The concept of Nirvana as an unchanging, permanent state free from suffering contradicts core Buddhist principles and logic. Buddhism asserts that all phenomena are impermanent (anicca), lack inherent existence (anatta), and are characterized by suffering (dukkha). If Nirvana is a state or phenomenon that can be experienced or achieved, it must also be subject to these universal laws. Furthermore, the idea of a permanent, blissful state existing separately from the impermanent world creates a problematic dualism that Buddhism generally rejects. If Nirvana is truly "empty" as some traditions claim, it cannot have the positive attributes often ascribed to it. Conversely, if it has those attributes, it cannot be empty. The notion of "escaping" the cycle of rebirth into Nirvana also implies a form of eternalism that Buddhism explicitly denies. Thus, the traditional concept of Nirvana appears to be internally inconsistent within the framework of Buddhist philosophy, rendering it logically problematic.
it's the same as yesterday >>16889133>phenomenaall fabricated phenomena>>16889133>If Nirvana is a state or phenomenon that can be experienced or achieved,nirvana is the end of the birth cycle>>16889133>Furthermore, the idea of a permanent, blissful state existing separately from the impermanent world creates a problematic dualism that Buddhism generally rejects.nirvana is blissful because there's no pick up of any aggregates which are always suffering>>16889133>If Nirvana is truly "empty" as some traditions claimemptiness is not the buddha's teachingthe buddha's teaching is that the aggregates are devoid of an atmanThen Ven. Ānanda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, “It is said that ‘the world is empty, the world is empty,’ lord. In what respect is it said that ‘the world is empty?’”“Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ānanda, that ‘the world is empty.’1 And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms… Eye-consciousness… Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on eye-contact—experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain—that too is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.“The ear is empty.…“The nose is empty.…“The tongue is empty.…“The body is empty.…“The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas… Intellect-consciousness… Intellect-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on intellect-contact—experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain—that too is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.“Thus it is said that ‘the world is empty.’”
>>16889133>The notion of "escaping" the cycle of rebirth into Nirvana also implies a form of eternalism that Buddhism explicitly denies.eternalism is when people believe there's an atman. there's no atman to begin with. What there is the conditioned coproduction of the agrgeates>>16889133>positive attributes often ascribed to it.emptiness is not part of buddhism and the qualifier of nirvana is that it's unconditioned. That's the entire description of nirvana. It's the only thing to know about nirvana, it's the only knowledgeable about nirvana.Any other qualifying word is mistaken and stems from mental masturbation that intellectuals love so much.>>16889133>The notion of "escaping" the cycle of rebirth into Nirvana also implies a form of eternalism that Buddhism explicitly denies.nirvana is the end of birth cycle so there's indeed an escape from the sequence of births
