Translating Nibbana as extinguishment

Sometimes I hear this argument, but I don’t think that in itself it’s sufficient. Take words like ‘god’, ‘soul’, ‘existence’, ‘being’. Words are not containers for specific meanings, they make us navigate the discourse. ‘Nibbana’ can do that, because it is sufficiently introduced into spiritual vocabulary, and ‘extinguishmend’ or ‘liberation’ can do that as well.

The question we have, I think, is which word has similar connotations (i.e. triggers concepts and actions) as nibbana when it was used in the suttas as one of the main terms which signified the spiritual goal of the Buddha’s message.

2 Likes

This morning I searched for more sutta references that contain Nibbana and came across Bikkhu Bodhi’s introduction in his translation of the MN on Nibbana. He seems to make a similar argument: namely that the suttas suggest Nibbana cannot be fully explained by words that are typically used to describe the material. This sums up one of my issues with translating Nibbana as extinguishment pretty well: extinguishment is typically used to describe the material realm (in contrast, Nirvana and even liberation, for example, is often used to describe the abstract.)

Here’s an excerpt from Bikkhu Bodhi’s intro that seems useful to this discussion:

"The state that supervenes when ignorance and craving have been uprooted is called Nibbāna (Sanskrit, Nirvāṇa), and no conception in the Buddha’s teaching has proved so refractory to conceptual pinning down as this one. In a way such elusiveness is only to be expected, since Nibbāna is described precisely as “profound, hard to see and hard to understand,…unattainable by mere reasoning” (MN 26.19).

Yet in this same passage the Buddha also says that Nibbāna is to be experienced by the wise and in the suttas he gives enough indications of its nature to con-vey some idea of its desirability. The Pali Canon offers sufficient evidence to dispense with the opinion of some interpreters that Nibbāna is sheer annihilation; even the more sophisticated view that Nibbāna is merely the destruction of defilements and the extinction of existence cannot stand up under scrutiny.

Probably the most compelling testi-mony against that view is the well-known passage from the Udāna that declares with reference to Nibbāna that “there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned,” the existence of which makes possible “escape from the born, become, made, and conditioned” (Ud 8:3/80). The Majjhima Nikāya charac-terises Nibbāna in similar ways. It is “the unborn, unageing, unailing, deathless, sorrowless, undefiled supreme security
from bondage,” which the Buddha attained to on the night of his enlightenment (MN 26.18). Its pre-eminent reality is affirmed by the Buddha when he calls Nibbāna the supreme foundation of truth, whose nature is undeceptive and which ranks as the supreme noble truth (MN 140.26).

Nibbāna cannot be perceived by those who live in lust and hate, but it can be seen with the arising of spiritual vision, and by fixing the mind upon it in the depths of meditation, the disciple can attain the destruction of the taints (MN 26.19, MN 75.24, MN 64.9).

The Buddha does not devote many words to a philosophical definition of Nibbāna. One reason is that Nibbāna, being unconditioned, transcendent, and supramundane, does not easily lend itself to definition in terms of concepts that are inescapably tied to the conditioned, manifest, and mundane. Another is that the Buddha’s objective is the practical one of leading beings to release from suffering, and thus his principal approach to the characterisation of Nibbāna is to inspire the incentive to attain it and to show what must be done to accomplish this.

To show Nibbāna as desirable, as the aim of striving, he describes it as the highest bliss, as the supreme state of sublime peace, as the ageless, deathless, and sorrowless, as the supreme security from bondage. To show what must be done to attain Nibbāna, to indicate that the goal implies a definite task, he describes it as the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion (MN 26.19). Above all, Nibbāna is the cessation of suffering, and for those who seek an end to suffering such a designation is enough to beckon them towards the path.
p. 31-32 Acquired at wisdompubs.org

Hope this is helpful

1 Like

To be clear, I’m not complaining about Bhante Sujato’s translation of Nibbana as extinguishment. From his earlier posts, it sounds like it was not an easy decision. Moreover, I’m super thankful that Bhante @sujato includes alternative translations of the suttas on this site so that we better investigate the dhamma.

1 Like

I think there has been a tension of different interpretations going back to ancient times. It was spoken of as a spiritual state in some sutras and not so much in others. I think it may have began as a creative metaphor for something the Buddha didn’t want over-interpreted, but there are people who take metaphors literally, so the expression ended up with double-meanings and wayward interpretations. It’s true today; it was probably true when the Buddha was alive. The thing about literary double-meanings is that they lose their magic when you force them to mean one thing or another. Translation unfortunately does just that: We have to make a choice what to say.

5 Likes

@brooks, this might help put it all into perspective :slight_smile: It seems that this debate about the specific meanings of Nibbana has been going on for Millenia :dharmawheel::upside_down_face:

Ultimately,the final understanding must rest with the individual as they reach higher states of realisation… Not much point worrying about it in the mean-time, and ‘eventually’, the truth will be experienced :skull_and_crossbones::joy::slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes

This particular essay and position occupies a rather interesting point in Buddhist history. Nyanaponika was responding to the then-popular idea endorsed by CAF Rhys-Davids (among others) that Nibbana was the True Self and hence that Buddhism was no different than Hinduism.)

While that argument would find few supporters among contemporary serious students, it is also the case that Nyanaponika’s response (shared with other Theravadins of the time) is not quite right, either.

As point out long ago by Ven Kheminda, the teaching that “all things are not-self” is said to lead to dispassion, revulsion, and so on, and so can hardly be referring to Nibbana. In fact it is a guideline for vipassana meditation.

The reason for the difference between the use of sankhara and dhamma is not because one of them includes Nibbana. It is because dhamma here means “principle” as in, the laws of nature: dependent origination, the four noble truths, and so on. They are descriptions of how the world is, so they are not themselves “impermanent” (since they are always accurate descriptions of samsara) nor are they suffering. They are, however, clearly not self.

12 Likes

Many Thanks Bhante :slight_smile: It is so valuable to have pointed out where understanding can be improved.

I liked this essay because it specifically addressed the two main opposing views - also it was a bit removed from the present so it can be viewed more ‘impersonally’, and to give an indication of how long this has been a topic of contention.

Could you please explain what you mean in a bit more detail. When you say

I did not pick up on this point in the essay - perhaps I was more focusing on other things.
What I took from it was that self-view is a condition for eternalists, and for anihilationists. That the situation is complex, and that the texts allow for some degree of interpretation that can feed into either of the 2 extremes. The reality, and the middle way, depends on fine nuance.

Personally, I accept and am happy with the ‘unknowability’ of the details of what, if anything lies beyond Samsara and the cycle of re-births.

Your further comments would be greatly appreciated :anjal::dharmawheel::upside_down_face::slightly_smiling_face:

Added: - apologies this post is turning into a bit of a mess (probably reflecting my own state of uncertainty regarding this issue)…
I wanted to add a link to an article by Ajahn Brahmali, that also examines this issue. There are essays written by many respected teachers of the current time, each slightly different in emphasis,… So for anyone who wishes to research further there are many resources… Most of them can be found by using the search function of this forum :slight_smile:

http://journals.equinoxpub.com/BSR/article/view/7139/4835

1 Like

I’ve been contemplating and researching this issue for quite a few months, only to realise just how complex the issues are. And enough to realise that the ‘proliferations’ about this could be endless :sweat_smile:. And this, of course, completely defeats the purpose! So, I’m happy to leave this discussion here -

And I take your point Bhante @sujato, that the essay I have quoted may not be the best/clearest resource to refer to. :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes

Bhante, does “sabbe dhamma anatta” describe:

  1. Dhammic principles not being me or mine;
  2. Dhammic principles being empty of own-being (sunnata);
  3. A more philosophical negation of atman/atta (in the sense of eternal “soul”)?

I realise that more than one of these options could apply.

1 Like

There are such references in DN and MN too. Not counting nibbuta (although it should count), I found:

  • Mā ca te aggi nibbāyi. Sace ca te aggi nibbāyeyya … (DN23) – Don′t let the fire go out. But if it would go out …

  • aggi nibbāyeyya, jāneyyāhaṃ: “ayaṃ … aggi nibbuto.” (MN72) – If the fire would go out, I would know: “this fire … has gone out”. (Again nibbuta used in the same sense as nibbāti, as I argued in my last post.)

  • bāhirā tejodhātu … nibbāyati. (MN28) – the great fire-element is going out.

  • telappadīpo … anāhāro nibbāyati (MN140) – An oil lamp without fuel goes out.

Then similar phrases are in SN8.4, SN12.52-54, SN14.12, SN22.86, SN46.52, AN6.43, etc. etc.

I’m sure there must be quite a few harder-to-find references, such as in compounds.


In my earlier post I should perhaps have added the following similies, which are directly related to an arahant’s death:

  • telappadīpo … nibbāyeyya. (SN36.7) – A lamp would go out. (In a simile for parinibbana.)

  • Viññāṇassa nirodhena … Pajjotasseva nibbānam, vimokkho hoti cetaso. (AN3.90) – The liberation of the mind, as consciousness ceases, is like the going out of a lamp. (Similar verse at SN6.15, spoken at the Buddha’s death.)


If gold is anything like other metals, it can literally be on fire when coming out of a furnace, not just melting. Probably it is, because the sutta actually says it’s burning (ḍaheyya). Of course, nibbana has a derived meaning of coolness, but I think that is not the main meaning, as is clear by the effective synonimity with cessation and ending that I have referenced before.

But there is a sutta in DN about milk nibbana-ing, where cooling off is the only logical idea.

5 Likes

Yes it can. You see nibbana, you get revulsed by all else.

I do not agree with Ven Bodhi that nibbana is hard to translate. To me the problem seems to be that we put the word on a pedestal it doesn’t deserve. You read any book on buddhism, and what does it say the goal is? Nibbana. But in the suttas one finds terms like cessation (nirodha) and ending (khaya) much more often. I guess they outnumber nibbana at least ten to one.

Standard phrases for enlightenment often don’t mention it. Eg. “Nibbindaṃ virajjati; virāgā vimuccati. Vimuttasmiṃ vimuttamiti ñāṇaṃ hoti. ‘Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṃ brahmacariyaṃ, kataṃ karaṇīyaṃ, nāparaṃ itthattāyā’ti pajānātī”ti.” This is all about losing desire and ending birth; not about creating any new experience.

You see exactly this issue in Ven Bodhis quote given: “The state that supervenes when ignorance and craving have been uprooted is called Nibbāna.” When does the Buddha call Nibbana a state?

The point I’m making is: Nibbana is just a metaphor for the goal; it isn’t the actual goal.

I think the over-emphasis on nibbana is the actual reason for non- or mistranslations. As Ven Sujato said, its actual meaning is clear. It just has too much baggage.

6 Likes

Yes, very good. I haven’t specifically looked for nibbāyati. For sake of completion, SN 36.8 is the same as SN 36.7.

Also this nibbā*-term ‘deteriorates’ in the AN and becomes mostly formulaic.

Yes, it’s DN 27

Actually I think you got all nibbāyati references

Totally agree, and I don’t think another interpretation is really tenable based on the texts. The same mistake has been done by ‘ontologizing’ brahman in late Vedic literature. In most of the cases in the Upanisads where it’s used in definitions or ‘correspondences’ its meaning is ‘supreme’. So ‘x is brahman’ or ‘atman is brahman’ means ‘x is the supreme’ or ‘the atman is the supreme (principle)’.

1 Like

4 posts were merged into an existing topic: The logical implications of anicca

Hello Ven. @sujato and all.

I’ve only been studying Pali seriously for about a year. But it seems to me that “dhamma” in the context of “sabbe dhammā anattā” ought to refer to anything that is an object of clinging and not just principles of nature or of the Dhamma. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying, below.

David.

Thank you. I haven’t thought about Nibbana from this angle before. That’s helpful.
with metta,

3 Likes

Bhante,

Would you happen to know which particular commentarial nirukti Ajahn Thanissaro is relying on when he translates ‘nibbāna’ this way?

1 Like

The citation given in “Mind Like Fire Unbound” is:

Buddhaghosa proposed in The Path of Purification: Un- (nir) + binding (vāna): Unbinding

[PS: which appears to be Visuddhimagga VIII.247, though he didn’t provide the exact reference]

2 Likes

What about Venerable Bodhi’s assertion:

“Another is that the Buddha’s objective is the practical one of leading beings to release from suffering, and thus his principal approach to the characterisation of Nibbāna is to inspire the incentive to attain it and to show what must be done to accomplish this.”

Do you think this has any relevance to how and/or whether Nibbana is translated? The primary issue I have with translating Nibbana as extinguishment is when I read extinguishment it’s kind of a turn off and not very motivating. In contrast, Nibbana sounds to me more neutral and abstract. Of course, those are just my impressions and perceptions, but I just wonder if many others might read extinguishment the same way.

Thank you.

2 Likes

Yeah, if I recall correctly, this was one reason Thanissaro Bhikkhu cited for preferring “unbinding” He argues that the cooling of a fire would have a very differently connotation in a tropical (Indian) language than in a subarctic (Nordic/Gaelic) language!

But, personally, I am a fan of trusting the reader. A work of literature from another culture will always require some degree of maturity to read. I can’t agree with translating based on the connotation at the expense of denotation. It simply robs the reader of too much.

3 Likes