Bhikkhu Bodhi on Nibbāna

Discussion
712

@Jasudho

Thank you for giving me the last word! :+1:

When you once again bring up the ”I” ”Mine” from the stock phrases of outsider views that are expressed in first person, you not only dodge the actual question (What is the difference between buddhists who reject eternalism and Cessationists?) but also avoid the fact that in The Buddha’s teaching there is no such thing as eternal or annihilation to begin with, in any of the various dimensions.

So keep in mind that from a buddhist point of view there’s no such things as eternity or annihilation - A monk asks how to end the defilements in this present life? (So this is adressed to buddhist monks and strictly for buddhist monks)

The Buddha goes on to teach that some do not regard the khandhas as self but still embrace eternalism with wrong ideas like for instance: ’Nibbāna is the ”true self” etc. (MN1 puts a stop to such wrong ideas)

Then we have those who do not regard the khandhas as self and who rightfully reject eternalism but instead embraces annihilation (mere cessation) - Do you honestly think The Buddha was such a bad teacher and speaker that he in SN 22.81 mentions those who do not see the khandhas as self and who reject eternalism - Then he uses yet another stock phrase formula used by outsiders (what else could he use when there is no such thing as annihilation to begin with in the buddhist teaching?).

Since The Buddha has already declared that these people ”don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self” and reject eternalism you can’t claim that just because the annihilationist formula uses ”I” and ”Mine” that The Buddha is the one making a mistake as a teacher and not the ones he’s talking about, namely ”Cessationists”.

So either The Buddha was a pretty worthless teacher in this sutta for buddhist monks wanting to end the defilements in this very life or maybe, just maybe, those who do not regard the khandhas as self and who reject eternalism have no other option than to embrace annihilation ”mere cessation” (suttas like AN 10.6 and AN 10.7 put a stop to such wrong views).

Strange that you adhere to there being ”buddhist-eternalists” who are wrong but never admit that there are also ”buddhist-annihilationists” who are equally wrong. :wink:

It is impossible to live eternally in any plane of existence, one will eventually die and take rebirth.

It is also impossible to be annihilated/terminated. No matter where or how this ”termination” takes place; be it having the dimension of nothingness as the end goal or Asaññasattāvāso - one is still bound to enter a new existence sooner or later.

I mean it is right there in the Dhammacakkappavattanasutta that The buddhist path is beyond both existence (craving for being) and non-existence (craving for extermination).

The whole point of the path is to go beyond all the dimensions and planes in Saṃsāra - that very immersion mentioned in AN 10.6 & AN 10.7, The Unconditioned - Nibbāna, that is beyond all planes of existence.

When I started a thread that there is Nibbāna in the locative case, namely: Nibbānasmiṃ, Nibbānamhi & Nibbāne.

Ven. @Sunyo was quick to dismiss all of it by saying;

But when me and others asked what is incorrect there was no reply…So what is in reality incorrect with Nibbānasmiṃ, Nibbānamhi & Nibbāne?

Still no reply.

I see that you rely heavily on Ven Sunyo’s views and link to his various essays - but despite him being the Pali expert he made grave mistakes with MN 49 (check the thread where I point out all the illogical mistakes). He also forgot that anidassanaṁ is a synonym for Nibbāna.

”It’s good to study a sutta properly before trying to teach others about it.” :wink:

That is a contradiction.

You admit in this thread that one can in fact perceive the unconditioned - which happens to be beyond all planes of existence - but you add: only when alive.

But then there can’t be a single person in the whole universe who (ACTUALLY) sees ”final nibbāna as full cessation” Since one can ONLY ”see this” when the body is dead, without any possibility to even share with others about ”seeing final nibbāna as full cessation, there is nothing left, nothing ever-present.”

So those that you refer to are clearly on the wrong path if they ”see final nibbāna as full cessation.” in advance. Because seeing this is, according to your views in the thread, only possible when the body is finally dead and never when alive.

So how can then anyone even know about or have heard about final nibbāna as full cessation? How can someone know this prior to the actual death of the body?

Do you see the contradiction?

Inference will not help you here.

Mere cessation is only a view that arises from not regarding the khandhas as self and ONLY rejecting eternalism.

You constantly bring up The Upanishads:

These so called upanishads are found in all the four vedas. We don’t know when the upanishads were composed but in general: ”The Upanishads are late vedic and post-Vedic Sanskrit texts that “document the transition from the archaic ritualism of the Veda into new religious ideas and institutions”

But we do know that in the Nikayas The Buddha only mention 3 vedas, not four.

So maybe the upanishads were added after The Buddha? After all ”The Upanishads are late vedic and post-Vedic” and The Buddha only mention three vedas.
:pray:

713

I’d say it’s not a synonym but an epithet. And something that is an epithet for one thing can also be an epithet for another. Anidassana I argued is a metaphor for ‘formless’, which is clear from MN21. Ven Analayo came to the same conclusion in The Luminous Mind in Theravāda and Dharmaguptaka Discourses.

Nibbāna lacks form and therefore is anidassana, sure. But that doesn’t make the verses in MN49 about nibbāna, because there are other states that are formless as well. The state of boundless consciousness being one of them.

That aside, the appellation of nibbana as anidassana occurs in a repetition series and is missing in the Chinese parallel. So there is a significant chance it had been inserted later, perhaps after the DN11 verses on boundless consciousness were misunderstood to refer to nibbana.

714

Hi Dhabba,
Thanks for your comments. You had the “last word” but I’d like to just clarify a point or two you made in your post regarding my prior responses.

I probably didn’t express my self clearly.
What I meant to say is that if one does not see nibbāna as any kind of “something” or “Place” or “whatever” but rather as the cessation (absence), of greed, anger, and ignorance (as frequently mentioned in the suttas) while an arahant is alive, the arahant “sees” and experiences the peace and freedom from the defilements and also knows that their cessation is not conditional – they cannot and will not arise again. So in this sense, there is the perception and experience of nibbāna while alive.

In addition, as Ven. Bodhi and several other Venerables have said, asankhata is better understood as “unconstructed.” So for the arahant, there is no further construction of attachments, defilements, ignorance, etc. In this way, again, there is perception and experience of nibbāna, (with residue).

From this, having seen the irreversible cessation of the defilements and self-view, there is the understanding that at death there will be no rebirth and the cessation of all dukkha – this ultimate cessation is also not dependent on conditions/constructions or perceptions since there is just: cessation.

So it’s in this sense that the arahant “sees” and experiences nibbāna while alive.

This doesn’t conflict with the understanding of final nibbāna being full cessation.

See above. And, in fact, the Buddha does teach that inference can be a valid form of understanding, as in SN12.33.

Those who see nibbāna as a “something”, in whatever way, will understand these issues differently.

:pray:

715

Yes, the absence of lobha, dosa and moha is the presence of an awareness without limits or in other words, the presence of a sublime state of supreme peace.

An arahant never thinks that he/she ceases to exist after a last death. That would mean he/she is still fully identified with 5 khandha’s. This does not happen.

His/her realisation that rebirth is ended is about something different.

Yes, PS describes construction in this very life and over many lifes. It describes how the mind builds a home here and now and over many lifes. This happens under influence of avijja and sankhara’s.
PS describes the construction process. When avijja and tanha is gone in this very life, there is no construction anymore.

Construction is something that happens all the time: 1. unvoluntairy due to anusaya’s that are triggered and set a constructing proces into motion; 2. or voluntairy due to states which are volitionally produced or made such as Brahmavihara’s or jhana’s.

None of these constructed states represent the unconstructed. The unconstructed is also not made nor produced like the constructed. It is just the natural result of the removal of all that brings construction in motion, all asava, anusaya, tanha.

This also does not mean that an arahant or Buddha cannot at will construct states. Dhamma is not about inability but it is about the removal of all unvoluntairy grasping, unvoluntairy constructing, unvoluntairy birth, me and mine making etc.

Ofcourse Nibbana is something. In the sense that this word refers to something. But that is not the same as Nibbana is some-thing. I do not believe that anyone see Nibbana as some-thing.
Nibbana as something points to the perfect sublime state of supreme peace that is the natural result of the uprooting of all defilements. If you look into this it is a bare awareness. Ofcourse that is something. Nibbana is ofcourse not mere a concept that does not refer to anything that can be known. Buddha does not teach we must attain the concept of Nibbana, ofcourse. Agreed?

716

Agree. With awakening there is the realization that what will fully cease is dukkha.

Which doesn’t necessarily mean that any “thing” is left over.

That’s your opinion and view, about which some people agree and others do not.

Of course, it’s not ultimately about words and concepts – but we have to use them when discussion and sharing about these topics.
Using the words “something” is not pointing to any kind of form or any “thing” at all. It’s just that if one does not have a view that final nibbāna is full cessation then it means “something” remains.

717

I have explained this many times. Nibbana as word refers to something. It refers to a sublime state of supreme peace. Well, that is something right? Or, if you like, the removal of lobha, dosa and moha from mind also refers to something…to a purified mind or knowing. This word Nibbana refers to something.

Nibbana is also described as state without any agitation due to lack of clinging. That is also a way to talk about the peace of Nibbana. Mind without clinging and agitation.

This is not my personal opinion. Please do not say such things.

Asankhata cannot be seen as something left over or remaining after a last death. It is from the beginning beyond birth and death.

I believe ‘eternal is probably also not a good concept nor imperishable nor everlasting.
But i think the composers of the sutta’ still wanted to describe it.

718

Again, this is your interpretation and premise. It is not what the word means, which is extinguishment or complete quenching. Have a look at the DPD, if you wish.

Sure, for arahants. We appear to agree about this with respect to nibbāna with residue, prior to parinibbāna.

I never said this. Whether one agrees or not with full cessation, the point is that utter cessation cannot “be” constructed or unconstructed. No terms apply because: cessation.

719

We all know Nibbana refers in the EBT to the extinguishment of the fires of lobha, dosa and moha.
Right? If the Buddha says in the texts that something is not conducive to the goal of Nibbana, he means, it is not conducive to the goal to end or uproot all defilements and arrive at dispassion. For example, holding on to some view does often not lead to dispassion. Often the inner fires only grow.

With lobha, dosa and moha the world/all is experienced as on fire. All burns say the suttas. But when they are extinguished, and that is called Nibbana, the world/the all is not experienced anymore as on fire, burning. There is now ease, peace, non-agitation. Like the presence of defilements is known by the mind, the extinguishment is also known by the mind. Mind knows it as peace, unburdened.

Nibbana is in sutta’s refered as a sublime state of supreme peace. That is also what the Buddha sought according MN26. Read the sutta. That is what he realised. He realised the mind that is not agitated anymore because all defilement and clinging is gone. That same extinguishment of defilement, THAT is called Nibbana. Ofcourse it refers to something that is really known. We are not practicing for something that we never will know! See further.

I think it is important to realise that worldling—Non-returner are only conventional used labels for body and mind that have a certain level of defilements. And arahant is mere a label for a mind that is definitely freed from all agitation due to clinging, freed from defilements.

But there is not an arahant in some state. Ofcourse. Only by way of conventional speech such expressions are used in Dhamma. It is always mind that knows and only body and mind can be in a certain state. Never a worlding, never an arahant and there is never a person in some state.

There is the mind with defilements, which has a certain flavour or taste. It has the flavour or taste of stress, it is not at ease. And there is the mind without defilements. Its flavour or suchness is peace, no stress, at ease. But there is never an arahant in some state nor a worldling. Such are only conceivings and only used in conventional way.

It is mind that experiences the presence of defilements and it is also mind that experiences lack of deflement but never a Buddha, never an arahant.

I agree, in your vision a unique lifestream becomes non-existent at a final death. It is not wise to talk about this in terms of bliss, peace, unconstructed, not-desintegrating etc. because why would one talk that way about something that has become non-existent? If a flame ceases to exist because of lack of fuel one also does not speak about it as at peace, bliss, unborn, deathless, not-desintegrating, stable etc.

720

Agree, to a certain extent. For what’s labeled as an arahant, the senses and aggregates are still present and active, so there is still what we conventionally call “a being.”
Even for unawakened “beings” there is no inherent self or everlasting essence, yet we don’t get caught up in saying there is no being or person at all.
As you wrote, nibbāna while alive is the cessation of the defilements and so much dukhha ceases – but not all of it yet because of the aggregates and senses still being operative.

Full cessation, the complete cessation of all dukkha is after parinibbāna is when the aggregates and senses irreversibly cease.
I think pretty much everyone agrees with this – the difference being that some say “mind” or “knowing” or “awareness” continue while others say there’s just full cessation with no residue or remainder.

Agree. With a caveat about:

There fundamentally was never a real “something” existing in terms of a self or soul or essence and so what never existed can’t become non-existent, ( yet particular combinations of selfless processes do come together for a while as “beings”).

This is what distinguished the wrong views of externalism and annihilation from final nibbāna as full cessation, as the former views retain a wrong view of an inherent everlasting self/soul/mind/essence while the latter does not.

721

I believe, in EBT is described that there is always something in this very moment beyond the world and the other worlds.

Ud8.3 describes this dimension in detail:

“There is, mendicants, that dimension where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no wind; no dimension of infinite space, no dimension of infinite consciousness, no dimension of nothingness, no dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; no this world, no other world, no moon or sun. There, mendicants, I say there is no coming or going or remaining or passing away or reappearing. It is not established, does not proceed, and has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.”

There are also other sutta’s that describe this.

Maha Boowas talks about this as the citta and later buddhist as buddha-nature of dharmakaya.

What Ud8.3 describes is not really remaining after death, it is any moment beyond the world and birth and death, i believe.

This is the timeless Dhamma the Sutta’s teach. That does not refer to a collection of teachings but refers to what is beyond birth and death and is literally timeless. Buddha re-discovered this timeless Dhamma but did not invent it. He did not produce it, he did not make it.

Likewise khandha’s are also not a constant existing something. Feelings always arise and cease in the very moment. Volitional formations, sense-moments (vinnana’s), memories, emotions, etc etc, they all arise and cease in the very moment. Likewise the body that is felt, perceived by the mind.

Cessation of khandha’s happens all the time but is only at death definitive for an arahant.

Another view is that there is any moment a dimension, element, that is beyond any world, beyond birth and death. The deathless element. An element that is never seen arising, ceasing and changing. Very subtle , hard to see. It is not our personal essence, soul, self but seeing this element is seeing and knowing the escape. But you must not think about this as some atta/soul/personal core or personal essence that remains. It is something that is never absent.

So, i believe, the arahant knows in this very life the arising and cessation or rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana. Knows that. At death it will become definitive. And he/she knows this is not like vanishing. It is like coming home. Buddha sought a home for himself and he did not seek it nor find it in a mere cessation but in the true knowledge, the certainty, that only suffering will cease. I feel this is the ease of an awakened person.

I see no Buddha with any intent to cease. The heart has a longing for home, for truth, safety, that what is reliable constant, protection, free of suffering.

You believe…there is not such a thing beginner Green…i believe, there is friend @Jasudho

Sorry to say but i will never practice something that will only lead to a mere cessation. I can practice a Path to Truth, to the end of suffering, to seeing things as they really are, but not to a mere cessation.
No hair on my head can see this as a holy goal or holy life. For me it represents ultimate egocentrism.

Yes, and i am worried about people like you who see a mere cessation as the goal of the holy life. I cannot understand it that people really feel this is something holy.

722

This can apply to cessation and to the temporary state on saññāvedayitanirodha, the temporary cessation of all experience and consciousness.
The translation of this sutta on SC is different and more clearly points this out:

"“There is, mendicants, that which is free of rebirth, free of what has been produced, made, and conditioned.
“Atthi, bhikkhave, ajātaṁ abhūtaṁ akataṁ asaṅkhataṁ.
If there were nothing free of rebirth, free of what has been produced, made, and conditioned, then you would find no escape here from rebirth, from what has been produced, made, and conditioned.
No cetaṁ, bhikkhave, abhavissa ajātaṁ abhūtaṁ akataṁ asaṅkhataṁ, nayidha jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa nissaraṇaṁ paññāyetha."

Whether one agrees with final nibbāna as full cessation or not, this sutta can be understood as pointing to this.

The principles of anicca, dukkha, and anattā do not vary with time, but this doesn’t mean it points to a “timeless citta”, for example.

It’s understood that some people believe this. The point is, others do not – not in terms of any kind of everlasting “element” or “whatever”.
See DN1.

Well, that’s up to you.
But those who see all conditions/experiences as fundamentally dukkha, as taught in the suttas and understood via practice, are happy to have them completely cease.

2 Likes
723

Good luck. I stop. I am fed up with all this.

724

I believe that those who see all as suffering just express that they do not know Nibbana, they do not know the stressless, fearless, unburdened sublime state of supreme peace the Buddha arrived at.

What Buddha means, i believe, is that all knowing that becomes unvoluntairy directed upon something, that leads to sense contact and that will be felt. That is always some form of burden.
But the non-engaging mind is not felt as sense-contact.

725

Agree, in that unless we’re fully awakened, we don’t know the supreme peace of The Buddha or arahants.

This is nibbāna with residue and seeing dukkha in all conditional existence is not the same as saying there is no liberation from dukkha.

1 Like
726

If one can enter jhana, one develops an understanding of how unburdensome mind can be, relaxed, open, without stress. This also means that one develops more understanding of how burdened the defiled and ordinairy mind usually is.
They go together, like the knowledge of warm and cold

But how is this with knowing that all experiences are suffering? What kind of reference do you have to know this?

727

Jhāna can be a temporary kind of liberation, cetovimutti, in which there are, at least in the four jhānas, experiences of peace and equanimity. Wonderful!

However, they are never called nibbāna and they are constructed and impermanent – so they are still conditional and hence fundamentally forms of dukkha.
Otherwise, the Buddha would have said that the attainment of jhāna was the purpose of the practice.

In the suttas, dukkha has utterly ceased only after parinibbāna.

There is, I believe, agreement about this even as there are some who see final nibbāna as a kind of dukkha-free dhatu, while others see it as dukkha-free cessation, (not any kind of “something” or dhatu).

Also, dukkha does not mean “always unpleasant” in a somatic sense. The Buddha taught about pleasant feelings (vedana) and spoke about the gratification of some sensual experiences – and then said that one needs to contemplate the danger (ādīnava) of them in order to escape from them. As in SN35.13.

1 Like
728

Can you please answer my question? Why do you refer to all experiences as dukkha? What is the reason, what is the cause for you to do so? Or, if you like, what is the reason, what is cause Buddha did so, according you?

729

Because that’s what the Buddha taught, many times, and what becomes more and more clear with practice. Here are some examples:

SN12.25, SN22.85, SN56.11, Dhp278, SN22.45, SN36.11, SN22.90 among others.

Look, it’s not that there is no joy or pleasantness in life. Rather, all conditions/experiences are impermanent and not reliable nor are they enduring forms of sukha.
The Buddha said that what is impermanent is dukkha and only final nibbāna is completely free of dukkha.

Of course, there’s joy, peace, and happiness in practicing and embodying mettā, generosity, sīla, and in various meditative states. These are happy and effective ways of experiencing the Way. So it’s not about it being all gloom and sadness.

It’s just that when changing conditions are seen for what they are, we become disenthralled from them – another kind of happiness and freedom – so we practice until the defilements are completely extinguished.
The only thing that’s lost is dukkha.

1 Like
730

Ofcourse, almost no person in the entire world really experiences any arising feeling, any sense moment, any will, any memory, any tactile sensation as suffering. As impermanent sure, but not as a form of suffering. Why do buddhist? Do they just rationally decide this is true because the Buddha says so? What is the cause that a buddhist sees a nice feeling as suffering and not only as impermanent, liable to arise and cease. Why suffering? What do they know that others do not know?

And life?

731

As I posted before, this is known via contemplation of the suttas and in practice.

Rather than engage in our personal viewpoints, the suttas were posted above as a response to your question about

and

It’s not about blind acceptance, but since we’re discussing dukkha and existence, the suttas posted
above should be helpful in clarifying this.