user715: How does one remain dedicated to the pursuit of nibbāna, when one has seen clearly that ultimately there is no separate nibbāna. What does one aspire towards now?
Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya sūtra: «There is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no end to suffering, no path to follow» 

Where beauty is, then there is ugliness; where right is, also there is wrong.
  Knowledge and ignorance are interdependent; delusion and enlightenment condition each other.
  Since olden times it has been so. How could it be otherwise now?
  Wanting to get rid of one and grab the other is merely realizing a scene of stupidity.
  Even if you speak of the wonder of it all,
  how do you deal with each thing changing?  
................................................................................................~Ryokan 


user832: I interpret the question [before it was edited 10-2-14  to mean that how does one build and maintain an individual practice whose goal is nibbana or nirvana (same term different language) which some interpret to mean enlightenment. This then poses a problem because what is going to experience nibbana or nirvana, the individual?
Here is one interpretation of nibbana or nirvana "to be blown out" or "to be extinguished."[quoted text below this paragraph] Here is where the goal of nibbana could be in conflict if one conceived of attaining nibbana. Nibbana is rather an erasure or elimination or disappearance of an appearance of a self that is now seen to be a phantom or dream.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism)

Nirvana (Sanskrit, also nirvāṇa; Pali: nibbana, nibbāna ) is the
  earliest and most common term used to describe the goal of the
  Buddhist path.[1] The literal meaning of the term in Sanskrit is "to
  be blown out" or "to be extinguished". Within the Buddhist tradition,
  this term is typically glossed as the extinction of craving (tanha),
  or more broadly, the extinction of the fires of attachment (raga),
  aversion (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidyā).[1] In the Buddhist
  view, when these fires are extinguished, suffering (dukkha) comes to
  an end, and one is released from the cycle of rebirth (saṃsāra).
Buddhist tradition distinguishes between the experience of someone who
  reaches nirvana during their lifetime (sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa) and the
  experience of nirvana after one passes away (nir-upadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa).
  The experience of nirvana-in-this-lifetime is described as a
  transformed state of mind that is free from negative mental states,
  peaceful, happy, and non-reactive. The experience of
  nirvana-after-death (commonly referred to as paranirvana) is said to
  be beyond words or description.
The two main traditions of Buddhism, the Theravada and Mahayana,
  differ in their presentations of nirvana. The Theravada tradition
  emphasizes the cessation of suffering and liberation from samsara. The
  Mahayana tradition emphasizes two stages of nirvana: the first stage
  is described (using similar language to the Theravada tradition) as
  the cessation of suffering and liberation from samsara; the next and
  final stage is referred to as the nonabiding (apratiṣṭhita) nirvana,
  or buddhahood, that transcends both samsara and the limited nirvana of
  the first stage.

There really is no conflict with nibbana and the path to it. The problem is imagined by those who believe they have to get somewhere they are not already. Extinguish the movie that is covering the screen of consciousness and what is always present is visible, not because it appeared, but because the illusory dreams of selfhood become invisible once the falsehoods that feed this false sense of self are extinguished or drop away in awakening.

user43: Good question. A couple of thoughts:

Do you still have ups and downs? One day you understand everything, and one day you are angry, helpless and miserable? If so, that's a good reason to keep working.
There is a difference between intellectual understanding and full realization. When you attain realization, you don't ask questions like "How does one remain dedicated to the pursuit" or "what does one aspire towards now?" Keep meditating.
Why so much focus on "one"? Go help many!


user745: When the Heart Sutra says "There is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no end to suffering, no path to follow" it isn't saying that none of these things exist. What it means is that none of these things exist in terms of 'Svabhava' which means something like 'intrinsic existence' or 'self nature' or 'essence'. In terms of 'Svabhava' none of these things exist, but in terms of the experience of these things and in terms of their actual features and characteristics, they do exist.
And I think that the quote by Ryokan means that opposites are concepts which are relative and exist as abstract concepts which are imputed onto experience. It is absolutely true that the abstracted concept of Nibbana and the abstracted concept of conditioned existence relatively depend on each other as part of a dualistic pair, but that doesn't mean that the experiences and properties to which these concepts refer are themselves interdependent.

715: <p>How does one remain dedicated to the pursuit of nibbāna, when one has seen clearly that ultimately there is no separate nibbāna. What does one aspire towards now?</p>

<p>Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya sūtra: «There is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no end to suffering, no path to follow» </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Where beauty is, then there is ugliness; where right is, also there is wrong.<br>
  Knowledge and ignorance are interdependent; delusion and enlightenment condition each other.<br>
  Since olden times it has been so. How could it be otherwise now?<br>
  Wanting to get rid of one and grab the other is merely realizing a scene of stupidity.<br>
  Even if you speak of the wonder of it all,<br>
  how do you deal with each thing changing?  </p>
  
  <p>................................................................................................~Ryokan </p>
</blockquote>
 832: <p>I interpret the question [before it was edited 10-2-14  to mean that how does one build and maintain an individual practice whose goal is nibbana or nirvana (same term different language) which some interpret to mean enlightenment. This then poses a problem because what is going to experience nibbana or nirvana, the individual?</p>

<p>Here is one interpretation of nibbana or nirvana "to be blown out" or "to be extinguished."[quoted text below this paragraph] Here is where the goal of nibbana could be in conflict if one conceived of attaining nibbana. Nibbana is rather an erasure or elimination or disappearance of an appearance of a self that is now seen to be a phantom or dream.</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism)" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism)</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Nirvana (Sanskrit, also nirvāṇa; Pali: nibbana, nibbāna ) is the
  earliest and most common term used to describe the goal of the
  Buddhist path.[1] The literal meaning of the term in Sanskrit is "to
  be blown out" or "to be extinguished". Within the Buddhist tradition,
  this term is typically glossed as the extinction of craving (tanha),
  or more broadly, the extinction of the fires of attachment (raga),
  aversion (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidyā).[1] In the Buddhist
  view, when these fires are extinguished, suffering (dukkha) comes to
  an end, and one is released from the cycle of rebirth (saṃsāra).</p>
  
  <p>Buddhist tradition distinguishes between the experience of someone who
  reaches nirvana during their lifetime (sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa) and the
  experience of nirvana after one passes away (nir-upadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa).
  The experience of nirvana-in-this-lifetime is described as a
  transformed state of mind that is free from negative mental states,
  peaceful, happy, and non-reactive. The experience of
  nirvana-after-death (commonly referred to as paranirvana) is said to
  be beyond words or description.</p>
  
  <p>The two main traditions of Buddhism, the Theravada and Mahayana,
  differ in their presentations of nirvana. The Theravada tradition
  emphasizes the cessation of suffering and liberation from samsara. The
  Mahayana tradition emphasizes two stages of nirvana: the first stage
  is described (using similar language to the Theravada tradition) as
  the cessation of suffering and liberation from samsara; the next and
  final stage is referred to as the nonabiding (apratiṣṭhita) nirvana,
  or buddhahood, that transcends both samsara and the limited nirvana of
  the first stage.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There really is no conflict with nibbana and the path to it. The problem is imagined by those who believe they have to get somewhere they are not already. Extinguish the movie that is covering the screen of consciousness and what is always present is visible, not because it appeared, but because the illusory dreams of selfhood become invisible once the falsehoods that feed this false sense of self are extinguished or drop away in awakening.</p>
 43: <p>Good question. A couple of thoughts:</p>

<ul>
<li>Do you still have ups and downs? One day you understand everything, and one day you are angry, helpless and miserable? If so, that's a good reason to keep working.</li>
<li>There is a difference between intellectual understanding and full realization. When you attain realization, you don't ask questions like "How does one remain dedicated to the pursuit" or "what does one aspire towards now?" Keep meditating.</li>
<li>Why so much focus on "one"? Go help many!</li>
</ul>
 745: <p>When the Heart Sutra says "There is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no end to suffering, no path to follow" it isn't saying that none of these things exist. What it means is that none of these things exist in terms of 'Svabhava' which means something like 'intrinsic existence' or 'self nature' or 'essence'. In terms of 'Svabhava' none of these things exist, but in terms of the experience of these things and in terms of their actual features and characteristics, they do exist.</p>

<p>And I think that the quote by Ryokan means that opposites are concepts which are relative and exist as abstract concepts which are imputed onto experience. It is absolutely true that the <em>abstracted concept</em> of Nibbana and the <em>abstracted concept</em> of conditioned existence relatively depend on each other as part of a dualistic pair, but that doesn't mean that the experiences and properties to which these concepts refer are themselves interdependent.</p>
