What do you think about Ven Thanissaro’s view on Nibbāna?

The point is that there is a difference between the two statements:

  1. Arahant does not-exist before death or after death.
  2. The aggregates are impersonal, do not belong to the self and are not the self (do not belong to an arahant and are not an arahant).

In the first case, the Self is postulated, which does not exist, is denied. In the second case, statements about existence/non-existence are essentially absurd. We cannot say that an arahant does not exist, if we mean his identity or connection with the five aggregates. After all, this would mean that aggregates do not exist. Although we know that they are there - interdependent, impermanent, suffering, but existing.

Therefore, the Buddha rejects all four statements about the existence of atta, arahant, tathagata. But he clearly states:

  1. The Impersonal Five Aggregates
  2. Emergence of Impersonal Aggregates
  3. Cessation of Impersonal Aggregates
  4. The path leading to the cessation of impersonal aggregates.

Can you say that the Buddha was obscure in this matter and was indeterminate about the existence of the aggregates, about their impersonality or their cessation? If we have as existing only impersonal aggregates (and we remember that there is no Self that would be outside the aggregates, connected with them or controlling them), then how can we speak of some really existing Arahant? The Arahant would then remain nothing more than a name, a name for a set of impersonal aggregates.

Once again, I would like to emphasize that at the expense of the cessation of impersonal aggregates (that is, those that are not connected in any way with any really existing person, subject or agent), the Buddha was extremely unambiguous - they cease and this is their " nirvana".
If you take the cessation of impersonal aggregates as a statement about the annihilation or non-existence of an arahant, then you do not take seriously the statement about their impersonal nature. For you, in this case, impersonality is nominal, but in fact you consider the aggregates to be associated with atta.

And so, the Buddha shifted our attention from the question of the existence/non-existence of a personality/arahant to the question of existence, arising, ceasing, and the path of cessation in relation to the five impersonal aggregates. This is what is called right and wrong direction of attention in MH2. Thoughts about the Self, its existence and annihilation are wrong attention, leading to confusion, an increase in craving, malice and ignorance. This is the immediate cause of the increase of these mental defilements, their “nimitta”, that is, the support-image or cause of mental defilements. Conversely, shifting and keeping the attention on the four noble truths of impersonal suffering leads to disentanglement, dispassion, equanimity, and liberation.

In short, it is not the arahant who does not exist before death/after death, but the five impersonal aggregates arise when the necessary conditions exist and cease when the necessary conditions have faded. Whoever sees dependent arising sees the Dhamma. Dependent Origination is the middle ground between all extremes and the purest teaching that exposes reality as it is, beyond all speculation and conjecture. Simply replace the wrong questions and self-formulations with the dependent arising and ceasing of empty phenomena, and we get the view that the Buddha taught.
“As before, so now I teach only suffering and the cessation of suffering.” (C)


The issue here is quite simple.

Dukkha is felt by living individuals. It is felt individually (not collectively). It is felt by all individuals. It is not felt forever or even continually but in intermittent cycles of varying lengths of time. We know all this by personal experience, and early Buddhism says the same thing, so these are obvious and uncontroversial.

In Buddhism – Nibbāna is an individual’s attainment. It is attained individually (not collectively). It can be attained by all individuals. It is said that the Buddha attained it when he was alive. It is also said that individuals who have attained nibbāna don’t thereafter experience dukkha. We dont know all this personally, these are claims of early-Buddhism, let’s initially assume that these claims are true.

Attaining an end to dukkha (either several lifetimes later or) after this lifetime is over - is meaningless to the living individual in this life. After my death, when I dont exist, my dukkha has no possibility of existing either, so I dont need to follow Buddhism to lose the dukkha I feel at the point of my death, it happens automatically - as dukkha to exist needs a living individual. Therefore in order to be meaningful to this living individual, the result (cessation of dukkha) has to benefit the individual in the remainder of their present life.

Therefore the thing that most interests most people is the possibility of attaining nibbāna right-now in this life. Early Buddhism considers it possible for individuals to attain nibbāna in their current life - as it gives examples of individuals like the Buddha and other arahants who have done so, sometimes instantaneously after conversing with the Buddha.

If people can attain nibbāna in their current lives, and it benefits them (while they still exist/live) for the remainder of their life - and such a nibbāna is necessarily not dependent on

  1. anything that changes
  2. anything that is impermanent
  3. anything that has a self identity
  4. anything that produces dukkha

then that nibbāna could not have arisen at a point in time (or have been achieved), because all that arises or is achieved is capable of cessation/loss - so a nibbāna that arises at a point in time or is achieved by effort is no nibbāna at all.

So the Buddha could not have achieved/attained nibbāna, he could have only discerned/known it. He cannot have discerned or known it without using his mind or intellect, therefore in order to know that you are a buddha/arhat you need a mind. You also need a mind to experience dukkha or its absence. Therefore there is no use of a nibbāna without a mind to cognize the presence or absence of dukkha. The existence of a mind presupposes the existence of the individual and the body in which the mind is present (as there is no possibility of an unembodied mind).

Since the effects of cognizing nibbāna is necessarily tied to individuals, any talk of eliminating the individual from the nibbāna (or even eliminating the possibility of an individual’s reality without simultaneously eliminating the possibility of the nibbāna’s reality) would be absurd. That nibbāna would last as long as that individual lasts.

Therefore if we are talking in meaningful & wholly realistic terms and discount all the impossibilities and logical absurdities, we are left with nibbāna as a state of mind experienced/known by an individual when they are alive. If we have to assume nibbāna as something real (and of value to only a specific living individual, rather than to an unembodied ‘nothing’), what else could it possibly be?

Certainly. It was fruitful while it lasted. Onto bigger fish! :slight_smile:

No I don’t. I don’t find such a metaphysical view important for practice. Nor do I view the aggregates as atta from the emotional perspective of delight, security, and craving (which is more important for practice).

Anyways, I don’t want to go in detail with your posts and it seems we have many points of commonality anyways. It would take too much time for me to sort through the things we agree and disagree on and respond.

Since I’m being too lazy to write out my position again, here’s a post I like from Geoff Shatz on this topic which I think is pretty darn close to how I see it.

The Asaṅkhata Saṃyutta of the Saṃyuttanikāya offers thirty-three epithets for this goal, almost all of which are either metaphors or evocative terms suggestive of the various facets of this goal. But each of these epithets is then explicitly and unequivocally defined as the elimination of passion, aggression, and delusion. One of these epithets is nibbāna, which is a term relating to an extended metaphor. Ven. Ñāṇamoli, The Path of Purification, p. 790, note 72:

Modern etymology derives the word nibbāna (Skr. nirvāṇa) from the negative prefix nir plus the root vā (to blow). The original literal meaning was probably ‘extinction’ of a fire by ceasing to blow on it with bellows (a smith’s fire for example). It seems to have been extended to extinction of fire by any means, for example, the going out of a lamp’s flame (nibbāyati — M iii 245).

Soonil Hwang, Metaphor and Literalism in Buddhism: The Doctrinal History of Nirvana, p. 9:

Western scholars tend to agree on the etymological meaning of nirvāṇa as ‘going out’: the noun nirvāṇa is derived from the negative prefix nir plus the root vā (to blow). Its original meaning seems to be, as Ñāṇamoli suggested, ‘“extinction” of a fire by ceasing to blow on it with bellows (a smith’s fire, for example).’ When a smith stops blowing on a fire, it goes out automatically. In this respect, this word nirvāṇa should be understood as intransitive: a fire going out due to lack of cause, such as fuel or wind.

If we accept this etymological meaning, which is probably pre-Buddhist, what does the term refer to within the early Buddhist tradition? One of the common misunderstandings of nirvāṇa is to assume that it refers to the extinction of a person or soul. This view may be caused by the words nibbuta and nibbuti, which can be used of the person or soul. However, both words are derived not from nir√vā (to blow) but from nir√vṛ (to cover) and their meaning in these cases is, as K. R. Norman suggests, ‘satisfied, happy, tranquil, at ease, at rest’ for the former and ‘happiness, bliss, rest, ceasing’ for the latter. Moreover, not only does this view lack any textual evidence, it is also the mistaken opinion identified in the early canon as annihilationism (ucchedavāda).

The canon repeatedly, explicitly, and unequivocally defines nibbāna as the elimination of passion, aggression, and delusion. This is the goal of practice. Beyond the attainment of this goal, early Pāḷi Buddhism has nothing to say. SN 48.42 Uṇṇābhabrāhmaṇa Sutta:

“But master Gotama, what is it that nibbāna takes recourse in?”

“You have gone beyond the range of questioning, brāhmaṇa. You were unable to grasp the limit of questioning. For, brāhmaṇa, the holy life is lived with nibbāna as its ground, nibbāna as its destination, nibbāna as its final goal.”

There are two reasons why the Buddha had nothing to say about any matters beyond the attainment of this goal. The first is that any view regarding the postmortem existence or non-existence of an awakened arahant is not conducive to actually attaining the goal. It “does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calmness, direct gnosis, full awakening, nibbāna.” It is considered a fetter of view (diṭṭhisaṃyojana). MN 72 Aggivacchagotta Sutta:

The view that after death a tathāgata exists is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a vacillation of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by dissatisfaction, distress, despair, and fever. It does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calmness, direct gnosis, full awakening, nibbāna.

The view that after death a tathāgata does not exist is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a vacillation of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by dissatisfaction, distress, despair, and fever. It does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calmness, direct gnosis, full awakening, nibbāna.

The view that after death a tathāgata both exists and does not exist is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a vacillation of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by dissatisfaction, distress, despair, and fever. It does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calmness, direct gnosis, full awakening, nibbāna.

The view that after death a tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a vacillation of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by dissatisfaction, distress, despair, and fever. It does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calmness, direct gnosis, full awakening, nibbāna.

The other reason, as suggested by the Buddha’s exchange with the brāhmaṇa Uṇṇābha already mentioned, is that there is no way to describe or designate or define anything beyond the attainment of this goal.

The most elegant and subtle aspect of the dhamma expounded in the Nikāyas is that it doesn’t impose any sort of metaphysical view regarding the nature of the liberated mind. This is clear in the sense of the liberated, measureless mind → appamāṇacetasa, being free from any sort of measuring → pamāṇa.

It is precisely this which differentiates early Buddhism from every other religious and secular worldview, and also separates early Buddhism from virtually every later strata of Buddhist exegesis — both ancient and modern. It’s unfortunate that most authors of Buddhist commentary haven’t seen fit to heed the Buddha’s advice on this point.

The two trends of Buddhist exegetical interpretation both fail to appreciate this point, and fall into either a uniquely Buddhist version of nihilism or a uniquely Buddhist version of eternalism. These post-canonical views are uniquely Buddhist because, for the most part, they manage to avoid the annihilationist and eternalist views criticized by the Buddha in the discourses.

The nihilist version of Buddhist exegetical interpretation errs through mistaken reductionism. This thesis posits that an arahant is nothing more than the aggregates, and therefore, because the aggregates cease without remainder at the time of the arahant’s death, the “arahant” is likewise terminated. This reductionism errs because there are explicit statements in the discourses which tell us that an arahant cannot be measured even while alive, and specifically, cannot be measured using the criteria of the aggregates. Since this is the case, there is nothing whatsoever that can be posited about the postmortem existence or non-existence of the arahant. Language and logical inference don’t apply to that which cannot be qualified or measured. There is no criteria for measurement.

The eternalist versions of Buddhist exegetical interpretation (there is more than one), all err for the same reason. Since an arahant cannot be measured or traced even while alive, there is nothing whatsoever that can be posited about the postmortem existence or non-existence of the arahant. Again, language and logical inference don’t apply to that which cannot be qualified or measured. There’s no criteria for measurement.

This explanation is following very closely to the majority of suttas which discuss the undeclared points rather than just hovering around two or so that support one side or the other. For example the ‘neo-eternalists’ cite DN 11 and MN 49, while the ‘neo-nihilists’ cite anuruddha and yamaka suttas. The reality is that if we consider the full survey of relevant suttas on the tetralemma, it’s clear that the immeasurability/ineffability/beyond scope of language argument is far more common and that we should interpret other suttas in light of the majority rather than the other way around.

Actually the “it’s suffering to hold any of the arms of the tetralemma” argument is also common in the suttas, and serves as a helpful stopgap for anyone who would rather just get back to practice rather than debate here about the topic.

That’s all from me on this thread, if you have burning questions or criticisms you want a response from me on you can PM but I can’t promise I’ll want to engage for long there either.


Javier, I’m new to Sutta Central, and just want to say that I really appreciate the clarity in the points you’re making.

1 Like

Hello @RickH and welcome to Discourse & Discover! We’re happy you found our little corner of the internet, and we hope that the resources here are helpful to you on your path. Should you need any assistance, please refer to the FAQ or reach out to us at @moderators.

With metta,

On behalf of the moderators

1 Like

This can be said about positively existing objects and processes. About signless phenomena such as nibbana, it cannot be said that it has arisen. When the clouds clear, the purity of the sky does not appear as a positive entity, as it is a signless, negative dhamma. We can say that the clouds stopped and did not appear, or we can conditionally say that the purity of the sky has arisen. But in fact, it is more correct to say that the clouds have cleared and stopped. Since signless phenomena do not arise, they are the other side of cessation or absence.

There are many different nibbanas in the world. A special case of nibbana is the scattering of clouds in the sky. But the Buddha speaks of a special nibbana, an excellent nibbana of eternal rest, freedom from dukkha. This cessation is permanent due to unconditionality. It is unconditioned, since it does not require conditions for maintenance and does not arise every moment. It is achieved by the complete cessation of the cause of suffering - tanha and avidya. When there are no defilements of the mind, dukkha no longer arises. And there is no need for effort to maintain this purity of the sky of the mind.

The pleasure of nibbana is experienced here and now. Freedom from all mental defilements, mental suffering, identification with the suffering aggregates, freedom from future suffering in samsara - all this is experienced here and now as a great relief. This amrita, once experienced, satisfies forever. There is no need for an endless transcendent experience of something there, as continuitists believe, if you can sup the nectar of immortality once and be satisfied forever.

1 Like

Liz, Sutta Central is one of the coolest, most interesting, most useful, best resources online for anyone interested in deep practice. And the tone in it is really good (unlike some of the contentious letters in Tricycle etc.!).




Don’t assume it’s real.

How to like so as not to agree with the position, but express sympathy for the author

That’s funny :grin:

Dear Bhante Sunyo :pray: :yellow_heart:

First of all thank you for your answer, it makes lots of sense. :slight_smile:

Since you asked for next quesion, I finally got one. :smiley: (Następne pytanie proszę means in Polish “next quesion please”).

I would like to ask you why sanna-vedana-nirodha (known for example from MN59), is called exactly sanna-vedana-nirodha? Why no sanna-vedana-sankhara-vinnana nirodha, or kandha-nirodha? Why omitting the last two kandhas of sankhara and vinnana? Could that mean that sankhara and vinnana is still present in this state and that it is in fact a conditioned state (sankhata dhamma)?

I ask because it is often said (I don’t know if correctly), that sanna-vedana-nirodha is same as what happens to Arahant after death (Parinibbana). If Parinibbana is cessation of all kandhas, then why this meditative attainment is not called kandha-nirodha or something?

Of course rupa is already not present, because it goes after arupa-samapattis.

Also, is sanna-vedana-nirodha same as nirodha samapatti?

One more question I have is about etymology of the word “nirodha”. I found here on first source on google is that:

One way traces the etymology to “ni” (without) + “rodha” (prison, confine, obstacle, wall, impediment) , thus rendering the meaning as “without impediment,” “free of confinement.” This is explained as “free of impediments, that is, the confinement of Samsara.”

And in buddhist texts it is translated as “cessation”. There is huge difference between “without impediment” and “cessation”. So I wonder if translating nirodha as cessation is something 100% sure, or is it just a translator choice?

What inspired me to think about it in the first place was some similarities between polish and pali. For example “veda” in pali - religious feeling/knowledge is “wiedza” in polish. “Sanpapalapa” in pali (meaningless speech) is “paplanina” in polish. “Buddha” in pali (Awakened One) is “Przebudzony” in polish. To “wake up” in polish (like in the morning) is “budzić”. There are more examples of similarities. And nirodha in polish would be similar to nie-rodzić - nie = negation, rodzić = birth. So nirodha sounds like “no-birth” in polish. I know this is probably not correct, but I just wanted to share what came through my mind. Then I started to wonder what nirodha really means. :slight_smile:

If you have time to respond, then thank you for your precious time Venerable. :pray: :yellow_heart:

Hi Piotrj, hope you are well.

Thanks for thinking I can answer this question. :face_with_hand_over_mouth: I think there are others here who can do as good a job, if not better. But the following would be my answer.

First of all, it’s a detail, but it’s not saññāvedānanirodha but saññāvedayitanirodha. Vedayita means ‘felt/experienced’, as the PTS dictionary says, not ‘feeling/experience’ in the verbal sense of the word. This pragmatically doesn’t make too much of a difference, though.

Saññā is sometimes used as an effective synonym for viññana. The PTS dict lists ‘consciousness’ as an option, and the Digital Pali Dictionary glosses “consciousness, awareness”. This is the sense that the word has here, in my view. It’s not a perception in the sense of a cognitive interpretation, but in the sense of cognitoin as awareness. This is also an English use of the word ‘perception’: “the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses”.

So I prefer to translate saññāvedayitanirodha as ‘the cessation of awareness and what is experienced’. This means the cessation of awareness alongside its object.

Sometimes it’s argued that viññana isn’t included in saññāvedayitanirodha, so it isn’t the (temporary) cessation of consciousness. But viññana is intrinsically linked to saññā and vedāna (MN43), so it is implied to also cease.

You ask why it’s not called differently. But why are you called Piotr and not Slavek? There’s no particular reason for it. Sometimes you just give a thing a label and work with that. It’s clear that sanna-vedana-sankhara-vinnana nirodha is just too clumsy. :slight_smile: Sometimes the suttas are so structural, we expect the every word to be pinpoint precise in an Abhidhamma-like fashion. But that’s not really how the suttas work.

Also, I can’t illustrate it in detail here, but viññana doesn’t just mean awareness. It had other meanings as well, and one is the “life force”, for lack of better words, that travels from life to life. If you would say that viññana ceases, to the ordinary person it would have sounded like the end of rebirth. This is what the cessation of viññana means in context of Dependent Origination, for example. That may explain why it’s not included in the name of a temporary state of cessation. The same with khandha-nirodha: that would have made it sound like parinibbana.

Saññāvedayitanirodha isn’t the same as parinibbana, because the former is temporary and the latter is not. The former isn’t limited to arahants either, but the latter is.

However, the subjective “experience” (of non-experience), if we could call it that, of both is the same. Both are a cessation of awareness. A good sutta pointing at this is MN111, where Sariputta concludes there is no escape beyond saññāvedayitanirodha. This doesn’t mean there is no parinibbana, no permanent cessation; in this context it means there is no further cessation of mind beyond that, no deeper peace. Because at this point all awareness ceases, which is the highest peace.

About nirodha, sometimes it’s helpful to compare words in different languages, but this isn’t a good way to arrive at a word’s meaning, because even if the words stem from the same root, the meaning in different places often diverge. Etymology in general is a bad way to arrive at the meaning of a word. Context is much better. And from context I can only conclude that ‘cessation’ is the best translation of nirodha. It seems like most (all?) translators came to the same conclusion.


Dear Bhante Sunyo :pray:,

Thank you so much for the thorough reply! :slight_smile: It makes a lot of sense, thank you! :slight_smile:

Btw. nice catch on sanna-vedayita-nirodha. :slight_smile: I wasn’t aware that there is a different word than vedana. :slight_smile:

The more I contemplate it, the more my view become same as yours Bhante (and others associated with Bodhinyana monastery). :slight_smile: Thank you!

I think cessation is “ineffable” for our minds, because awareness cannot imagine “something” (or rather nothing) that has not awareness. :slight_smile:

Do you think we can think of Parinibbana in a simile like going into a peaceful deep sleep (unconsciouss state) and never waking up?

With metta and gratitude :pray:

Problem is nothing to be felt anymore after rupa is stilled/released. In Arupa, there is no vedana part to be felt (no feeling involve).

Sannavedayitanirodha mean stopping of sanna and vedana. Vedana part is already being stilled during the 4th rupa jhana. The arupa jhana, no more vedana, only Sanna part.

This is why It always refer to citta visuddhi in purificiation of mind. Because Citta sankhara is Vedana and Sanna. So rupa jhana is to purify/still the vedana part, then arupa is to purify/still sanna part. Hence one can reach sannavedayitanirodha. Not easy task btw.

We could to some extent, but I wouldn’t burden it with such concepts. Through insight it will be emotionally perceived much differently, much more positively than “just blank nothingness”, as I’ve seen it described, and also much more positively than sleep. This is why the Buddha gives all these beautiful positive metaphors for nibbana, calling it an island, the highest happiness, etc. He has a different perception of it than one can achieve through the intellect. This is why the noble ones are said to have a different perception of happiness.

Through insight the cessation of consciousness will also be set against the backdrop of the length of samsara, which makes a big difference.

Lastly, the insight into absence of a self also changes the whole ballgame. It’s not like “I will become unconsicous” (as in “we go to sleep”), but just something impersonal that has no relation to “you”.

Best thing practice-wise, in my opinion, is to imagine the complete cessation of consciousness after many lifetimes, and see how your mind reacts to that. Whether there is craving, fear, attachment, etc. This is useful regardless of what parinibbana is, because if it would be a type of lasting consciousness that can’t cease, you’re still challenging attachments to that as well. But I wouldn’t contemplate like this when you’re sad or depressed; only when your mind is uplifted, especially by meditation. Also, don’t think of it as “I will stop existing” or “my consciousness will cease”. Try to see it as an impersonal process. That’s would be my advice.

I think that’s the Buddha’s general advice as well. MN22 is helpful in this regard:

“What doesn’t exist internally” refers to the “me, mine, my self”.

To return to the topic this discussion started off with, I think suttas such as this make much more sense if there really is no thing that’s “permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever”.


The quality of “knowing” Nibbana is definitely tricky to wrap one’s head about. However, the Buddha clearly states that it can be “known”. And, when referring to Nibbana, he uses precise terminology. For example:

In SuttaCentral

Then the Gracious One, having understood the significance of it, on that occasion uttered this exalted utterance: “There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and conditioned.”

In addition we have this sutta.

SN 12.23

Rebirth is a vital condition for suffering. Suffering is a vital condition for faith. Faith is a vital condition for joy. Joy is a vital condition for rapture. Rapture is a vital condition for tranquility. Tranquility is a vital condition for bliss. Bliss is a vital condition for immersion. Immersion is a vital condition for truly knowing and seeing. Truly knowing and seeing is a vital condition for disillusionment. Disillusionment is a vital condition for dispassion. Dispassion is a vital condition for freedom. Freedom is a vital condition for the knowledge of ending.

So, the take away is that, when we are “extinguished”, then we will know.

When you take up a long journey by foot it’s obviously good to know the destination. However one can’t think solely of the destination to get there. In fact, if you don’t concentrate very hard on just putting one foot in front of the other, the journey becomes very difficult.

So, consider that we have: faith; joy; rapture; tranquility; bliss; and samadhi.

This is more than enough to start the journey!

To the “cessationist” camp I’d point out that it would be very strange indeed if every attainment up to and including Nibbana itself was “knowable” with the exception of saññā-vedayita-nirodha

And, although I can’t recall the name of the sutta, it is expressed that those who attain saññā-vedayita-nirodha in this life without reaching enlightenment are reborn among a host of mind made gods.

So, if we maintain that the attainments reveal the rebirth destinations, it seems that saññā-vedayita-nirodha is knowable as well (to the extent that rebirth is possible in an affiliated state of mind made being on the basis of having developed that attainment)

1 Like

The body is made of matter. Matter is never annihilated. The physical law of the conservation of matter and energy has never been violated by any known observation. It is one of our most fundamental physical laws and it would be a shocking and revolutionary discovery to see this overturned. Matter and energy can transform and take on different shapes, but it is never annihilated. Unless you hold a dualist view this would apply to mind as well.


Yes it is. Only energy is conserved.
For example, when matter and anti-matter come into contact they annihilate each other and the interaction releases pure energy.

Just offering this point for clarification, and not entering into the discussion here.


Matter and energy are two facets of the same thing and are related through the very famous E=MC^2 as the Wikipedia article I link stated and that you can read more about here. Before Einstein understood this famous equation the previous understanding was still that mass is conserved. Oh, and btw energy can be converted into mass as well. That is exactly how your matter/antimatter pairs are created in particle accelerators actually. :pray:

1 Like


Yes, I’m aware.
But in your post you wrote:

While it’s fundamentally a form of energy, that form can be, and is, annihilated.

But, this is a Buddhist forum so I’m not too keen on getting into the weeds with physics here. Though it is quite interesting.:grinning:


1 Like