In the Udāna (viii,3 <Ud.80>) nibbāna is spoken of by the Buddha in these terms: Atthi bhikkhave ajātam abhūtam akatam asankhatam, no ce tam bhikkhave abhavissa ajātam abhūtam akatam asankhatam na yidha jātassa bhūtassa katassa sankhatassa nissaranam paññāyetha.
(‘There is, monks, a non-born, non-become, non-made, non-determined; for if, monks, there were not that non-born, non-become, non-made, non-determined, an escape here from the born, become, made, determined, would not be manifest.’)
‘Such a positive assertion of the existence of the Unconditioned’ it is sometimes imply that nibbāna is not simply annihilation.’ This is one example .
And there is another example describe nibbana as the Abandoning of greeds hatreds delusions in a different sense .
Nobody says we should or not give it a try , we are here at this forum trying to find a proper understanding of everything as clear as possible !
How many years each one of you already been learning and studying the dhamma ?! Before you arrive at present understanding ?! And has any one attain liberation in a quick and very short period and find it easy !?
Why do we need commentaries in the first place ? There is no need such lengthy elaboration and extensive explanation since already have all the suttas around .
Do we need all this discussion , of course , we do , not everyone is a genius .
Imagine the 3-dimensional world that we live in was created one element at a time. One sound, one sight, on sensation at a time.
Now imagine each sight, sound, and sensation could be experienced in subunits of experience - sights appearing at the eye, giving rise to eye consciousness, which in turn gave rise to contact; followed by vedana, sanna, and sankhara. All this would constitue one sight; one second of experience.
This would be followed by further sound, sensations, smells etc. all arising in this causal manner. Now imagine this process stopped. What would be remaining?
Consciousness would look for something impermanent to alight on, but nothing would be found:
“Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?”
.
“On the western wall, lord.”
.
“And if there is no western wall, where does it land?”
.
“On the ground, lord.”
.
“And if there is no ground, where does it land?”
.
“On the water, lord.”
.
“And if there is no water, where does it land?”
.
“It does not land, lord.” SN12.64
By this time any correlation you had with the 3D world would be long gone, though we cannot deny its existence. Any conceptualization about nibbana is also meaningless. The tilakkhana is only relevant to phenomena that arise and pass away, that are causally arisen - those have ended. To talk of anihilation in this situation is trying to pacify children because their sandcastle on the beach was a real castle. It didn’t exist even before-it was only an illusion!
So, can we put it this way , everything is insubstantial , therefore , to say about anything and regard it as something real has arises and vanishes is invalid !
Because with the ignorant it was taken as something Personal , an entity , substantiate , real , therefore , is a mistake in the first place ! This can be similar to the Maya theory .
Could you clarify a bit more? I’m not sure what you mean.
Yes- correct.
Only in that, there is Delusion. According to (what little I know about) the Hindu Maya theory, when the illusion is lifted Brahma is seen underneath. According to Buddhism if there is no Self, there is no God underneath that.
Liberation is gradual.
You experience Nibbana immediately you start practicing according to Noble Eightfod Path.
Starting point is observing five precepts.
Let alone five if you do not break one precept for sure, you will get a taste of Nibbana.
I recognize that this is a Theravada forum, which is why I’ve only used Theravada authorities on early Buddhism, like Bhikkhu Bodhi and Walpola Rahula, to explain that Nirvana is more than simply personal annihilation. If these teachers are not experts on early Buddhism, then I’m sorry for being mistaken.
Listen to the following video from Ven B.B.
This is one of the best presentations I have come across about Nibbana.
Tell me where he says that Nibbana is another reality.
In this article, Bhikkhu Bodhi explains that Nirvana is an existing reality, rather than simply personal annihilation, using early Buddhist texts to state his case:
People’s views change from time to time, and I cannot speak for Bhikkhu Bodhi. But please read this excerpt of a correspondence between Bhikkhu Bodhi and B.Alan Wallace. About those who hold the nihilistic view that Nibbana is mere extinction of the aggregates aka nothingness, B.B writes:
" They would say that annihilationism is the doctrine that there is a substantial self that perishes at death, but with “right view” one sees that it is only the procession of self-less aggregates that ceases and beyond this there is nothing. For them, nibbāna is total extinction. It seems to me that on this position, what happens to the arahant at the time of death is exactly what happens to every living being at the time of death from the perspective of philosophical materialism. The only difference would be that the Buddhist posits rebirth for those who are non-arahants while the materialist posits “final nibbāna” for everyone.
I differ from these interpreters in holding nibbāna to be an ultimate reality—not in the substantialist way repudiated by the Madhyamikas, but as indicative of something that is not a mere extinction of defilements in the living arahant or the utter cessation of the five aggregates at the arahant’s passing. I take such terms as “unborn, deathless, etc.” to be referential, not mere metaphors for absolute extinction. The problem is how to bring together this ultimate reality of nibbāna, conceived as a state that (even post-mortem) is “peaceful, blissful, auspicious,” etc., with the denial that consciousness or mind is present. It’s a problem I haven’t been able to solve."
I would reccomend reading the entire correspondence if you have time…B.Alan Wallace is putting forward a lot of Mahayana ideas, and B.B is not agreeing with them - but nonetheless they do seem to agree on one thing: Nibbana is not nothingness:
[quote=“Mat, post:64, topic:6335”]
It refers to Consciousness.
Here’s , The consciousness is one , the nibbana is one , it seems although you can’t define nibbana , it is something one can experience ! That is something peculiar !
On one hand , you can experience it, on the other hand , you said you cannot make out of it in words !
All the phenomenon is without concrete unchanging substance , but, in our view , we naturally unaware of it, taking for granted everything is real, therefore , being deceived by it and regard something real arises and something real vanishes !
Of course , this is describing the arising dependent origination , not about the state of nibbana hereafter !
I can fully agree with that. That doesn’t mean we should suggest that the Buddha taught certain things that he didn’t teach, such as personal annihilation.
Yea but that’s not quite the point - its not what happened to the knot, or what happened to the fire etc…It is, what is there now? Well, the knot is untied, the fire has gone out etc…the khandas cease to arise, because their fuel (clinging) has run out. No real self was destroyed because there never was one to begin with …We all agree up to this point. But the question still remains “what now?” -
is Nibbana just a placeholder for nothingness, a kind of decoy that the Buddha uses to get us to plunge into oblivion?
or
is Nibbana an existent reality in its own right, as Bhikkhu Bodhi et al seem to suggest?
(obviously I have an opinion on this matter…Please forgive me if I am laying it on too strong, it just feels like an important issue to me…I could be wrong!)
Good point. Buddha is very clever using tac tics too.
He knows when people attain Nibbana they will not ask this sort of question. I think even a Sotapanna will not ask questions like this. This question in OP is generated due to self-view.
