Bhikkhu Bodhi on Nibbāna

Discussion
372

Clearly not. Both ways liberated Arahants can enter into cessation of perception and feeling, where consciousness ceases.

But your point on not putting labels to nibbāna maybe valid as see AN4.173.

Note the cessation of the 6 sense contacts is not in dispute.

Reverend, when the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over, does something else still exist?”

“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”

“Does something else no longer exist?”

“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”

“Does something else both still exist and no longer exist?”

“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”

“Does something else neither still exist nor no longer exist?”

“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”

“Reverend, when asked whether—when the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over—something else still exists, you say ‘don’t put it like that’. When asked whether something else no longer exists, you say ‘don’t put it like that’. When asked whether something else both still exists and no longer exists, you say ‘don’t put it like that’. When asked whether something else neither still exists nor no longer exists, you say ‘don’t put it like that’. How then should we see the meaning of this statement?”

“If you say that, ‘When the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over, something else still exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated. If you say that ‘something else no longer exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated. If you say that ‘something else both still exists and no longer exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated. If you say that ‘something else neither still exists nor no longer exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated. The scope of proliferation extends as far as the scope of the six fields of contact. The scope of the six fields of contact extends as far as the scope of proliferation. When the six fields of contact fade away and cease with nothing left over, proliferation stops and is stilled.”

1 Like
373

Agree.

But rather than being about the words, it’s about what the words point to.

Those who have an eternal-ist view of final nibbana, whatever words they use or don’t use, still are pointing to a kind of everlasting metaphysical “something“.

On the other hand, there are those who state that the teachings in the suttas do not support this, and that the Buddha pointed to cessation as the ending of all rebirth and of all dukkha.

Of course, the Buddha was aware that people tend to have a propensity to add onto their experiences, and to interpret them in different ways. That’s why, in DN16 for example, he said that practitioners should refer to the.suttas when there was disagreement over the teachings.

Admittedly, some of the teachings are cryptic and are open to interpretation. But to refer to the suttas for clarity is not to get caught up in words.

374

I want to point out that, regardless of the ontological status of atta, the implications that atta has as a functional determining factor on rebirth should be considered.

The annihilationists agree (or disagree depending on who’s speaking) on seven selves destroyed after death. That which is:

Made of form; divine and material; divine and mind made; made of space; consciousness; nothingness; and/or made of neither perception nor non-perception.

The annihilationists are wrong. These Selves aren’t destroyed at death. But the eternalists are wrong as well. These Selves do not lead to an everlasting state upon birth.

The reason the Buddha was able to declare that all phenomena are Anatta, was that he penetrated into the deconstruction of the Self.

This is an illustration of how the functional self, if not shed through enlightenment, carries a being through the round of samsara.

In that sense, it’s more relevant to emphasize that there is a Self which requires deconstruction, as opposed to the universal dismissal of all notions of Self as being fundamentally flawed.

Because, Unless one deconstructs, the self and its effect on transmigration go unchecked.

375

that’s right, to figure this out requires more than just the suttas.

376

Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi seems quite concerned to show that Nibbāna is not annihilation. But in fact there is nothing that is annihilated. At the moment of death, the 4 elements are dispersed and the 5 khanda, which are aggregates, compounds, constantly changing processes, mutate and don’t actually go anywhere, nor are they really destroyed, as well as the 4 elements that had only temporarily and apparently taken a certain (human) form.

It can certainly be said that Nibbāna is an āyatana, in a certain sense, just as it is a dhātu, in a certain sense. As Luang Por Chah said we must somehow find words to talk about these matters, the problem, however, is not to get entangled in them. Not to deceive oneself with one’s own words and reasoning.

This is also the reason why at some point it is good, after studying and reflecting on the teachings , to put them into practice and get into meditation. And really know what the 4 elements are, the 5 khandhā, the sense spheres, the silence, the space, the cessation etc.etc.

Nibbāna is something that can be experienced in this very life, since it is an intrinsic quality of reality, just as materiality and spaciousness…

377

According to orthodox Theravada at least, the form aggregates can be seen indeed to disperse as corpse, relics, decayed etc. But the other 4 aggregates of the mind are totally gone and do not arise again, ever. The 6 sense bases are also completely ceased at parinibbāna. And do not arise again.

1 Like
378

Listening to this interview again, the impression I get is that bhikkhu Bodhi and his interviewer are trying to introduce for a wide and very diverse audience, which could be practitioners as well as people who have only a vague idea of Buddhist teaching, one of the most sensitive and subtle topics in the spiritual practice of being a man. And it is done in a way that is understandable, not frightening (just think back to poor Vacchagotta’s reaction…“hey! I had a Self and the Buddhists made it disappear!”), reassuring, using “positive terms,” and creating interest.

Not easy to be a teacher… :sweat_smile:

379

For me, this all is about the question if there is really nothing more to discover and know then the made, produced, conditioned, fabricated, formations, constructed (sankhata). That what is seen arising and ceasing and changing.

There are many sutta’s that teach there is more to discover and know. I do not post them here again but there are many. For many buddhism is apparantly only about what is seen arising, ceasing, and ceasing. They only accept formations, the produced, the conditioned, the made, temporary states etc. Nothing what is not seen arising, ceasing, and changing is accepted here and now.
I feel there is where this all fails.

For many teachers and practioners the Dhamma starts by seeing what is not a formation, not seen coming and going, what is not made, not a fabrication…the sublime supreme peace of Nibbana.

Some believe that this peace of Nibbana is also only some construction, made, produced, liable to cease. But no sutta supports this. Some sutta’s even literally say that is everlasting or an imperishable state.

The cessation of the khandha’s is not disputed. But some buddhist believe that the peace of Nibbana is also only a formation, temporary state, that will totally cease at last death. No sutta points in that direction.

There is also no sutta that teaches that the Buddha searched for the socalled eternal peace of a mere cessation at death without anything remaining. To describe this as bliss is quit cynical.

380

The Buddha spoke on this matter.

“What’s reborn, produced, and arisen,made, conditioned, not lasting,
wrapped in old age and death, frail, a nest of disease,
generated by food and the conduit to rebirth: that’s not fit to delight in.
The escape from that is peaceful, beyond the scope of logic, everlasting,
where nothing is reborn or arisen, the sorrowless, stainless state, the cessation of all painful things,the stilling of conditions, bliss.” (iti43)

Everlasting…and do you really believe that this sutta refers here to a mere cessation at death without anything remaining as …a sorrowless stainless state beyond the scope of logic :grinning:

Or this sutta:

"That wise mendicant here
rid of desire and lust,
has found the peace free of death,
Nibbana , the imperishable state. (Snp1.11)

Or, SN 43.14–43: Anāsavādisutta—Bhikkhu Sujato (suttacentral.net)

which share that Buddha teaches a Path to the Stable, Constant, Not-desintegrating, that in which nothing appears, the peaceful, the state of grace, the haven etc.

Or Ud8.3 that says there is the unborn, unmade etc.

So, those who believe that the sutta’s point to something that is constant, not perishing, everlasting, stable, not desintegrating, not some aggregation that is always liable to desintegrate, they are not fools who fabricate their own dhamma, right?

Why do you not accept the sutta’s on this point?

This is never any problem…but if someone refers to sutta’s, as in the above, you do read very different things. You do not read, apparantly, everlasting peace, imperishbale state, the constant…etc.

Why not? Truth is…that does not suit your understanding of dhamma. And if it does not suit the idea of a mere cessation, then one can expect one of the following moves:

-translations are wrong…so where it says everlasting it must be…or where it says…unborn it must say… etc. In some way or the other one will correct translations until they fit the understanding one prefers.
Yes, it happens.

-texts are corrupted or late or…this and that is wrong with the text, so it is not reliable as source.

And so we go on and on :grinning:

381

Well, there have been a lot of other threads and posts about the suttas that you cited. And the interpretations, including by many venerables, are different than yours.

I’m not interested in rehashing previous discussions and it’s clear where you stand Your interpretations are up to you.

By the way, full cessation also has no ending and could be poetically be called everlasting

382

An eternal nothingness is just as metaphysical, no?

383

I see your point, but there is I think a significant difference.

In the suttas the Buddha and Arahants clearly knew and experienced the complete cessation of greed, anger, and ignorance. From that, they understood that the fuel for rebirth had ended, and that with their final death, there would be nothing to cause any further rebirth or existence.
Hence, full cessation.

I think this is different from conjuring a metaphysical “something” that is a sort of eternal bliss.

1 Like
384

Yes, but that’s all that can be said. Saying this or that comes after is pure speculation, based on the senses. Both Existence and Non-Existence (or anything in between) don’t apply.

385

Well, if you want to bring this up, i think most teachers in Buddhist Sangha worldwide do not teach a mere cessation without anything remaining at a last death. But i do not rely on some majority of teachers. Taking all together, for me, there is no reason to believe Buddha teaches a Path to a Mere Cessation but he clearly says he teaches a Path to the Unconditioned, the Constant, Stable. Not desintegrating etc. That is the house he sought. A house that does not desintegrate. And this is in the texts described as nothing else but the everlasting peace of Nibbana. The fire of defilements extinguished just means peace.

The peace of Nibbana is not some acquistion but is there when mind is without grasping and does not acquire anything anymore, in this very life. If one understands that not desintegrating peace fully, the texts say, then one knows that rebirth is ended. If you like, see also the serie posts on the Peak of Peace.

Good with me, but maybe you cannot also stop these kind of remarks:

The peace of Nibbana cannot be treated this way. There is no use to see this peace as a substance or as some eternal atta, soul, personallity etc.
It is better to see this peace as non-constructed, no aggregate, no aggregation. Therefor it cannot fall apart.

This peace is also not a samadhi (Some jhana) nor calm (samatha). Because this all lies in the domain of the constructed, the produced. While the peace of Nibbana does not belong to the produced and constructed.

If you really believe Buddha talked about a mere cessation at death as an ultimate bliss, as constant, as not-desintegreting, the incredible, the refuge, a state of imperishable peace, that in which nothing manifest (etc SN43)…for me…that is just cynical talk.

It is like talking about an extinguished fire as everlasting??, as not desintegrating???, a state of peace??? Bliss??? Makes no sense for me at all.

386

We may choose to agree to disagree here.
We’re are not in agreement with what you’re saying is “pure speculation“.
Clearly it can be directly inferred that the absence of fuel for continued rebirth will lead to cessation.

The Buddhist said that understanding through inference was an acceptable form of understanding, (anumāna).

It’s true that prior to the final death, there can be no direct experience through the senses of full cessation — but that’s because there won’t be any senses or any experiences at parinibbana!

Using the fire analogy, suppose someone had never seen a fire before, but began to notice that the flames dwindle as the wood is burned up. They then notice that the fire can only be maintained by adding more wood. How hard is it to infer that by completely stopping the addition of wood and fuel to the fire that it will go out completely?
This can’t be experienced directly through the senses ahead of time, but the inference is clear and justifiable.
Same with the elimination of the fuels of greed, anger and ignorance leading to full cessation.

1 Like
387

What two things should be directly known? Two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element.
(DN34)

“There could, Ānanda. There are these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element. When a mendicant knows and sees these two elements, they’re qualified to be called ‘skilled in the elements’.” (MN115)

This is all a matter of reasoning, logic, inference?

388

You can also get to substances and the atta through inference. Inference based on experience is fine. Inference on something outside of experience, not so much in the Dhamma. We can say dhammas arise and cease, and in seeing that there were no dhammas to speak of which arise and cease. At the end of life for an Arahant the aggregates cease without remainder, and that’s all that can be said.

“Reverend, when the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over, does something else still exist?”

“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”

“Does something else no longer exist?”

“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”

“Does something else both still exist and no longer exist?”

“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”

“Does something else neither still exist nor no longer exist?”

“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”

“Reverend, when asked whether—when the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over—something else still exists, you say ‘don’t put it like that’. When asked whether something else no longer exists, you say ‘don’t put it like that’. When asked whether something else both still exists and no longer exists, you say ‘don’t put it like that’. When asked whether something else neither still exists nor no longer exists, you say ‘don’t put it like that’. How then should we see the meaning of this statement?”

“If you say that, ‘When the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over, something else still exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated. If you say that ‘something else no longer exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated. If you say that ‘something else both still exists and no longer exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated. If you say that ‘something else neither still exists nor no longer exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated. The scope of proliferation extends as far as the scope of the six fields of contact. The scope of the six fields of contact extends as far as the scope of proliferation. When the six fields of contact fade away and cease with nothing left over, proliferation stops and is stilled.”

AN 4.173

To say there isn’t anything after final nibbāna is just as “wrong” as saying there is something. Both views arise because of Sakkāya Diṭṭhi, the view of truly existing (sat) things (kāya). Existence doesn’t apply (the Eternalist view). Non-Existence doesn’t apply (the Annihilationist view). Both Existence and Non-Existence doesn’t apply (the Jain position). Neither Existence nor Non-Existence doesn’t apply (the Vedic view).

389

So when the fire goes out to say it has utterly ceased is “wrong”?
When the senses and aggregates cease to say there is no more experience is “wrong?”
If there is no more experience why not call it cessation?

Or are you invoking another kind of consciousness/knowing that persists forever?

The existence/non-existence views you cite (eternalist/annihilationist views) apply to the assumption of a self or continuous essence and not to nibbāna as cessation, which is not related to self-view.

Anyway, this debate over eternal “something” and cessation goes on and on…
On we go with our practices. :slightly_smiling_face:

390

No one is saying cannot be known while an arahant is alive, as in Iti44.
Cessation is as “unconditioned” as you can get!

391

The atta is a substance. Give up substance based thinking and true existence or non-existence no longer make sense. No, i’m not positing some eternal consciousness thingy. We can say the fire arises and ceases, but to say the fire no longer truly exists is to come from a place of Sakkāya Diṭṭhi. Its to take the fire as a truly existing thing. Something with independence, which then ceases to be. The basis of the Annihilationist view. Just like the atta, the fire cannot be said to be there to begin with. That being so, how can you say it truly doesn’t exist anymore?