SuttaCentral
That’s for a liberated individual; there’s no dukkha for them, no being is there, nothing is held to, and nibbana is the absence of dukkha, not a presence of nothing.
Furthermore, dukkha-nirodha is the goal - ending the aggregates is a side effect. Ending the person? Didn’t happen, so no annihilation in the classic sense. Only the designation ‘person’, ‘being’ ends, and that happens because of the lack of clinging (which rendered dukkha-nirodha in the first place).
If you don’t mind, I would specify that (at least as far as I see it) this is specifically referring to saupadisesa-nibbana. As for the anupadisesa-nibbana, I think it would be wise to point out it means the absence of dukkha after the death of a liberated individual and leave it at that, since any other way of talking about it doesn’t make much sense to us.
Sure; in English, nibbana with fuel & without fuel is the difference there.
The Buddha’s back hurt, and this level of dukkha remains while all mental dukkha has ended. Then, at death, there’s no fuel at all.
I guess I am trying to grapple with something that the unliberated mind cannot conceive.
Though I’m sure not everyone will agree with every sentence in this short text, this sort of circumscribes it:
Nibbana
This process of birth and death continues ad infinitum until this flux is transmuted, so to say, to nibbanadhatu, the ultimate goal of Buddhists.
The Pali word Nibbana is formed of Ni and Vana. Ni is a negative particle and vana means lusting or craving. “It is called Nibbana, in that it is a departure from the craving which is called vana, lusting.” Literally, Nibbana means non-attachment.
It may also be defined as the extinction of lust, hatred and ignorance, “The whole world is in flames,” says the Buddha. “By what fire is it kindled? By the fire of lust, hatred and ignorance, by the fire of birth, old age, death, pain, lamentation, sorrow, grief and despair it is kindled.”
It should not be understood that Nibbana is a state of nothingness or annihilation owing to the fact that we cannot perceive it with our worldly knowledge. One cannot say that there exists no light just because the blind man does not see it. In that well known story, too, the fish arguing with his friend, the turtle, triumphantly concluded that there exists no land.
Nibbana of the Buddhists is neither a mere nothingness nor a state of annihilation, but what it is no words can adequately express. Nibbana is a Dhamma which is “unborn, unoriginated, uncreated and unformed.” Hence, it is eternal (dhuva), desirable (subha), and happy (sukha).
In Nibbana nothing is “eternalized,” nor is anything “annihilated,” besides suffering.
According to the Pali text references are made to Nibbana as sopadisesa and anupadisesa. These, in fact, are not two kinds of Nibbana, but the one single Nibbana, receiving its name according to the way it is experienced before and after death.
Nibbana is not situated in any place nor is it a sort of heaven where a transcendental ego resides. It is a state which is dependent upon this body itself. It is an attainment (dhamma) which is within the reach of all. Nibbana is a supramundane state attainable even in this present life. Buddhism does not state that this ultimate goal could be reached only in a life beyond. Here lies the chief difference between the Buddhist conception of Nibbana and the non-Buddhist conception of an eternal heaven attainable only after death or a union with a God or Divine Essence in an after-life. When Nibbana is realized in this life with the body remaining, it is called sopadisesa nibbana-dhatu. When an arahat attains parinibbana, after the dissolution of his body, without any remainder of physical existence it is called anupadisesa nibbana-dhatu.
In the words of Sir Edwin Arnold:
“If any teach Nirvana is to cease
Say unto such they lie.
If any teach Nirvana is to live
Say unto such they err.”
From a metaphysical standpoint Nibbana is deliverance from suffering. From a psychological standpoint Nibbana is the eradication of egoism. From an ethical standpoint Nibbana is the destruction of lust, hatred and ignorance.
Does the arahat exist or not after death?
The Buddha replies: “The arahat who has been released from the five aggregates is deep, immeasurable like the mighty ocean. To say that he is reborn would not fit the case. To say that he is neither reborn nor not reborn would not fit the case.”
One cannot say that an arahat is reborn as all passions that condition rebirth are eradicated; nor can one say that the arahat is annihilated for there is nothing to annihilate.
SN 22.85 is useful here. In SN 22.85, Yamaka appears to have the wrong view that a Buddha or arahant, being a ‘person’ or ‘self’, is annihilated at death.
However, Yamaka is given instruction about ‘not-self’ & comes to the right view that what happens when the life of an arahant ends is the five aggregates simply come to an end.
In short, there is no ‘person’ or ‘self’ that ‘dies’. Instead, only the five aggregates of the arahant end.
MN 140 states the mind that does not conceive ‘self’ is not born, does not get old, does not get sick and does not die.
Where as the definitions of ‘nihilism’, such as in DN 1 and Iti 49, all include the view that a ‘self’ or ‘person’ will end at death.
so Dhamma is the ultimate annihilationism: there’s nothing to begin with, ever 
what at least is annihilated is the transmigration of a ‘person’ who’s become an arahant, if transmigration is existence, existence is annihilated
You may find a succinct presentation of two opposing points of view regarding the ontological status of Nibbana in this nice interview of Bhikkhu Bodhi. The interviewer himself is obviously a strong advocate of one of those theories, but Bhikkhu Bodhi himself gives a much more balanced overview of the problem.
To put it shortly, one theory says Nibbana is something beyond our normal experience, some transcendent reality or, better said, a transcendent element of reality. This is a view held by Ven. Bodhi and, possibly, quite a number of respectable monks in the Thai forest tradition. The other theory says that Nibbana is merely the end of suffering and desire resulting in the extinguishment of the aggregates, and there is nothing beyond that. This is a view held, as far as I can judge, by Ven. Brahmavamso, Ven. Brahmali and quite a number of other respectable monks. I myself have a stronger personal sympathy for the latter view. However, my reasons for this are rather of an emotional nature.
I think, on the cognitive level, talking about Nibbana we should stick to @daverupa’s definition or use the paragraph you quoted:
‘Deliverance from suffering’ is pretty much the same as the absence of suffering, isn’t it? The question of what it means in precise ontological terms, I am afraid, should be left unanswered.
Thanks to you and Deele for the good references. I’m looking them up.
Here is Brahmali’s excellent paper on this (if it can be found elsewhere in a more interesting format for free reading, please share):
Yes, indeed, this is an excellent paper containing some criticism of the ‘transcendentalist’ position and - at least implicitly - arguing for the ‘annihilationist’ interpreation (both terms are inadequate, but coining new terms is not my strong side). I agree to Ven. Brahmali’s pragmatical argumenton p. 58 in the linked paper saying that if Nibbana element is an existent different from the five aggregates, it doesn’t make any sense to talk about its ontological nature, it’s just as if it didn’t exist at all.
While he provides convincing arguments against the citta/vinnana interpretation of Nibbana, the transcendentalist camp can always say Nibbana is not vinnana or citta, it is ‘something else’, something completely beyond our present grasp. I think this argument is absolutely sound and even irrefutable rationally, making the agnostic stance on the ontological nature of the Final Nibbana inevitable since there are two equally possible outcomes. However, the ontological discussion doesn’t make much sense pragmatically: the transcendent approach is discussed in Ven. Brahmali’s article and the annihilationist approach can (and quite possibly will) lead to discussions about the nature of non-existence and its relations with existence, etc. etc. etc. These are all fun philosophical debates but they don’t help you in your real practice and they don’t make much sense to us as completely disconnected from our experience.
Pragmatical people - and the Buddha was definitely one of them - don’t talk about things that don’t make much sense. Do we have a pragmatical, workable definition of Nibbana? We do, @daverupa kinda gave it, your citation kind of gave it, the Buddha gave it multiple times: Nibbana is the end of suffering, extinguishment of suffering. Any other talk about it is at best pragmatically irrelevant.
Jacques might be referring to a metaphysical soteriology (doctrine of salvation) in which there is freedom from a round of rebirths.
All above quotes are metaphors for Nibbana. One should not try to equate Nibbana with a metaphor and the moment one does it the same problem that happened to the fish when the tortoise explained the dry land using all those metaphors happens to him.
There is no better way to explain Nibbana than the Buddha’s own way which is as follows.
_Iti – imasmiṁ asati – idaṁ na hoti _
imassa nirodhā – idaṁ nirujjati
Thus: This not being – this does not come to be. With the cessation of this – this ceases.
Avijjayatveva asesaviraganirodha sankharanirodho, sankharanirodho vinnananirodho, vinnanam nirodha namarupanirodho, namarupanirodha salayatananirodho, salayatananirodha phassanirodho, phassanirodha vedananirodho, vedananirodha tanhanirodho, tanhanirodha upadananirodho, upadananirodha bhavanirodho, bhavanirodha jatinirodho, jatinirodha jaramaranam soka-parideva-dukkha-domanass-upayasa nirujjanti. Evametassa kevalassa dukkha-khandassa nirodho hoti.
But from the remainderless fading away and cessation of delusion comes cessation of volitional formations; from the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness; from the cessation of consciousness, cessation of name-and-form; from the cessation of name-and form, cessation of the six sense bases; from the cessation of the six sense bases, cessation of contact; from cessation of contact, cessation of feeling; from the cessation of feeling, cessation of craving; from the cessation of craving, cessation of clinging; from the cessation of clinging, cessation of existence; from the cessation of existence, cessation of birth; from the cessation birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.
The above makes it abundantly clear that Nibbana is a realization which having hitherto clung to a so called self and now having realized one’s own ignorance and transcended that same ignorance, one just awaits the eventual dissolution of the body - the end of journey through Samsara of the so called “I”.
Here the difference is only in the terminology but the end result is the same - the realization of one’s own ignorance and transcending that same ignorance. Terminology is different because in the first instance the Arahant is still living albeit without ignorance and in the second case the Arahant (the physical body) is no more.
May all beings be able to attain Nibbana.
Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu
or
‘This is peace, this is exquisite—the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.’
AN 9.36
Yes, this one too, definitely. Thanks for the nice addition :anjal:
Many thanks for all the comments. Much appreciated.
However, don’t forget that all those ‘metaphors’ and other citations are not from me. They are from a short text found higher up in the thread from buddha.net
Hi Daverupa,
I might have indeed misunderstood anatta. I would be much obliged if you would offer your interpretation with references to Suttas.
Thank you.
Probably I’ve mistaken your use of “holding nothing” to be an active holding-of, when you meant it as non-grasping. The rest of the post was just fine, so surely it’s a matter of my taking it out of context; I was responding to a quote, not the whole thing, so I apologize for this.
I think you’ve hit on an important point about ‘word play’. It’s all very well to talk or even think about letting go but our wanting comes into it rather strongly. However, if we can find ourselves a comfortable posture to regularly and often meditate in, then it will start to become more than words. We might get some small glimpse into what it feels like to experience the letting go of doing nothing…of doing nothing about how we feel whilst in our meditation posture…doing nothing about the kinds of mental proliferations that are going on for us at this time.
It’s like we’re a freight train and the ‘act’ of doing nothing is like we’re taking our hands of the steering wheel and our feet off the peddles. It requires patience and courage and persistent practice…but eventually we begin to get glimpses into our process and letting go moments begin to happen all by themselves. So we realise that word play is all very well, but practice really brings bits and pieces of understanding.
But going back to word play again… I guess the ultimate goal is similar to annihilation. After all, nothing is left in the end. And I think that’s why, if we are honest, we will admit that we feel a sense of fear about the endgame of the 8 fold path. (But I’ve heard Ajahn Brahm say that “fear is the coal face of insight”. From what little I know of Ajahn Brahm and his way of teaching, I reckon he’s suggesting we just practice doing nothing with that fear and see what happens!) However, I feel that the deeper one goes into this practice, the more one understands and the more one understands, the more one realises that there is nothing left to fear.
I kind of think of those people who engage in extreme sports. Whatever your opinion may be of what they do, they must have enormous amounts of courage, to be able to face their fears about death and so on. I have this image of someone free diving or jumping off from somewhere high up without a parachute and imagine them with their arms outstretched, staring possible death in the face, but focusing on some element of delight and allowing that delight to grow. I’m guessing some of their exhilaration must come from adrenalin, nevertheless, this to me, is a bit like the person who gradually increases the depth of their meditation practice and gradually increases their understanding of dependent origination and anatta and so gets to the point where they feel the ever increasing bliss of their being unravelling and the bliss of the simple practice of doing nothing; a practice that I believe, can go all the way to what is indeed, a very different type of annihilation. I reckon the deeper you go, the less you care; because instead of adrenalin and fear accompanying your sense of delight, truth and peace and love accompany your delight. Arms out wide, no fear, ready to disappear because you realise how natural and right this is.
Well…that’s my take on it anyway…still got a mighty long way to go
Many thoughts I also share, Kay.
Here is another short read that hits on a lot of what was intended by my original question. This is again from buddha.net (anonymous):
Listen to the bhava tanha of your life: ‘I want to practise meditation so I can become free from my pain. I want to become enlightened. I want to become a monk or a nun. I want to become enlightened as a lay person. I want to have a wife and children and a profession. I want to enjoy the sense world without having to give up anything and become an enlightened arahant too.’
When we get disillusioned with trying to become something, then there is the desire to get rid of things. So we contemplate vibhava tanha, the desire to get rid of: ‘I want to get rid of my suffering. I want to get rid of my anger. I’ve got this anger and I want to get rid of it. I want to get rid of jealousy, fear and anxiety.’ Notice this as a reflection on vibhava tanha. We are actually contemplating that within ourselves which wants to get rid of things; we are not trying to get rid of vibhava tanha. We are not taking a stand against the desire to get rid of things nor are we encouraging that desire. Instead, we are reflecting, ‘It’s like this; it feels like this to want to get rid of something; I’ve got to conquer my anger; I have to kill the Devil and get rid of my greed - then I will become…’ We can see from this train of thought that becoming and getting rid of are very much associated.
Bear in mind though that these three categories of kama tanha, bhava tanha and vibhava tanha are merely convenient ways of contemplating desire. They are not totally separate forms of desire but different aspects of it.
The second insight into the Second Noble Truth is:
‘Desire should be let go of.’ This is how letting go comes into our practice. You have an insight that desire should be let go of, but that insight is not a desire to let go of anything. If you are not very wise and are not really reflecting in your mind, you tend to follow the ‘I want to get rid of, I want to let go of all my desires’ - but this is just another desire. However, you can reflect upon it; you can see the desire to get rid of, the desire to become or the desire for sense pleasure. By understanding these three kinds of desire, you can let them go.
Jacques, may i suggest formatting a quoted text as a quotation using the tools in the message composition window, this helps readers distinguish between your own words and the quoted ones and potentially spares you the trouble of explanations such as this
