I have two points.
Nibbana is unconditioned and uncaused. So we can’t cause nibbana by our practice.
Yet the Buddha says that by practicing dhamma, we attain enlightenment, and by attaining enlightenment, we realize nibbana.
So even if nibbana cannot be caused/conditioned by the Buddhist, it turns out that the realization of nibbana is caused/conditioned by the Buddhist (through his awakening and practice)? And if you think the realization of nibbana is unconditioned, how can the Buddhist path lead to it?
Perhaps we could say that nibbana already “exists” (timelessly), but that living beings have their vision blurred by the illusion preventing them from realizing nibbana, and so what we need to do is to cause/condition the destruction of the illusion to cause/condition the realization of the uncaused/unconditioned nibbana.
SECOND POINT :
Also, there’s something odd about the idea that nibbana is the end of suffering.
For there to be an end to suffering, there must be a beginning to suffering: if there is no suffering, then there can be no end to suffering. So the existence of suffering is a condition for the end of suffering. Consequently, the end of suffering is conditioned by the (past) existence of suffering. Now, if nibbana is the end of suffering, this implies that nibbana is conditioned (by the past existence of suffering). But nibbana is supposed to be unconditioned. So there would be a contradiction.
Maybe nibbana isn’t unconditioned. Maybe unconditioned is nibbana-element. And maybe nibbana is not nibbana-element, but the realization of nibbana-element. So maybe what already exists is nibbana-element, and nibbana must be caused by the Buddhist. And in this context, nibbana-element is not the end of suffering, but is that which is without suffering. And nibbana is the end of suffering.
If not, how do you solve this paradox?
I’d like your opinion on these two points.
Thanks in advance
May all beings be preserved from violent accidents.