/lit/ - Literature

>>11149291
>>11153938
(cont.)

>That's kind of a tricky thing, isn't it? I've heard that nirvana is samsara and samsara is nirvana, and the only barrier is deluded existence.
That depends on which Buddhist tradition we are talking about. There are three main branches, namely, Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Each has different approaches and definitions of what exactly is nirvana and its nature. A particularly interesting position is that of the Madhyamikas, a Mahayana school, which is based on Nagarjuna's concept of emptiness (sunyata). Even nirvana is empty of substance. Nirvana is "the unconditioned", and samsara is conditioned. How can the unconditioned be the same as the conditioned? Anyway, this discussion won't take us to anything, as it's a discussion that goes back to the origin of the Buddhist community and it is still being debated. Let's stick to what the Buddha said and not what Buddhists say. Buddhism doesn't have an institution per se. Buddha transmitted the Dhamma, not Buddhism. I have to say that I try to adhere to the Theravadins, so what I'm trying to base what I say on the Theravadin view.

>Our thoughts condition our lives
True. See the first couple of verses of the Dhammapada (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.01.budd.html).).

>I do think it's valid to suggest the Middle Way as an alternative to that cycle.
Hmm... The Middle Way is not an alternative to samsara. It's not some alternate reality you jump into and are automagically free from suffering. Imagine this world we experience as a jenga tower. Desire and ignorance makes you add blocks to the tower, thus making it sturdier and more difficult to destroy. The Middle Way allows you to remove blocks from the tower so that it collapses and you are free from adding more blocks or building more towers.