Bhikkhu Bodhi on Nibbāna

Discussion
486

I think eternalists are difficult to pin down because they use words willy-nilly.

For example it is possible that a person who is not meticulous with the usage of words would call something constructed for the unconstructed, essentially people can close their eyes and describe doing so as both a formless perception and a cessation of perception & feeling…

Suppose as a matter of fact if interrogated it’d turn out that they speak of something unconstructed but are describing the constructed.

Whenever criticized they would just add qualifiers like i showed in regards to the 7th sense but adding qualifiers must be consistent with everythin else and for them it can’t be consistent. It’d be a lot of work figuring this out.

487

Both versions of Nibbana discussed are valid “destinations”, whether it is a complete cessation, of nothingness, a return to the Source; or an eternal blissful safe haven. It is not about which one is right and which one is wrong, but rather a choice for each practitioner to make.

We live in a world with conflicts among different groups of spiritual beings, entities, or forces, and we earth humans are unfortunately one of their battle grounds. When Buddha said his true teachings would last only five hundred years, it is not because his teachings will naturally decay over time, but rather because of active infiltrations from opposing spiritual forces. When the suttas we see todays were compiled, it has already divided opinions about this issue, with different terminologies and concepts we are quoting here to debate. On the positive side, we are still able to see his true teachings in the suttas at least. So make your choice and strive for it, and bear in mind that the choice is not without danger, and not without the necessary help to reach the destination.

488

There’s only one nibbāna according to abhidhamma at least.

So the choice is important as part of right view. Choosen wrong, one gets wring liberation at the end, and still have to start over sometime, or switch over.

1 Like
489

that’s very right, choices are very important. First, because a nihilist image of a nothingness for nibbana will impede the realization of nibbana. Second, because a path developed around that image only could drive finally to this:

"A type of Nirvana that is just a blank form of nothing does not seem to fit particularly well the qualification of being the foremost happiness and thus even happier than the other types of happiness described in the passages surveyed above. Just the ending of suffering could reasonably be considered a form of happiness from the viewpoint of someone sorely afflicted and sick, living in constant pain. But the same is a considerably less convincing proposition in the case of those who, to all appearances, live in happiness.319 The idea of a blank nothing would fit the condition of being unconscious.

The early discourses recognize such unconsciousness as a goal apparently aspired to by some contemporary practitioners (translated by Ñāṇamoli 1995/2005, 840),320 leading to rebirth in the celestial realm of unconscious beings. According to later exegesis, for such unconscious beings the mind and mental activities have completely ceased.321 These exegetical explanations concord with indications found in the early discourses, according to which these unconscious beings are devoid of any form of experiencing (translated by Bodhi 2012, 1281).322 In fact, such beings are characterized as passing away as soon as a perception arises for them (translated by Walshe 1987, 382).323

This confirms the impression that, as long as they exist in that realm, these beings should indeed be imagined as entirely unconscious and thus bereft of, for example, any feeling tone or perception. Yet, such unconsciousness, to all appearances involving a complete cessation of the mind and experience through any of the six senses, is not reckoned a form of happiness in the early discourses; in fact, it is not even accorded a positive evaluation comparable to that accorded to the immaterial spheres, for example. 324 Had the early Buddhist conception of supreme happiness been just about the absence of anything felt, perceived, or cognized, then a condition of being completely unconscious would have deserved being reckoned at least a form of happiness (though perhaps a lesser one due to failing to lead beyond the prospect of rebirth)."

B.Analayo “The Signless and the Deathless”

1 Like
490

You may wish to consider:

491

Namo Buddhaya!

Extinguishment as an ontologically negative conception is applicable to describing annihilation of a thing.

Examples

  • you see a fire go out
  • you see a disease is healed
  • you see that the cold season has ended

It is not applicable to describing cessation of one thing occuring in dependence on another. Examples

  • cessation of a dream as being awake
  • cessation of disturbance as peace
  • cessation of pain as pleasure

If i describe an swakening from a dream as a cessation of a dream apprehended as being awake, then i need to be able to speak of this principle both as something ontolohically positive & negative.

Ontologically negative examples

  • When one has attained awakening there is nothing further to the dream and all that was is no more.
  • when a person has awakened from a dream the dream world is without them

Ontologically positive examples

  • if there was not what is not a dream world then a cessation of the dream would not be possible.
  • a cessation of a dream apprehended as the reality of being awake is something rather than nothing albeit it is nothing to the dream.

It is likewise when one talks about the cessation of the six sense bases being apprehended as the base where there is no world.

One has to be able to see both sides of this.

Otherwise the logic is flawed as in proclaiming that an awakening from a dream occurs in dependemce on no other reality than the dream. And thus describing only annihilation of a dream occuring in a dream world and in dependence on nothing, saying it is psychologically pleasant because the dream is no good.

It is an entirely nonsensical proposition.

492

I won’t speak for Ven. Sunyo, but this looks like abstract proliferation.

The Buddha said that whatever arises is dukkha. SN12.15:
"what arises is just suffering arising, and what ceases is just suffering ceasing. Your knowledge about this is independent of others.
‘Dukkhameva uppajjamānaṁ uppajjati, dukkhaṁ nirujjhamānaṁ nirujjhatī …

So the cessation of final nibbana is not about dreams or entities or other abstract notions, but just nirodha, cessation of all dukkha.

Since everything that is conditional is dukkha and the final dissolution of the six senses, the All (SN35.23), is the cessation of all experience, nibbāna can be understood simply as cessation of all that.

493

Note also that awakening means ‘an awakening to the truth’ in particular, as in realizing cessation, seeing the unmade ayatana, one’s fetters are removed by this seeing with discernment.

It is not applicable to parinibbana which is described as ‘final attainment of truth’ where everything by which one could be described has ended, dead people don’t “awaken” nor “see”, but this end is semantically tied to same principal truth & reality which one discerned in having one’s fetters removed.

494

Yes but this cessation is something it’s not just an event describing change in the world, it’s something principially as real as is change of the conditioned, it’s cessation is every bit as distinctly discernable as is it’s change and one can not mistake one for another.

There is, monks, an unborn[1] — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.[2]

495

This refers to the awakening of arahant, while alive, although “seeing an unmade āyanata” is not how it’s put in the suttas and āyatana is a word with many meanings, including “opportunity.”
So an awakened one sees/knows the opportunity for full cessation of dukkha with the ending of rebirth.

This word is used in the suttas to refer to both nibbāna while alive as an arahant and to the final death of an arahant. It’s very context dependent.
Awakening applies to enlightenment while alive.

Your response appears to conflate the two contexts.

496

I made a mistake above. I think final attainment of truth refers to a completed removal of taints not parinibbana but awakening to the truth is a reference to a seeing with wisdom by which taints are removed.

When, on observing that the monk is purified with regard to qualities based on delusion, he places conviction in him. With the arising of conviction, he visits him & grows close to him. Growing close to him, he lends ear. Lending ear, he hears the Dhamma. Hearing the Dhamma, he remembers it. Remembering it, he penetrates the meaning of those dhammas. Penetrating the meaning, he comes to an agreement through pondering those dhammas. There being an agreement through pondering those dhammas, desire arises. With the arising of desire, he becomes willing. Willing, he contemplates (lit: “weighs,” “compares”). Contemplating, he makes an exertion. Exerting himself, he both realizes the ultimate meaning of the truth with his body and sees by penetrating it with discernment.

"To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is an awakening to the truth. To this extent one awakens to the truth. I describe this as an awakening to the truth. But it is not yet the final attainment of the truth

Whereas the final attainment of truth.

The cultivation, development, & pursuit of those very same qualities: to this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the final attainment of the truth. To this extent one finally attains the truth. I describe this as the final attainment of the truth."

Therefore your proposition

I want to see how you draw this out.

I am aware it is not how it’s put in the texts but the question is whether i can rightfully put it like this and whether that would change the point that i was making.

Okay but can you prove which translation ought to be used and whether it matters what you call it?

This is a true statement, an arahant does see that but this has nothing to do with the seeing with wisdom associated with the removal of taints.

Are you are speaking about the term ‘awakening to truth’?

I think you take ‘awakening to the truth’ as further breaking up into ‘nibbana with & without residue’, where the word ‘truth’ denotes nibbana as a removal of taints & extinguishment in a general sense but this is not the canonical method as you take the cessation of perception & feeling, and that in dependence on what one is thus absorbed, out of the equation and it changes everything.

You have to decide if you will talk about this as if there are two things

The constructed
The unconstructed

Or as only one thing where it’s absence is ontologically negative

If you have decided that there is only one element in your understaing then of course there can be no two positives here but i don’t think like this.

As a side comment why on earth would buddha make his teaching so complicated with ontologically positive descriptions of what an atheist never can conceive of. It is entirely unnecessary to teach about the special ayatana and the psychological apprehension of a colloquial cessation as good riddance if we are talking about what every thinking person has already thought & talked about before as the atheist’s conception of death, why would he reinvent the wheel talking about there being an unmade?

He could simply proclaim rebirth until disenchantment and then nothing after death. The world would understand exactly what he means but he says no such things.

497

What if Nibbana is whatever a Perfected One chooses it to be for them?

498

Translations can’t be “proved” in a mathematical sense. Translators have said they choose based on their understanding of the whole and the particular context at the same time.

But the wisdom that knows the defilements have ceased is the wisdom that therefore knows rebirth has ended – or will end with the final death.

Speaking of the word parinibbāna.

I don’t understand what you’re pointing to here.

But he does.
Nibbāna means extinguishment.
Nirodha means cessation.
Sariputta said, “Extinguishment is bliss.” AN9.34
Iti44: One element pertains to the present life—
what is left over when the conduit to rebirth has ended.
What has nothing left over pertains to what follows this life,
where all states of existence cease.
SN12.68: ““I have truly seen clearly with right wisdom that the cessation of continued existence is extinguishment.”

And there are more examples.

Turn the question around – why did the Buddha never make it explicitly clear that there is an ineffable “something” after the final death without rebirth?
The Brihadranyaka and Chandogya Upanisads were quite clear about there being an everlasting blissful state after death – so why didn’t the Buddha make it as easily clear if that was the point of his teachings?

499

Awakening to truth means stream winning.

Arrival/attainment means arahanthood.

Because there is still work to be done to arrive, and only after arahanthood that there’s nothing else to do for the sake of liberation, the arrival/attainment cannot be later than Arahanthood.

1 Like
500

I understand, but if you are suggesting that a particular rendering out not be used in favor of another then you should make a case for both of these propositions separately.

I think that if you make a case good enough then it is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

One can always cast doubt on the texts due to things like ambuguity of isolated excerpts of expression. Maybe the grammar or style looks peculiar or a rare word is used, and for this one can suggest that the text is a counterfeit, but is this a reasonable assumption to make?

I find the arguments based on the words ayatana & dhatu to be similarly lacking substantiation.

I find this expression to be a bit difficult to comprehend.

When you say

the wisdom that knows the defilements have ceased

Which is closer?

  1. The wisdom that knows has ceased
  2. The wisdom knows that defilements have ceased

I skip this as you were talking about a different term.

But none of these qualify if you examine it.

Let’s be thorough

  • Nibbana translates extinguishment.
  • The removal & destruction of taints is spoken of in that way.
  • The stilling of all sankhara is called nibbana
  • Deathless is called nibbana

Therefore you are not warranted in saying that the term nibbana has the same semantic properties as the colloquial term ‘extinguishment’.

This is only a support for that position if interpreted in a way denoting a psychological apprehension of extinguishment as being desirable.

One still has to show that this interpretation has merit because in so far the only merit this interpretation demonstrates is it’s utility in being used as support for another proposition.

This statement also can be interpreted to contradict the proposition in describing sonething as ‘what has nothing leftover’ as ‘a where all states cease’ and as ‘following this life’.

501

Because that would side with eternalism describing end of rebirth as a contnuation of becoming one way or another and he doesn’t teach that.

Nor do i.

Perhaps you can see that i try to maintain colloquial usage as limited to aporopriate context where the ontology of that in dependence on what cessation is discerned is not spoken of.

In this way i can describe the constructed before & after an extinguishment as in talking about a world where buddha has attained parinibbana 2500 or so years ago.

Here i describe my existence in reference to extinguishment of buddha’s existence but i am just talking about my existence which is entirely constructed. Therefore in describing my predicament one uses this negative ontology as in the colloquial usage of the term extinguishment.

But if you talk about cessation of existence, not in reference to something construcred like the world that i see, but in & of itself as a principal truth & opportune reality wirhout existence, then one can only talk about it in ontologically positive terms

502

Ontologically positive also doesn’t mean some experience or a continuation of bhava if one has defined it specifically as not that then that is it’s defining characteristic.

503

Except all the things you listed are about things ceasing, i.e. extinguishment.

That’s up to you – but cessation, as has been cited in a number of posted examples which you haven’t responded to, imo opinion is the overall context in the suttas, so interpretations should account for this too.
,

It’s about, as posted earlier, the cessation of dukkha. Words and concepts like “existence”, “non-existence” are abstract and tend to lead to proliferation.

Just the 1st NT: there is dukkha, and the “results” of the 4th NT: the cessation of all dukkha.

It’s not about trying to define the undefinable.
Since the All, SN35.23, must end with the final death of an awakened one there is complete cessation.
Of what? All dukkha.
And what is dukkha? See SN56.11 .

And all that ends. Cessation. It can’t even be called “nothing.”

504

I’ll look past the propositions you made because i get a bit tired but i’ll try one last time to show how i think about this drawing parallels to the analogy of how a cessation of a dream can be talked about.

A)
Element1 - dreaming
Element2 - being awake

In other words
B)
Element1 - dream world
Element2 - not dream world

In other words
C)
Element1 - dream
Element2 - cessation of the dream

As you can see in all three cases i delineate a difference between two elements.

If someone asks:

‘is there anything further to this dream after it’s extinguishment?’

Id answer no there is nothing left over of the dream.

I could say things like

There is the not dream. If there was not the not-dream then an escape from the dream could not have been discerned. But because there is the not dream, an escape from a dream has been discerned.

‘There are these six ayatana where perceptions & feelings are remarkably persistent. There is neither this dream nor the next. Just this is the end of dreams’.

Three characteristics define the dream element; arising is discerned, a cessation is discerned and it’s erratic change as it persists is discerned.

Three characteristics define the not dream element; arising is discerned, a cessation is discerned and relative stability as it persists is discerned.

Now the only difference in how i talk about this and in how i talk about the parinibbana of the arahant is in what are the elements & ayatanas in question. The structure of reasoning is otherwise the same in how i talk about it

There is, monks, an unborn[1] — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.[2]

There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished,[1] unevolving, without support [mental object].[2] This, just this, is the end of stress.

“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’.”

“Mendicants, the conditioned has these three characteristics. What three? Arising is evident, vanishing is evident, and change while persisting is evident. These are the three characteristics of the conditioned.”

“The unconditioned has these three characteristics. What three? No arising is evident, no vanishing is evident, and no change while persisting is evident. These are the three characteristics of the unconditioned.”

Nevermind the translation of ayatana, for all practical purpose we can render it opportune reality if you want, opportunity as in possibility or just X as a matter of a general formula.

505

I think most people should be able to entertain this way of apprehending it, whether they accept it or not is a diffferent matter.

As i see it, adapting this framework doesn’t result in any particularly uniform conception of the unmade because what matters more so is how one understands the implications of something being unmade.

This does rule out both the atheist’s conception of death as parinibbana and eternal existence if one is meticulous with words.

At the same time one is free to use the extibguishment of a fire similes to illucidate the origination of elements as being conditional.
And one proceeds to speak about parinibbana in ontologically negative terms where it is aporopriate and is not troubled to explain it otherwise.