Bhikkhu Bodhi on Nibbāna

[Green]

@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.

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.

@Jasudho

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

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

@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 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.

@Jasudho

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

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.

[Jasudho]

@Ceisiwr

Saying this or that comes after is pure speculation

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.

[Green]

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?

[Ceisiwr]

@Jasudho

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, (anumana).

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 noticed that the fire could 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.

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).

[Jasudho]

@Ceisiwr

To say there isn’t anything after final nibbāna is just as “wrong” as saying there is something.

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.

[Jasudho]

@Green

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

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

[Ceisiwr]

@Jasudho

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.

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?

[Green]

@Jasudho

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

The natural result of the cessation of all the defilements is in the sutta’s described as sublime supreme peace. This is not calm. But this is a peace of heart, the liberation of the heart. Buddha called this peace Nibbana and also the unconditioned. Why? This sublime supreme peace of Nibbana is never seen arising nor ceasing nor changing. It is unmade, unproduced, unbecome. It is unlike any temporary peace that is produced such as jhana, or the peace after a meal.
This peace is according the sutta’s everlasting and imperishable. It does not desintegrate because it is not build up or composed of elements. It is not a construction and therefor also not liable to decay.
Exactly what the Buddha sought.

That Nibbana is translated as extinguishment gives the wrong impression that all ends like a fire that extinguishes. But extinguishment means in the Dhamma the extinguishment of all defilement which naturally result in the bliss of peace, all becomes cool, peaceful, at ease. No agitation anymore.
There is no clue in any sutta that the peace of Nibbana ceases at death.

I feel it is really problematic that one cannot connect to inward peace and does not accept that it is never seen arising, ceasing nor changing. I have seen that some even think low about peace, think it is nothing special. They are wrong. Buddha described as the amazing, incredible, the refuge, the island.
At this moment we do not fully understanding this unconditioned peace but still people think they do.

[Jasudho]

@Ceisiwr

the fire cannot be said to be there to begin with. That being so, how can you say it truly doesn’t exist anymore?

It doesn’t exist as something with an inherent essence, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist as a selfless process of experience.
Have you ever had a headache? Have you ever experienced pain? No one says the headache is a thing with a permanent essence, but the experience is real.

Same with dukkha. I mean it’s the basis of the 1st NT. Dukkha doesn’t exist as a thing with an essence, but the Buddha said it was real enough to seek and offer a Path out of it.,

[Jasudho]

@Green

There is no clue in any sutta that the peace of Nibbana ceases at death.

Have a look at AN9.34
And SN12.51
And Iti44.
And Iti49.
And MN60.

[Ceisiwr]

@Jasudho

It doesn’t exist as something with an inherent essence, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist as a selfless process of experience.
Have you ever had a headache? Have you ever experienced pain? No one says the headache is a thing with a permanent essence, but the experience is real.

Same with dukkha. I mean it’s the basis of the 1st NT. Dukkha doesn’t exist as a thing with an essence, but the Buddha said it was real enough to seek and offer a Path out of it.,

How can it be real if it is dependent? To say something is real is to say its independent. For example, when people want to say trees are real they say they are independent of mind. Trees aren’t independent though. They are dependent, and so can’t be disassociated from mind unless you go down the road of atta-based thinking, of independently existing things. When the Buddha awakened, he realised there never really was anyone to speak of who suffered. Likewise he realised that dukkha, aggregates, elements etc can’t be spoken of either. There is dukkha and the NEFP in the same way that we say the Buddha lived and died.

[Ceisiwr]

@Jasudho

Have you ever had a headache? Have you ever experienced pain? No one says the headache is a thing with a permanent essence, but the experience is real.

Its the mind that makes those distinctions, no? If the mind didn’t conceptualise it (sanjanati) then there would be no experience of it. If you want to say pain exists “from its own side” you can, but that is going down the road of truly existing essences (the Abhidhamma) or truly existing substances (Jains, Vedanta, Ājīvika etc).

[Jasudho]

@Ceisiwr

How can it be real if it is dependent? To say something is real is to say it’s independent.

This is getting into philosophical ideation and word games.
The Buddha said dukkha was real in terms of experience via the sense fields. This was his concern, not ontological philosophical analyses in the tradition of the philosophy 0f science, for example.

@Ceisiwr

he realised there never really was anyone to speak of who suffered.

That’s true, but does not invalidate the reality of the suffering as experience.

There is the reality of the experiences of greed, anger, and ignorance and the experiences of the effects of these, and the experience of the freedom from them with awakening. It is in this sense that they are real.

Abstract words and concepts like “real” and “unreal” are interpreted in many ways.
By “real” in the Dhamma the Buddha pointed to the experiences of beings and the experiences of dukkha --even as there is fundamentally no self or essence to any of it.

[Jasudho]

The mind sense experiences all conditional experiences along with the other senses.
Why not leave it there without proliferating about real, unreal, etc.

A headache is an experience of discomfort like all other vedanā. Real experience.

That’s why nibbāna, as the end of all experience is free of dukkha.

[Ceisiwr]

@Jasudho

This is getting into philosophical ideation and word games.
The Buddha said dukkha was real in terms of experience via the sense fields. This was his concern, not ontological philosophical analyses in the tradition of the philosophy 0f science, for example.

I wouldn’t say its word games. All conditioned dhammas are of a dependent nature. Since their nature is dependency, you can’t also say they have an independent existence at the same time. This was actually a position of the Jains, that things are dependent and independent simultaneously (both existence and non-existence). So, you have to decide. Is pain dependent & relative, or independent? If dependent, you can’t say its also independent from mind. This is the deeper meaning of conditionality. All is dependent and relative.

@Jasudho

The mind sense experiences all conditional experiences along with the other senses.
Why not leave it there without proliferating about real, unreal, etc.

Well, you are arguing that something is real. That is the proliferation. That is Sakkāya Diṭṭhi. Nibbāna is seen when dependent origination is seen, because in seeing dependent origination nothing can be established. This is why nibbāna is empty of earth, moon, pain, attas and arising & ceasing. Its the mind which creates these things, like a magical illusion. The mind though is too dependent on what it experiences, and so it too can’t be established either. Why do you think the Buddha said he has given up all views? Because nothing can be established, due to emptiness of substance (the atta being a type of substance).

[Jasudho]

@Ceisiwr

Well, you are arguing that something is real. That is the proliferation. That is Sakkāya Diṭṭhi.

No, what “real” are the conditional experiences, kamma and its effects, and rebirth, as examples. These are experiences which being experienced are real in that sense.

Self view has nothing to do with this.

If dukkha wasn’t real, as experience, why did the Buddha seek liberation from it and teach the N8FP?
In SN56.11 the Buddha doesn’t dwell on things not being fundamentally real in some philosophical sense – but on the felt and experienced reality of dukkha and the way to end it.

AN10.144:
"“I will teach you the principle that results in suffering and that which results in happiness. … And what principle results in suffering? Wrong view, wrong thought, wrong speech, wrong action, wrong livelihood, wrong effort, wrong mindfulness, wrong immersion, wrong knowledge, and wrong freedom. This is called the principle that results in suffering. And what principle results in happiness? Right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right immersion, right knowledge, and right freedom. This is called the principle that results in happiness.”

Notice there is no qualification that any of these are unreal, nor is there delving into other philosophical assertions. Just: in experience, this leads to dukkha and this leads the way to its cessation.

Same as in AN6.75 and AN6.99, amongst other examples.

In these suttas experiences are real and the “reality” even as they are selfless and impermanent.

[Ceisiwr]

@Jasudho

No, what “real” are the conditional experiences, kamma and its effects, and rebirth, as examples. These are experiences which being experienced are real in that sense.

Self view has nothing to do with this.

How are they real, without succumbing to substance based or essence based thinking? The atta the Buddha was critiquing is a substance. It is something which has an independent existence, meaning ontologically real. Its not a product of the conceptualising mind, according to those who propose it. It really exists objectively. Notice what is happening here?

If dukkha wasn’t real, as experience, why did the Buddha seek liberation from it and teach the N8FP?

Before he was awakened he was unawakened, no? Why does he teach others? Because conventionally there are beings who suffer. Ultimately, there are no beings who suffer because there is emptiness of beings and dhammas.

“Reverends, I have heard and learned this in the presence of the Buddha: ‘Someone who sees suffering also sees the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering. Someone who sees the origin of suffering also sees suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering. Someone who sees the cessation of suffering also sees suffering, the origin of suffering, and the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering. Someone who sees the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering also sees suffering, the origin of suffering, and the cessation of suffering.’”

SN 56.30

To see dukkha is to also see nibbāna, which is an emptiness of dukkha. Dukkha includes the earth element, consciousness element and so on. So, by seeing the arising and ceasing of dhammas (1st and 2nd truth) one sees the emptiness of arising and ceasing of dhammas (3rd truth). Its the same thing, looked at from different points of view. Nibbāna is right here, right now, because dhammas are ultimately unoriginated, not found, void. Yet we know the emptiness of dhammas by experiencing dhammas, and so life is like an illusion or a dream. You can’t say an illusion totally doesn’t exist (natthitā) nor that it actually exists (atthitā). This is why its a mistake to say that final nibbāna really is something, or is absolutely nothing.

[Ceisiwr]

@Jasudho

Notice there is no qualification that any of these are unreal, nor is there delving into other philosophical assertions. Just: in experience, this leads to dukkha and this leads the way to its cessation

The Buddha was for undoing philosophical speculations, and the impulse to reification behind it. That means giving up the notion of truly existing things.

[Ceisiwr]

@Jasudho

In SN56.11 the Buddha doesn’t dwell on things not being fundamentally real in some philosophical sense – but on the felt and experienced reality of dukkha and the way to end it.

The first fetter given up is that of truly existing (sat) things (kāya). You would agree that he thought the atta was not fundamentally real, no?

[Jasudho]

Again, it’s not about truly existing things, it’s about the reality of conditional experiences actually being experienced. When they end without rebirth, dukkha has ceased.

Regarding the apparent fixation on “truly existing” or not, please do jump out of the way of an oncoming “unreal” and not “truly existing” car if you’re in the road.
I mean, I hope that never happens! But just in case…

The car and you have no atta and yet…