s question is how is it possible that God could have created the world such that there are such a pair of things. What explanation is there for there to be these two exactly similar things? God could not have created a scene like this, argued Leibniz, because that would limit God’s infinite capability to create and to be creative. I mean, if he could have created two absolutely similar things, then all the diversity in the world would have been meaningless. That would certainly contradict God’s nature. Thus, there could be no absolutely similar pair of things. This world is really the best possible world.

So there are two topics here — the problem of evil and theodicy on the one hand, and the idea of identity of indiscernibles on the other. The two are closely related. Identity of indiscernibles support the view that this is the best possible world, and since this is the best possible world, the evils in the world are ultimately speaking only temporary and illusory. A very comforting picture. No doubt Voltaire satirized him a lot in Candide.

So what does the Buddhist make of all this? How does Buddhism deal with the problem of evil? Buddhists do not deny that evils do happen. After all, we can’t deny earthquakes, tsunamis or gross human right violations. But since there is no God the creator or the all powerful, there is no one who is responsible for this. Evils just happen. They are natural occurrences and take place according to causes and conditions. When two of earth’s continental plates push against each other, then sooner or later they snap, sometimes violently, killing thousands. But this can be fully explained through natural means. This is all there is for earthquakes. No God is there to prevent it or to let it happen.

And for the Buddhists, is this world the best possible one? Well, I don’t remember any place in the text where the Buddha mentioned the topic. There is a sutra, though, where the Buddha said that this “world” is nothing but our senses — what we see is the world; what we hear is the world; what we touch is the world, and so on. But what this means is only that the world is as good or as bad as we take it to be. If we succeed in eliminating all causes and conditions for suffering, then this world is indeed the best possible one.

Filed under: philosophy , Buddha, Candide, Leibniz, Nadler, problem of evil, theodicy, Voltaire

Maitreya Mantra

I found this very interesting video on YouTube. It’s a modern singer singing the mantra of Maitreya Buddha. What is amazing to me is how the music is in some way still traditional, but the video is really modern. I have written an earlier post on Buddhism and music. Perhaps this one is a very good example.

Filed under: chant, music , Buddha, chant, Maitreya, mantra, music, song

His Holiness the Dalai Lama on the Four Noble Truths

Here is a video of His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s talk in 1996 on the Four Noble Truths. This is a long video, more than an hour, and it’s only the first part. So set up some time for yourself and enjoy His Holiness’ teaching.

The Four Noble Truths is the essence of Buddhism. It’s the first thing the Buddha taught to his future students after having attained Enlightenment.

Each video is about one hour and a half long. So be prepared.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Filed under: Buddhism , Buddha, Four Noble Truths, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Mahayana, Theravada, Vajrayana

Rarity of Human Birth

Here is another treasured Dharma snippet from Luang Pu Doon:

“The Buddha’s 84,000 dharma teachings are only skillful means so that people start looking at their own minds. The reason why the Buddha taught so many things is because people’s defilements are so varied. But there is only one way to eliminate suffering, which is nirvana. It is very rare for us to have a chance to practice the Dharma, so if we let this chance go we will lose the opportunity to become liberated in this lifetime. And then you will live with ignorance for a tremendously long time before you will have this chance again. Therefore, when we are born so that we meet Buddhism, we need to be diligent in practice to realize nirvana. Otherwise you will lost this very rare opportunity. When the Dharma is forgotten, sentient beings will live in total darkness for a very, very long time.”

Filed under: meditation , birth, Buddha, Buddhism, dharma, human, Luang Pu Doon, rarity, teaching

Medicine Buddha Mantra

Medicine Buddha, or Bhaisajyaguru, is the Buddha who specializes in healing all the ills of human beings and other sentient beings. Diseases come in many guises, bodily, mentally and spiritually. In the Medicine Buddha Sutra, Bhaisajyaguru Buddha made a vow when he was a bodhisattva that when he achieved Buddhahood rays of many lights would come out of his body, curing all sentient beings of all their sicknesses. The mantra of Bhaisajyaguru, Om Teyatha Bekandze Bekandze Mahabekandze Raja Samudgate Soha, is the essence of Bhaisajyaguru’s meditative power and his vows. So meditating on this mantra is a really powerful way to achieve the goal of practice, for it means that our mind stream becomes one and the same as that of Bhaisajyaguru.

Filed under: Mahayana , Bhaisajyaguru, Buddha, Buddhism, healing, mantra, Medicine Buddha, meditation

The Buddha’s Silence

Browsing the web and wordpress blogs (especially this one) I came across this Sutta translated by Ven Thanissaro. This is a very deep Sutta on emptiness and the self. Since this is about silence, I’ll say no more…

***

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: “Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?”

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

“Then is there no self?”

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, “Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?”

“Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?”

“No, lord.”

“And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: ‘Does the self I used to have now not exist?’”

(Ananda Sutta, translated by Ven. Thanissaro)

Filed under: Buddhism , Ananda, anatta, atta, Buddha, Buddhism, emptiness, no-self, philosophy, self, silence