The only advice I can give is - try to directly experience nibbāna for yourself. Only then will you be clear of any illusions or misconceptions of what it is and what it isn’t. I sincerely hope you will realise this journey in this lifetime. After that, when you reread all these texts that you have quoted, you will understand their true meaning.
MN1#74.1:
nibbānaṁ nibbānato abhijānāti; nibbānaṁ nibbānato abhiññāya nibbānaṁ na maññati, nibbānasmiṁ na maññati, nibbānato na maññati, nibbānaṁ meti na maññati, nibbānaṁ nābhinandati.
This is actually a good, and subtle point, the Buddha was expressing in MN1. All those phrases you have quoted, they are all “directly experienceable” and realisable. And once you have experienced them, you know what they are and have no illusions or misconceptions about them.
To do this, you will have mastered and controlled the defilements, and experience the detachment and disengagement of the khandhas.
Once you have done that, you will realise your sense of self is also constructed, and it is possible to disengage and detach from that too. After that, everything the Buddha said in MN1 will make complete sense. I sincerely hope that you will be able to experience that in this lifetime. I wish you the very best in this endeavour.
The point of MN 1 is that one should not delight in Nibbāna. It even says puthujjanas can delight in Nibbāna.
Both The Buddha (AN 10.6) & Sāriputta (AN 10.7) confirm the following:
”A mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this. They wouldn’t perceive earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And they wouldn’t perceive the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. And they wouldn’t perceive this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And yet they would still perceive.”
And this state of immersion, completely beyond all planes of existence, is Nibbāna. Where one would still perceive.
Exactly! All those phrases are about that very immersion mentioned in AN 10.6 & AN 10.7 beyond existence, known as Nibbāna.
If you read the Pali, the phrase you put in bold is:
"saññī ca pana assā"ti
Once again, the translation, although as accurate as it can be, can be somewhat misleading.
saññī is “having perception or awareness” it is related to the word saññā which as we all know is one of the five khandhas.
saññā is one of those words that are difficult to translate to English. As an example, the Buddha says recognition of colours (blue, red, etc.) is saññā. More philosophically, it can be described as our ability to build a symbolic representation of objects and to recognise them (I cite Bronkhorst for this explanation). Gombrich I think says it is apperception rather than perception, but I am not doing to debate the point.
In any case, the “state of immersion” as you refer to is not exactly nibbāna. It is more akin to “pure awareness” or “pure consciousness” that Thomas Metzinger refers to in his book “The Elephant and the Blind” (2024).
The Pali word that has been translated as “state of immersion” is samādhipaṭilābho - this does not quite mean “state of immersion” but can be literally translated as “the acquisition of mental composure”
Again, I would caution against over reliance on translations. I find they can frequently lead one astray. I am not saying they are wrong, they are as good as they can be, and therefore not perfect. Before I learnt Pali, I thought I understood Buddhism. It was only after I started reading the suttas in Pali I realised I was full of misconceptions.
@christie The Buddha explains what one can still perceive in this immersion beyond the elements and all the planes of existence and he does it with many of the synonyms for Nibbãna I posted earlier.
The sublime,
The peaceful,
The ending of craving,
Extinguishment
Here is AN 10.6 again:
“Ānanda, it’s when a mendicant perceives:
‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’
‘
That’s how a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this. … And yet they would still perceive.”
This perception is taking place beyond ALL the elements and ALL the planes of existence - so no wonder there are variations of Nibbãna in the locative case.
Could you be so kind and point out what is incorrect with Nibbānasmiṃ, Nibbānamhi & Nibbāne?
Especially when it comes to what I just posted above regarding AN 10.6 - Given the context, Nibbãna in the locative case makes perfect sense and I do not see how I’ve made any mistake regarding this.
I am afraid you are still being over reliant on a translation. The Pali word “āyatana” doesn’t really translate to “dimension”, or “plane of existence”.
I know that’s what the translation says, but āyatana actually pertains to a sense base, for example seeing, hearing, tasting etc. The “dimension of infinite space” etc. is not necessarily a dimension in terms of modern physics, but the “base” of “infinite space”, that is, regarding infinite space as a base that we can perceive in the same way we hear or listen etc.
So, not perceiving the base of infinite space is “na ākāsānañcāyatane ākāsānañcāyatanasaññī assa” and “ākāsānañcāyatana” literally translates as “base of endless open space”. Unfortunately we modern readers perceive “dimension of infinite space” as being something more cosmic than the more prosaic and down to earth term that the Pali is actually referring to.
Similar, the “perception” (saññī) that is being referred to is specifically this:
It is true that hopefully whilst engaging in samādhipaṭilābho one should be able to perceive all those things, but that is not quite the same as actually directly experiencing those things. There is a difference between perception and realisation.
Hope that helps.
I am not going to comment on your statement on “variations of Nibbãna in the locative case” - I am not quite sure what you mean there so I’ll leave others to comment on that
Founders of religions are meditators & seekers - There is nothing “down to earth” with these people.
They instinctively know there is something better than this current existence and try out many different paths and methods.
The Buddha is the greatest of all of them.
There are sentient beings that are diverse in body and unified in perception, such as the gods reborn in Brahmā’s Host through the first absorption. DN 15
That is the reason we find such emphasis on monotheism in other religions: ”diverse in body and unified in perception.”
This really shows how accurate and insightful The Buddha was regarding all planes of existence and the nature and characteristics of each of these various planes.
As in not only applying anicca, dukkha & anatta on everything but also giving perfect descriptions of how these planes of existence actually are.
Non-buddhist meditators can enter Rupa Loka where there are actual beings residing - one can even take rebirth there. Same with Arupa Loka which is TOTALLY different compared to Kama Loka and Rupa Loka.
The Buddhist cosmology is supreme.
Pali will not help me on the path and I will not gain a greater understanding, but then again if the translators already have certain views I am forced look up the Pali because the translations are made with these views in mind and not the actual experience from meditation.
Meditation is what this path is about.
So when you try to explain to me that these real dimensions are in fact something else and I can only understand the truth if I learn Pali, you are doing the very same thing as other translators with fixed views do.
Haha, true true, at the end of the day we all have views.
All I am saying is beware of reading things through the filter of others. Make up your own mind, and consider what the Buddha actually said vs what others thought he might have meant.
At the end of the day, only direct experience matters. Once you have directly experienced what the Buddha taught, there can be no doubt what he taught. And on that note, I wish you the very best in your path and hope you reach whatever goals you have set.
Yes, this happens all the time @christie . I share with you many sutta’s that reveal that EBT talk about Nibbana in an experiential way as a sublime state of supreme peace. But still you do not correct this:
Yes @christie the sutta’s really generally describe Nibbana as state of peace which one can attain.
That thisdoes not match with your own ideas about Nibbana, oke, but the sutta’s are not unclear about this. Nibbana is about peace and being at ease via non-clinging.
What is the reason, the cause, that you believe you have to correct me on this? I really do not understand it. Are all those texts wrong?
I wasn’t trying to correct you. If I recall correctly, I stated something was my personal opinion. You were not okay with that and wanted to correct me.
As I mentioned, if that’s what you believe and is striving for, I hope you find it. If you are truly interested in finding peace, perhaps you can start by accepting not everyone shares your opinion. And that is okay.
I merely pointed out in the first example you gave, the sutta does not seem to say what you think it says. I am not going to go through every example you have given and refute them one by one. Sorry.
The many sutta’s which i posted some posts ago, and in which Nibbana is clearly described as peace, are NOT my opinion @christie . It is just the content of the sutta’s. It is also NOT my intepretation.
That people refuse to accept that the sutta’s really talk about Nibbana as a sublime state of supreme peace, even while they read it, what can i do about this?
I didn’t reply because I thought others already did a good job. But since you asked twice and in another thread again, here are some pointers:
nibbānamhi I can’t find in the early texts.
The locative has a wide range of uses, “in” being just one of them. Just because it may conceivable mean “in” in one case, doesn’t mean it is the same in all other cases. For example, nibbāne ñāṇaṃ in SN12.70 means “knowledge about nibbāna”, not “knowledge in nibbāna”.
Even if translated “in”, that doesn’t necessarily mean a “state” you are in. For example, nibbāne ca santadassāvī means “seeing peace in nibbāna” but that just means seeing the peace of nibbāna, not that you are somehow literally in nibbāna.
The MN1 example you give of “in” nibbāna is actually a wrong view of conceiving. To argue that there is a state or condition one can literally be “in”, you have to quote a right view. (This is also the only instance of nibbānasmiṃ I could find in the suttas.)
The pronoun doesn’t have anything to do with this semantically. And the Pali base is ima, not asma, which is a Sanskrit form.
The variations in endings don’t make for different nuanced expressions in this case.
The form nibbānealso has an explicit locative suffix, namely -e. There is nothing “more simplified” about this. Nor is it used for brevity or poetic expression. It is just a standard form.
I looked at all the locatives of nibbāna in the suttas (there are only a handful it seems) and apart from MN1, which reflects a wrong view, none I found indicates a state “in”. (MN1 can also be interpreted differently, but let’s leave that aside.)
So one can’t be ”in” things like water and earth plus all the various planes of existence in Rupa Loka and Arupa Loka?
Are you saying that it is also impossible to
literally be ”in” these elements, states, conditions and planes of existence just like the Nibbāna element?
The wrong view is to delight and identify with the actual elements and planes of existence while being ”in” them.
Major difference.
I would also argue that AN 10.6 and AN 10.7 is about literally being ”in” Nibbāna”
What else could it be besides Nibbāna when it describes immersion beyond all the elements and beyond all the planes of existence?
Not many options except literally being
”in” Nibbāna - and still perceiving…
All those phrases are about that very immersion mentioned in AN 10.6 & AN 10.7 beyond existence, known as Nibbāna.
