Have You Ever Met Anyone Who Has Attained Nirvana? Is it Even Possible?

[The Rev]

There have been times that I have flirted with it, seen glimpses of it, especially those times that I took large quantities of psychedelic mushrooms (which distort thinking so much that they pretty much force your mind into silence). At those times, I realized I was everything, and have spent many many hours since contemplating those experiences in more sober terms, without really being able to define more than a shadow of them.
:namaste

 

[ratikala]

Yes. I've met many people who have attained Nirvana. Actually, I'd say everyone I've ever met has attained Nirvana.

but only momentarily

And no, it doesn't exist.

how do you know ?

 

[Two-bit guru]

I am in over my head right now, I will continue learning, perhaps this thread can be let go, it is as if I am asking a question about mitochondria when I don't know what a cell is yet.

35 years ago I was in over my head and I still am. It's good. My philosophy says Always be a beginner no matter how much you learn. It's more fun that way.

 

[ratikala]

Well, there is no such thing as nirvana, so no one can attain it

.....?

Though speaking in terms of convention logic, one who realizes enlightenment does not "go into nirvana" until they leave their body.

not even the buddha ?

But no one realizes enlightenment, so the point is moot I suppose. (hehe "moot" )

but is nirvana not the ceasation of suffering ? the extinguishing of craving ,the end of attatchment , anger and ignorance ?

Enlightenment is nirvana , as with enlightenment comes the change in perception which alliviates all suffering , thus nirvana is allso a state of mind :namaste

a very blissful state of mind ...

 

[kaisersose]

I ask you humbly, have you ever met anyone has attained Nirvana? Does Nirvana even actually exist?

If someone claims he has attained Nirvana, how would you believe him? Maybe he has, maybe he has not, but we can never really know. There is no proven method to identify or test such people. An accomplished actor can easily pull it off. So can someone who has convinced himself that he is liberated.

 

[chinu]

If someone claims he has attained Nirvana, how would you believe him? Maybe he has, maybe he has not, but we can never really know. There is no proven method to identify or test such people. An accomplished actor can easily pull it off. So can someone who has convinced himself that he is liberated.

Why to claim that he/she has attained nirvana ? what's the need of claimimg that he/she has attained nirvana, among wordly peoples ? tell me..

Why to share Real thing for the sake of false wordly praise or illusion ? tell me..

Such person doesn't care for anything or anyone, such person doesn't need to be the member of any disscussion board.

People think that such person will come on this disscussion board one day and claim -- that he/she has attained nirvana

But very sadly this can never happen.

Poor people think that such person also need wordly praise like us.

_/\_
Chinu

 

[YmirGF]

I ask you humbly, have you ever met anyone has attained Nirvana? Does Nirvana even actually exist?

At one time, I would have talked, at length, about Nirvana. I have been fortunate to meet several people who might fit the idea of "attaining Nirvana". However, I don't use the term any longer and have only recently eschewed the term "enlightenment" due to peoples preconceptions of these concepts. I still have yet to settle on a new term, but... give me time... I'm sure I'll come up with something.

Do I still believe in "Nirvana"? :no:

Though, I am comfortable saying that it may well be another one of those concepts that has become distorted over time. Though heavily influenced by Buddhism many years ago, the bird has flown and I see no reason to go back to that cage of thinking.

 

[wmjbyatt]

but only momentarily

I never said that. Though you could, without lying.

how do you know ?

"Nirvana" is not a place, it is not a tangible thing, it is not anything material. Is itself, in a literal fashion: a "blowing out," as of a candle. It is a non-thing, a lack, a non-existence, insofar as it is an "is."

In other words, it's nonsense to talk about the existence or non-existence of Nirvana. The most efficient--that I can muster--way to describe this nonsense is by describing Nirvana as a non- without the qualities necessary for an existence, without a Dasein, if we are to cross cultural borders.

That is, certainly, an inaccuracy, but only direct realization, personal experience of Nirvana can transmit its nature (or lack thereof, whatever) to a seeker. The descriptions are all inherently weak, flawed: imperfection is a seal of existence, but Nirvana is not within the confines of existence, and thus is not bound by the imperfection which surrounds our concept-laden existence.

That's the long answer. The shorter answer would have, I guess, just been a link to Joshu's Mu. A dog does not have Buddha-nature.

 

[YmirGF]

A dog does not have Buddha-nature.

If only some human animals had the natural grace of dogs, they wouldn't need primitive concepts like Nirvana to make themselves feel important.

 

[internationalist]

If only some human animals had the natural grace of dogs, they wouldn't need primitive concept like Nirvana to make themselves feel important.

Primitive?

 

[YmirGF]

Primitive?

One word is hard to work with, but how, exactly is a 2500 year old concept, that may well have outgrown its usefulness, not a primitive concept?

 

[wmjbyatt]

One word is hard to work with, but how, exactly is a 2500 year old concept, that may well have outgrown its usefulness, not a primitive concept?

Before this gets started, it doesn't work that way. You made an assertion, YmirGF, in calling Nirvana primitive. You get to defend it. You don't get to demand that of the opponent, or else you're engaging in dishonest discourse. I also recommend you recant the entire statement above, because now you have a second assertion to defend: that of Nirvana as a concept that "may well have outgrown its usefulness." While Nirvana as primitive is pretty easily defensible, Nirvana as obsolete is not. Period.

 

[YmirGF]

Before this gets started, it doesn't work that way. You made an assertion, YmirGF, in calling Nirvana primitive. You get to defend it. You don't get to demand that of the opponent, or else you're engaging in dishonest discourse. I also recommend you recant the entire statement above, because now you have a second assertion to defend: that of Nirvana as a concept that "may well have outgrown its usefulness." While Nirvana as primitive is pretty easily defensible, Nirvana as obsolete is not. Period.

Hahaha. A working definition of "primitive" is "of or relating to the earliest age or period", so no real negative connotations there, unless the reader wishes to deny reality.
That said, I didn't say it was obsolete, but rather, that it may well have outgrown its usefulness as a concept for all the good that it does in helping to enhance our understanding of reality. Outside of subjective anecdotal reports we have nothing to support the notion. Add to this the perception that anyone claiming to have "attained Nirvana" is generally considered to be pulling our collective legs. It would seem to be one of those things that is only allowed to exist in books.

 

[ratikala]

I never said that. Though you could, without lying.

no you didnt say that , I did

why did I say "but only momentarily" ?

when the original question was asked
"HAVE YOU EVER MET ANYONE WHO HAS ATTAINED NIRVANA ? " you had replied to the effect , saying every one has atained nirvana , by my reply I was pointing out that whilst many have attained 'momentary ' experience of nirvana the true attainment is permanent !

(attainment I have allways assumed to be permanent ?)

"Nirvana" is not a place,

It 's a state of mind !

the antithesis of dukka , suffering !

it is not a tangible thing, it is not anything material. Is itself, in a literal fashion: a "blowing out," as of a candle. It is a non-thing, a lack, a non-existence, insofar as it is an "is."

then if nirvana is non existent , samsara must be equaly non existant ?

that would be nice , no suffering

 

[YmirGF]

then if nirvana is non existent , samsara must be equaly non existant ?

that would be nice , no suffering

Go figure, eh.

 

[ratikala]

Go figure, eh.

sorry , you'll have to translate that for me please

 

[YmirGF]

sorry , you'll have to translate that for me please

There is only reality, if more people simply tried to deal with it, their suffering would be greatly decreased. Instead they prefer to view reality as they think it should be. Admittedly, that is sad and could lead to suffering.

I'm not suffering. Are you?

 

[no-body]

Everyone, they just don't know it.

 

[YmirGF]

Everyone, they just don't know it.

But..... how would you know to say?

 

[wmjbyatt]

no you didnt say that , I did z

why did I say "but only momentarily" ?

when the original question was asked
"HAVE YOU EVER MET ANYONE WHO HAS ATTAINED NIRVANA ? " you had replied to the effect , saying every one has atained nirvana , by my reply I was pointing out that whilst many have attained 'momentary ' experience of nirvana the true attainment is permanent !

(attainment I have allways assumed to be permanent ?)

The moment is permanent. All attainment is true, but that's okay because there is no attainment.

the antithesis of dukka , suffering !

then if nirvana is non existent , samsara must be equaly non existant ?

that would be nice , no suffering

Yes. That is true.

Methinks thou doth think too much.