It seems to me that all of the theories/conceptions I have heard or read about nibbana/nirvana boil down to this question: is it something or nothing?
That is, if one attains the meditative state of Nirodha-Samapatti, and their body dies while their mind is in that state, does that mind survive in some form, or does it nihilistically end in such a way that it is not reborn?
The two elder, learned Theravada bhikkhus to whom I have posed this question, one Sinhalese and one Thai, have both told me that nirvana is something, that there is some kind of eternal, unchanging, motionless consciousness in that state, which they said is better than the constant struggle of this world.
What do you think?
Experiences of thoughts, feelings, and actions, even when pleasurable, usually require some energy, involve some stress, and arise in response to stressful situations: talking or playing music to fill socially awkward silences or to avoid unpleasant feelings; eating, sleeping, etc. to satiate biological needs or seek pleasure; working to make a living, pay for education, buy entertainments, etc.; feeling anxiety from social or natural pressures; feeling depression from hopelessness or weariness; and so on.
Though one can try to avoid or minimize stressful situations, one can also minimize stress by refusing to create more thoughts, feelings, or actions than necessary. For example, if one must, one can speak only softly and in an emotionally monotone way, drive or walk as slowly and calmly as possible, eat simple foods without seasoning, do other biological things in a routine way as little as necessary to stay healthy, and minimize expenses so that you can minimize how much you have to work. If one embraces them, peace and quiet can be perhaps the purest forms of happiness.
The death of a loved one, or having serious health problems oneself, has a way of highlighting the pettiness and pointlessness of much of daily life. What things might survive death? Personal afterlife (liberation, redemption, salvation, etc., depending on your views) and personal legacy (e.g., children and their inheritence, one’s own tangible and intangible contributions to the world, maybe choosing to live/die in a location where one would like to be reborn, etc.) are the main things I can think of. Except as things pertain to either afterlife or legacy, most everything else seems like short-term issues about which one shouldn’t get too stressed or invested.
Usually, I find that being well-educated and/or well-traveled makes people more open/large-minded, tolerant, patient, non-racist, non-nationalistic, peaceful, etc., and that being poorly educated and/or traveled makes people the opposite of those things. People who, mentally or physically, never go far from home usually seem to be the ones who are passionately attached to one (and against all others) religion, ethnic or national identity, sports team, local dialect of a language, and so on. A common metaphor for such people in south and southeast Asian countries is “frogs in a well.”
Many Buddhists apparently don’t know that the first Buddha images were probably created by Greco-Buddhists living in Central Asia. For example, below is one of the earliest Buddha statues, from perhaps the 1st-3rd centuries CE in Gandhara (present-day Afghanistan). Notice the European facial features.
By I, Sailko, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link
Early Buddhism was mostly aniconic, representing the Buddha with objects like a footprint, an empty throne, a Dhamma/Dharma Wheel, etc. For example, here is an early Indian sculpture from perhaps the 2nd-3rd centuries BCE in Bharhut, India, representing the Buddha as a garland and Dhamma Wheel. Notice that the Wheel’s spokes look more traditional/Hindu, not the Eightfold-Path Wheel usually seen today.
By Ken Kawasaki – Ken Kawasaki: Bharhut Stupa In the Indian Museum, Kolkata , CC BY-SA 3.0, Link
The Derana radio station in Sri Lanka plays a nice Bodhi Pooja Kavi (a traditional Buddhist song/chant about the Bodhi Tree) every evening at 6:15pm. Here it is on YouTube, beginning from my favorite musical part at time 15:15:
One thing I find puzzling about the 10 Unanswered Questions and Poisoned Arrow parable in the Pali canon is that they seem to ignore the existence of devas and/or a personal/interactive creator God. If such beings exist, why can’t we just ask them for the answers to those questions? Why do we have to find the answers ourselves? Is Buddhism saying that such beings don’t exist, that such beings are inaccessible or unreliable for some reason (e.g., they live outside of time in a nirvana-type state, or they might not be truthful), or that the answers are beyond human comprehension? What experiences had the Buddha had that allowed him to make such an absolute “it’s useless to try to answer these questions” statement? Though a great achievement, if the Buddha only (re-)discovered, but did not create, nirvana, how could he be sure that he knew the full reality of nirvana (e.g., that nirvana is truly eternal or how nirvana compares with the rest of the universe)? Why did the Buddha not feel it appropriate or necessary to acknowledge whoever or whatever underlies, supports, etc. nirvana? Was, or is, God(s) offended by being ignored or taken for granted in this way?