SuttaCentral
Hi.
I believe that once we have reached final nirvana, we cannot fall back into samsara. But is final nirvana something that is born and dies every moment? Or is it something eternal?
I know we can’t really describe nirvana with words, but I guess we can get a very small approximation of it.
Thanks in advance
No, the unconditioned is opposite samsara, having no cyclic characteristic ( “neither passing away nor arising”—Udana 8.1). It is similarly referred to as the unconditioned element, which means it is classified according with earth, water, fire, and air, space, consciousness, but the opposite of them. There should be a division of realities between conditioned and unconditioned:
“There is the case, monk, where a monk has heard, ‘All things are unworthy of attachment.’ Having heard that all things are unworthy of attachment, he directly knows every thing. Directly knowing every thing, he comprehends every thing. Comprehending every thing, he sees all themes[2] as something separate. [3]”—Samyutta Nikaya 35.80
It depends upon if you think nibbāna is a thing or not. Is it something we contact or enter into, or is it simply a truth that we realise? In other words is nibbāna ontological or more epistemological in nature? Buddhists have been split on this issue for centuries.
No…
Buddha given the definition of " extinguished - element (Nirvana-Element) "…that
All these we(as that element) can feel it … and Buddha called it as " Nirvana "
Practically speaking it’s necessary to have a mental category for the unconditioned, since it should be separated from the conditioned. From the earliest stage every step on the path is orienting the mind towards nibbana, and should be recognized as such. That principle is unambiguously stated in Majhima Nikaya 121:
This mode of perception is empty of the perception of human being. There is only this non-emptiness: the singleness based on the perception of wilderness.’ Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: ‘There is this.’ And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, & pure."
The most phenomological and/or practical explanation of Nibbana I’ve seen in the suttas is this
“One perception arose in me and another perception ceased: ‘The cessation of continued existence is extinguishment. The cessation of continued existence is extinguishment.’ Suppose there was a burning pile of twigs. One flame would arise and another would cease. In the same way, one perception arose in me and another perception ceased: ‘The cessation of continued existence is extinguishment. The cessation of continued existence is extinguishment.’ At that time I perceived that the cessation of continued existence is extinguishment.”
AN 10.7
So it seems one has a final perception of bhava ceasing before the realization of nibbana, that’s how they know they’ve attained nibbana.
I’m guessing that perception also eventually ceases and no new perceptions arise. Explained in experiential/phenomological terms Nibbana is a negative experience, something is taken away, and this is new and unique. Just like you can see a footprint from what was once there, you can see Nibbana from what was once there and that is Bhava, Craving, 3 poisons, etc. no longer being present.
Nibbana isn’t something that is added to experience, it’s the removal of something that once was, just like a footprint is the removal of a foot.
So yes, you could say it’s eternal because bhava and the 3 poisons are never coming back.
Thanks to all! So if I understood correctly, not only is nirvana eternal, but it is not reborn at every moment: it is outside of ordinary time.
This seems to imply that it is wrong to say that “Buddhism says that everything is impermanent”. Indeed, even if samsara is impermanent, nirvana is not. On the contrary, because nirvana is the ultimate reality, and therefore the ultimate reality is permanent. There is indeed eternity.
Is that right?
It’s not “all things are impermanent”. It’s “all conditions are impermanent”.
Namo Buddhaya!
There are a few misconceptions prompting this question.
One should keep in mind that there are two elements, namely the constructed element [sankhatadhatu] and the unconstructed element [asankhatadhatu].
There are these three characteristics that define the constructed;
There are these three characteristics that define the unconstructed;
When we speak about a cessation of constructed things occuring in dependence on other constructed things, then we are describing a change of the constructed as it persists.
Example 1
On a Monday the man extinguished a log-fire by pouring water on it.
Example 2
On a Tuesday the man extinguished a log-fire by pouring water on it.
In both of these cases a fire is extinguished in dependence on water but it is not the same fire being extinguished and it is not extinguished by the same water.
We say that the fire1 was extinguished by water1 and the fire2 was extinguished by water2.
Both of these examples are describing a change of the constructed as it persists, saying: ‘The constructed was thus and became otherwise’, and we are using the word ‘cessation’ to describe a change in what persists.
Suppose we were to describe an extinguishment of a fire in a dream. In describing that cessation we would only be describing our dream’s changing as it persisted.
Now if we were to describe a cessation of a dream in dependence on a truth & reality not included in a dream, we could be describing a cessation of a dream in dependence on a truth & reality of being awake.
If there was no truth & reality of being awake then a cessation of dreaming wouldn’t be discerned in dependence on being awake.
Keep in mind that both of these realities, that of a dream and that of being awake, are constructed. Therefore here we are still essentially describing a change in the constructed as it persists such that this or that dream ceases in dependence on this or that awakening.
Example 1
On a Monday the man’s dream ceased in dependence on his awakening.
Example 2
On a Tuesday the man’s dream ceased in dependence on his awakening.
Just as it was with the example of a fire being extinguished. The dreams are different and the awakenings are different.
We would say that dream1 ceased in dependence on awakening1, and dream2 ceased in dependence on awakening2.
This is how one talks about the change in the constructed, changing as it persists, where having been thus it becomes otherwise.
Now if we talk about an altogether cessation & disappearance of the constructed, this is kind of cessation discerned in dependence on the unconstructed element.
If there was no unconstructed then an escape from the constructed would not be discerned.
This is categorically different to talking about the constructed changing as it persists where that which ceases & that in dependence on what cessation occurs is never the same (fire1, water1, fire2, water2, etc).
Example 1
A man attains cessation of perception & feeling.
Example 2
A woman attains cessation of perception & feeling.
Now here, in both cases, that which ceases is different as it is the constructed, the man’s percipience is one thing and the woman’s percipience is another, but here both of these cessations occur in dependence on exactly one and the same unconstructed truth & reality which has these three characteristics;
Therefore the cessation1 occurs in dependence on the unconstructed0 and the cessation2 occurs in dependence on the unconstructed0.
Likewise when talking about the parinibbanas of beings past, present & future. That which is extinguished is the manyfold constructed dukkha and these dukkhanirodhas occur in dependence on the single asankhatadhatu.