Nirvana and Samsara Are Not the Same
1.
The earliest literature of Buddhism describes a Way of
Transcendental Liberation (or Nirvanic Realization) that is based on a
“realistic” (or phenomenalistic) rather than an “idealistic” (or noumenalistic)
analysis and evaluation of manifest existence. It describes the method
of approach to Realization, but it does not directly describe Realization
Itself (or That which is ultimately Realized). Therefore, that literature
stands in contrast to the literatures of the first five stages of life,
since such literatures base themselves either on idealistic and ego-based
methods of absorptive meditation and mystical ascent to higher worlds (as
is the case in the paths of the fourth and fifth stages of life) or on
materialistic ideals of personal and collective human fulfillment in the
context of embodiment in this world (as is the case in the paths of the
first three stages of life). And the language of the earliest Buddhist
literature also stands in contrast to that of the literatures of the seventh
stage of life, since such seventh stage literatures are founded on and
expressive of prior Enlightenment’ Transcendental Realization, or Inherent
Freedom, rather than on the progressive search for such. All of this indicates
that the earliest Buddhist tradition (or the Pali tradition commonly called
the Hinayana or “lesser vehicle”) is a Transcendentalist tradition of the
sixth stage type.
For further reading go to:
