Buddha worn against objectifying Nibbana.
Please read Bhikkhu Bodhiâs article before commenting on it:
http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/nibbanaReal.htm
Thank you.
So all these terms, considered as a whole, clearly establish that Nibbana is an actual reality and not the mere destruction of defilements or the cessation of existence. Nibbana is unconditioned, without any origination and is timeless.
http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/nibbanaReal.htm
1 Like
This raises the question, if the word âallâ does not include nibbana, does that mean that one may infer from the statement, âall phenomena are not-selfâ that nibbana is self? The answer is no. As AN 4.174 states, to even ask if there is anything remaining or not remaining (or both, or neither) after the cessation of the six sense spheres is to differentiate what is by nature undifferentiated (or to objectify the unobjectified â see the Introduction to MN 18). The range of differentiation goes only as far as the âAll.â Perceptions of self or not-self, which would count as differentiation, would not apply beyond the âAll.â When the cessation of the âAllâ is experienced, all differentiation is allayed.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html
1 Like
Okay⌠Did you read Bhikkhu Bodhiâs article on the nature of Nirvana? He seems to know his stuff.
1 Like
To go back to the original question, and as @gnlaera rightly quoted, EBT Buddhism teaches some form of annihilism. But the annihilism is in the EBT a technical term which represents a very specific wrong view that is connected with the strong desire to not-live.
The textsâ relationship to nibbana has different angles. Sometimes they are philosophically strict relating to nibbana as the-not-to-be-talked-about in ontological terms - as the absence of what is known to us worldlings, nirodha, etc. Sometimes it is very well put into normal concepts - âultimate peaceâ âultimate blissâ âthe other shoreâ âgreat happinessâ - which is as accessible as the idea of the Christian heaven or Satchitananda.
A nice longer discussion is the book âThe Island. An Anthology of the Buddhaâs Teachings on Nibbanaâ Edited and with Commentary by Ajahn Pasanno & Ajahn Amaro
1 Like
Yes I read it.
I feel B.B is now become more or less Mahayana.
There are many nihilistic-like interpretations of Buddhism out there - and there are also some eternalist-like interpretations. Both miss the mark, IMO - because they are rooted in craving, for existence or non-existence. Both camps have their points to make:
Nihilists: Parinibbana IS the cessation of the aggregates and any causes that could ever give rise to them again. It is the end to anything we ever thought was a self, or clung toâŚof course, the aggregates never were a self to begin with, so nothing is annihilated in that sense.
Eternalists: Nibbana actually IS permanent/unchanging- but it is not a self and it hasnât anything to do with the aggregates. but again you see, nothing ever was a self anyway! HA!!
Nibbana is beyond both existence and non-existence.
2 Likes
Ummm⌠Maybe he just knows more about early Buddhist texts than you do? Just a thought.
To go back to the op; Vibhava tanha is closer to annihilation view.
Nibanna is the ending of all suffering. If you realise Nibanna It is your last birth, but life goes on until parinibanna.
_ What is the holding on to the burden? The answer is that it is that craving which gives rise to fresh rebirth and, bound up with lust and greed, now here now there finds ever fresh delight. It is sensual craving,[kama tanha] craving for existence,[bhava tanha] craving for non-existence.[vibhava tanha] This, monks, is called âthe holding on to the burden.â[2NTruth]
"What is the laying down of the burden? It is the complete fading away and extinction of this craving, its forsaking and giving up, liberation and detachment from it. This, monks, is called âthe laying down of the burden.â _
Sn22.22
2 Likes
Iâm not sure exactly why you make that statement - you must have your reasons. But you do know that Buddhagosa rejected the idea that Nibbana = non-existence/mere cessation, right? was Buddhagosa âmore or less Mahayanaâ?
Ven. K Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera wrote that:
âNibbana is not nothingness or extinction. Would the Buddha leave his family and kingdom and preach for 45 years, all for nothingness?â
If Nibbana is not nothingness, then it must be an existent reality, correct? And as it turns out, this is exactly what the Buddha taught (IMO): Nibbana is a âDhatuâ (element), a âDhammaâ (existent reality), an âayatanaâ(sphere), a âpadaâ (state), a âsaccaâ (truth)âŚThe highest bliss, the ultimate peace, the deathless. Why do so many insist that Nibbana is nothingness - have they known this nothingness for themselves? The Buddha said you can cognize Nibbana, it can be known directly! Can you know nothingness directly? It doesnât make much sense to meâŚ
1 Like
Exactly. Thank you.
1 Like
Isnât this one of Arupavacara Jhana?
1 Like
All this âdoes the TathÄgata exist after deathâ business seems a somewhat Unprofitable question
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn63
4 Likes
This very question is being answered thoroughly and in great detail throughout the EBTs and a great summary is the Discourse on the fruits of contemplative life DN 2.
Also, as far as I can see, there is nothing particularly mysterious in the practice, nor a denial that desire or chanda is an integral part of the path of practice. See eg Brahmana Sutta SN 51.15
Perhaps the problem may stem from overlooking the difference between liberation in this very life and the non future arising of a new existence, which is peace from the viewpoint of the ariya.
With metta
1 Like
Thatâs a different question from whether or not Nirvana is nothingness. If nothing happens after we die, I might as well be a non-religious atheist.
Because Nirvana is thus expressed in negative terms, there are many who
have got a wrong notion that it is negative, and expresses self-annihilation. Nirvana
is definitely no annihilation of self, because there is no self to annihilate. If at all, it is
the annihilation of the illusion, of the false idea of self. It is incorrect to say that
Nirvana is negative or positive. The idea of ânegativeâ and âpositiveâ are relative, and
are within the realm of duality. These terms cannot be applied to Nirvana, Absolute
Truth, which is beyond duality and relativityâŚNirvana is beyond all terms of duality and relativity. It is therefore beyond
our conceptions of good and evil, right and wrong, existence and non-existence.
https://sites.google.com/site/whatbuddhataught/chapter-4
1 Like
The Base of Infinite Nothingness? Fair enough - but it must not really be REAL nothingness, because there is still awareness of some kind, right? And certainly, it is not Nibbana. Or you might mean cessation of perception and feeling, which people seem to closely equate to NibbanaâŚBut the cessation of perception and feeling is just the cessation of things associated with the aggregates, isnât it? As far as I know there is no attainment called âthe cessation of Nibbana,â which would seem to be true nothingness; but if Nibbana is an existent reality, permanent, deathless, unborn, unconditioned, unchanging, etcâŚthen it cannot cease, not due to an act of will or anything else. It IS, and nothing can get rid of it - and so IMO it is definitely not nothingness.
1 Like
Unless youâre an arahant I wouldnât say nothing happens 
Tying the OP and the deviation together nicely here too:
Yeah⌠Iâll go with Bhikkhu Bodhi and Walpola Rahula.
Are you say that the arahant is reborn into Nibanna? What is the fuel for this existance?
I think there has been a misunderstanding - you said âunless youâre an arahant I wouldnât say nothing happens.â which in the context of this conversation could either mean that
'if you die as anything less than an arahant, something will happen after deathâ
OR
'only an arahant would truly be able to tell us the true nature of Nibbanaâ (whether anything âhappensâ or not).
1 Like