Bhikkhu Bodhi on Nibbāna

[Green]

Can one not make soundwaves visible?

Anyway, i do not really care. I believe the sublime supreme peace of Nibbana is worth striving for.
Dhamma might seem all like philosphy often, but in the end we have to deal with fears of death, of fears of living, all kinds of emotions, tendencies, a desire not to exist (shyness, too restraint), a desire to exist (to much present, to loose), and suffering, sickness, decay, loss, death. It is no joke for me.
Life is not easy.

here in the Netherlands there is TV program called Over My Death Body. It was yesterday. It was shocking to see again. Young people with cancer in a terminal stage are followed. Pfff…that touches the heart. How one transform from a big strong person in a vulnerable skinny person. Young fathers. Young mothers. People qua age in the bloom of their lifes. Ofcourse with hopes, longings, wishes. Not wanting to die.

There you lie in your bed, alone. I have seen this so much. There you lie, alone with all your pains, fears, hopes, wishes, expectations, thoughts etc. This is Dhamma. Wow…This is no joke. This is not a doctrine. This is life. This is why it is important to make an island of ourselves.

Seeing all this is for me more a Dhamma lesson then reading all this stuff about Nagarjuna.
The real teacher is suffering, the real life. My God…what a nightmare it can be.

After seeing this TV serie i promised myself, again, that i would stop participating here…and would only practice. I felt sad, sensitive, and inspired. Now i am again here. A fool i am.

Now i stop.

May we all attain to the sublime supreme peace of Nibbana and be a light for ourselves and others. A real friend. Maybe it did not appear that way, but i tried.

[Ceisiwr]

@Vaddha

So the idea that it’s “likely” that Ven. Nāgārjuna belonged to a certain school is extremely thin evidence for understanding his views. Do you mean to say that scholars of Nagarjuna’s treatises think they display certain ideas held by a sub-set of Pudgalavadin doctrine? If so I’d be curious to learn a bit about it.

I don’t mean to say he was a Pudgalavādin ideologically. Rather he came from this tradition. Was ordained in it, and likely learnt it before accepting the Mahāyāna. When speaking in terms of conventional reality he accepts certain Sammatīya Abhidharmic ideas in his texts. You are best asking those at DharmaWheel though, as they are more knowledgeable than me (I got this from there, but can’t find the thread with the quoted text in question).

[yeshe.tenley]

@Vaddha

None of this is in agreement with the continuation of sense activity after the death of an awakened one nor the idea that Buddhas continue to exert influence in samsara from the perspective of sentient beings. But it’s possible that some schools end up going there. Maybe @yeshe.tenley knows

As you say, the supposition that all Mahayana schools adhere to Nagarjuna or interpret Nagarjuna in the same way is erroneous. It is difficult to say anything categorical about the extant traditions in general to my mind. You can find lots of traditional prayers to the Buddhas and lots of lay folks who believe in or take refuge in a Buddha Shakyamuni that is ^^ out there ^^ somewhere. I think you can probably find such in all extant traditions.

[Puerh]

@NgXinZhao

Nothingness, total cessation. No arising, ceasing, change is seen in total nothingness, not even perception of nothingness, which is the attainment of formless nothingness realm. No seeing, no thinking, no knowing etc.

I fear there is a problem in that notion of nibbana because this is another -self acquisition, that is, a nothingness. Just one could ask about that knowledge of the no… no… Where did it come from? How it can exist in that nibbana-nothingness?.

Note the nibbana is not an acquisition of a no-thing ambit. Nibbana is a result after leaving all fabrications. And this result is made of pure freedom and happiness according Buddha. The freedom arise because the cease of delusion of -self, and the happiness arise because the cease of dukkha.

There is no a cease for that result made of happiness and freedom. On the contrary, there is a pure nature of both, a pure manifestation sustained by itself. This is what the sources shows. Nibbana is not born neither it can decay. And in the same way, with the cease of consciousness there is a nature of knowledge sustained by itself, without destruction of that nature.

It is because there is no destruction of that nature that nibbana is not an unconsciousness. How else?. On the contrary, How can you explain this point?.
We can avoid “unconditioned consciousness” or “primordial citta” if we don’t like these labels. Choose the name you wish.

Another point on parinibbana: we cannot forget the cease of consciousness is already realized in life. This is established in the arhants before their death. And death itself is realized like a delusion including body and mind. And then we read how arhants don’t care about death. Therefore, How can we talk about death like a cause to attain a different nibbana?.

If the realization of delusion of death happened time ago before death. Where is the sense in rescuing death like a new enigma to be solved again by the arhant?

IMHO there is a confusion in the understanding of the meaning of “cease”. And at least I believe that one should be careful with this issue. Because the attachment to ideations about a nothingness could cause the experience and even a rebirth in an ambit of nothingness. And again it would be sustained by a -self, of course.

We already can know that an acquisition of a nothingness only can be sustained by a -self. Because this notion already appears to us like a logical absurdity, a fabrication. Just note the non-sense when thinking “a nothingness can exist”. Its non-sense already goes implicit in the same phrase, in the building of the notion. However, it doesn’t mean that it cannot become an experience by means attachment like any other fabrication and delusion of -self.

At least I understand the teaching says that by leaving all ideations and fabrications what remains is the result, the nibbana taught by the Buddha. And this result is no a nothingness or an unconsciousness but is made of pure freedom and the higher happiness.

Probably there is no reason for that nature, simply this is the result after the eradication of ignorance. Which are good news, it sounds better than a nothingness

[Layman]

@Vaddha

He showed that by positing that ‘impersonal’ permanent substances exist still amounts to positing an ‘attā,’’ even if we say “it’s not self!” Because it’s not about positing the existence of a sense of self in this context, but about the concepts of permanence and things being beyond conditions. This then inevitably leads to or involves an ignorant sense of self, hence the issue.

Not quite, I think Bhante,

This is just a personal opinion, I am not a expert on Theravada ( or anything else for that matter). But I think more nuance to the above can be seen

I think for example, Jhana can be referred to as ‘nekkhammo’ , because the following “vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi” invariably has to happen to gain knowledge of Jhana.

I think it is a peculiarity of Pali that for example ‘virago’ does not necessarily have to mean just the absence of ‘raga’. This can be used to refer to something in terms of its sacchikiriya upaya or having no footing for raga etc. This ‘virago’ ( can also be be referred as Nibbana) is not within the range of tanhāgāha in terms etaṃ mamāti, esohamasmīti eso me attāti.

[HinMarkPeng]

@Jasudho

This is very close to, and in someways identical to the liberation described in the Upanishads, for example in the Chandogya.

I am not very familiar with the Upanishads but I can say this: There are states of Samadhi that can be mistaken for the pure heart and the words used to described both could be the same. Again, a problem with words. The Lord Buddha experienced both states and knew the difference. The key to understanding the difference is not to be found in the words, it is to be found in the way to attain the experience. The eightfold path is the key. Right View is not just the beginning of the path, it is also the end. As Luang Poo Tate’s says, at the moment of enlightenment, all the other path factors converge and coalesce into Right View. Like samadhi and Jhāna, this is a singularity but far more wonderful than either of those two.

[Dhammanando]

@Vaddha

Do you mean to say that scholars of Nagarjuna’s treatises think they display certain ideas held by a sub-set of Pudgalavadin doctrine?

I have actually come across something like this. I don’t have any textual source for it, but I once heard a Tibetan khenpo give a summary of how various Indian pandits answered the question: “By what agency are karmas able to persist through time, and even across lives, until they give rise to a vipāka?” When the khenpo got to Nagarjuna he said something to the effect: “We don’t need to spend any time on Nagarjuna as he had no distinctive conception of his own and considered the Personalists’ view (i.e., that karmas are borne by the pudgala) perfectly adequate as far as saṃvṛtisatya is concerned.”

Later I saw a similar claim made by the American scholar Loppön Namdrol (Malcolm Smith) on the Dharma Wheel Mahayana forum.

[NgXinZhao]

@Puerh

cease of consciousness

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.”

[Jasudho]

@HinMarkPeng

The key to understanding the difference is not to be found in the words

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.

[Pondera]

@Vaddha

On the other hand, we cannot designate an actual experience of ‘attā.’ Because it is impossible to experience a permanent, unconditioned essence.

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.

[mudita]

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

[mahabodhi]

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…

[NgXinZhao]

@mahabodhi

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

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.

[mahabodhi]

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…

[Green]

@mahabodhi

Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi seems quite concerned to show that Nibbāna is not annihilation. But in fact there is nothing that is annihilated.

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.

[Green]

@Jasudho

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“.

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

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?

@Jasudho

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.

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

[Jasudho]

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

[Ceisiwr]

@Jasudho

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“.

An eternal nothingness is just as metaphysical, no?

[Jasudho]

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.

[Ceisiwr]

@Jasudho

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 sensation.

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.