What is wrong with a positivist interpretation of Nibbana?

Discussion
34

Hmmm…I don’t understand how the points you’re making are derived from what I wrote, and I never wish to force conclusions on anyone. :slightly_smiling_face:

So perhaps I can offer some clarifications:

  • Nibbāna is described in Iti44 as nibbāna with residue while the arahant is still alive. This means the senses and khandhas are still present and operating but that there is complete freedom from all defilements, all greed anger and ignorance. So clearly the Buddha and arahants did realize the freedom of nibbāna, even while the khndhas remained.

But because the khandhas themselves are impermanent and therefore a form of dukkha, there is not yet freedom from all dukkha:
SN12.125: “Whatever arises and ceases is only dukkha arising and ceasing.” And
SN22.15: Yad aniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ; “What is impermanent is suffering.”

One of the most frequent “definitions” of nibbāna in the suttas is:
SN43.2 - “And what is the unconditioned? The ending of greed, hate, and delusion. This is called the unconditioned.”
This can be realized in this life, as the Buddha and arahants did. So let’s call it real in that sense. Never tried to say otherwise.

  • The other description of niibbāna in Iti44 is nibbāna without residue, meaning final nibbāna after the death of an arahant, when the khndhas and senses completely cease. In other words, cessation.
    So one way to view this is that when the Buddha spoke innumerable times about cessation, he meant it.

Snp3.12: ““All the suffering that originates is caused by consciousness.; With the cessation of consciousness, there is no origination of suffering.”

SN22.61: "They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’”
In other words…cessation.

SN47.42: "Nāmarūpasamudayā cittassa samudayo; nāmarūpanirodhā cittassa atthaṅgamo.
"The mind originates from name and form. When name and form cease, the mind ends.

In other words, cessation.

In this way, cessation is necessarily final freedom from any birth, becoming, death, etc. and necessarily devoid of dukkha. Hence not so much “an unborn” which can be easily reified, but “without birth” or “freedom from birth” via the cessation of all that.

If you wish to view final nibbāna as some kind of ineffable timeless “something”, that’s of course up to you and anyone else who wishes to take this view.
Clearly, there is respectful debate about this by a number of respected Dhamma practitioners and teachers.

The question then becomes – What sutta teachings clearly and repeatedly state that final nibbāna is a “timeless mind” or an ineffable “something”?

BTW, this topic has been discussed many times on this forum, in case you haven’t read them yet.

Just saying… :pray:

2 Likes
35

Yeah, plus in dependent cessation, when ignorance/delusion ends, so do all the rest of the factors… eventually. Delusion is what sustains and fuels the other factors. And in the other factors there is consciousness, name and form, the six sense bases, contact.
From wherever you look in the suttas this is the message.
And seeing dependent origination/cessation has been compared to basically seeing the whole teaching.

2 Likes
36

It makes no sense to say “sukhamidaṁ, āvuso, nibbānaṁ" if there was no experiencer (according to your interpretation of nibbāna) because after personal permanent extinction (which you call cessation) there is no experience of sukha or dukkha as there is nobody to talk of their sukha. Before that permanent extinction, there definitely is experience (so “nothing is felt” would not apply). Look at the logic behind your interpretations.

You’re saying the use of the string of negatives (adjectives of nibbāna) means that nibbāna itself has no underlying positive reality. If nibbāna isn’t real then the Buddha couldnt have attained it, and without attaining it he wouldnt be a Buddha, and that wouldn’t be a rug the Buddha would be willing pull from under himself, would he? How is your interpretation logically sound?

So in your interpretation, that nibbāna-with-residue is pre-extinguishment nibbāna, and the final nibbāna is post-extinguishment nibbāna?

So according to your interpretation, extinguishment is in reality, just physical death, and there is a nibbāna both before and after extinguishment?

Where is the logic behind this interpretation? How can nibbāna mean extinguishment when the nibbāna-with-residue exists before extinguishment?

If we take both the nibbānas as positive states of existence, it makes sense, not if nibbāna by itself means permanent personal extinction. To call something after a permanent personal extinction as “sukha” would be totally weird.

If you want to rely on etymology behind the word nibbāna (and translate it as personal extinguishment throughout), it would not apply to nibbāna-with-residue (and therefore such a nibbāna is no nibbāna at all). The etymological meaning of nibbāna is here misleading, the EBT use of the term is not the meaning that the literal etymology suggests.

1 Like
37

This is addressed in Linked Discourses 36.19 with "It’s possible that wanderers of other religions might say: ‘The ascetic Gotama spoke of the cessation of perception and feeling, and he includes it in happiness. What’s up with that?’

When wanderers of other religions say this, you should say to them: ‘Reverends, when the Buddha describes what’s included in happiness, he’s not just referring to pleasant feeling. The Realized One describes pleasure as included in happiness wherever it is found, and in whatever context.’”
So yes, there is nothing felt. That’s why it is preferable or “happiness”. It’s quite a statement indeed, and very profound and counter to how we think given a sense of self that wants to exists and feel happy feelings.

You can think of what the Buddha gave up instead. The Buddha gave up greed hatred and delusion, and that’s what we would define as " pre-extinguishment nibbāna".
When he died it was like a flame going out, his life, consciousness, existence ended, which is referred to “post-extinguishment nibbāna” as you mentioned with those terms.

Because we are talking about how much has ended, or how much has “nibbana’d” if you will. We are talking about levels of extinguishment.

38

I am afraid I don’t see the logic - it doesnt work like that. If you want to adopt a theory of multiple nibbānas and give each one a different definition, that is up to you, but that is not Buddhism. There are no degrees to nibbāna in early-buddhism - one can’t say “I’ve achieved 6% nibbāna”. To call nibbāna as sukha, the experiencer needs to exist. That does not fit with the total-extinguishment interpretation. If nibbāna means total extinguishment, it cannot then also exist before that total-extinguishment. If it exists before total extinguishment, the word nibbāna cannot have meant total-extinguishment. So there are multiple logical fallacies here, and even circular logic.

1 Like
39

Not in my interpretation. The citation about nibbāna with and without residue is from Iti44.
The other sutta quotes that were offered were also not my interpretations.

Perhaps reading these previous posts will be informative and interesting to you:

I prefer discussions without judgmental words like “weird” and without mistaken attributions and assumptions like:

Which I never said or implied, as far as I can see.
I just quoted the Buddha in Iti44 and specifically said that nibbāna was realized by the Buddha and arahants. :slightly_smiling_face:

We might say that nibbāna while alive is kilesanirodha, extinction of the defilements, while final nibbāna is khandhanirodha – hence the final cessation of the khandhas and all dukkha without rebirth.

In either case, āvuso, I do wish you well on your Dhamma journey.
Wishing safety, happiness, and peace to you and to us all. :pray: :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like
40

Hi Mike,

Ajahn Brahms excellent talk on MN1 is here https://youtu.be/0-Mpvly5_fQ?si=1AEPYwGud7Dl4Pgp it is quite funny as well

It might be they did not delight because they were affected correctly by the teachings, it seems to me the point of the cloud deva suttas is to say how delight can give rise to being and worlds (conditionality), this is just my patthujana pet theory though lol I don’t think the word there is “Nandi” like in the dhammacakkhapavatthana sutta. Also MN 1 is titled “The Root of All Things”

1 Like
41

In the view of a mere cessation, i feel this makes no sense at all:

-“In the same way, Vaccha, any form by which a Realized One might be described has been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future. A Realized One is freed from reckoning in terms of form. They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean.(MN72)

In the context of a mere cessation a Buddha and any being are just 5 khandha’s and there is no need at all the talk about them as deep, immeasurable. Not while alive not after death, because in this live they are just 5 khandha’s and after death these have ceased. Refering to a mere cessation as deep and immeasarable is nonsense.

-“One who has come to an end cannot be defined,” replied the Buddha. “They have nothing
by which one might describe them. When all things have been eradicated, eradicated, too, are all ways of speech.”

  • What does it mean when one is freed from vinnana, detached? What is freed from vinnana (AN10.81)

AN4.173 does not teach that the view that when the domain of the six senses cease there is nothing left. It is also does not say there is anything left. But those that claim there is nothing left do not speak according the sutta.

SN35.117 says: So you should understand that dimension where the eye ceases and perception of sights fades away. You should understand that dimension where the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind ceases and perception of ideas fades away.”

Apparantly this can be understood.

42

We can speculate about this endlessly but if we do not know what the cessation of sanna and vedana really means (why is it not just called the cessation of vinnana?), we also cannot judge what it means when it is said to be blissful. All we say about it, also is mere speculation. This line in the sutta can also interpretated in different ways.

I believe we have an extremely weak base if we only rely on scripture and intellectual understanding. I have a very strong opinion about this: Teachers who sell their words as Truth, as direct knowledge,
as something they really know, while they only rely on reasoning, have left the Noble Path. They are a risk for the Three Jewels.

Maybe this is even more important to acknowledge as buddhist community then all these opinions about this and that only based upon reasoning and studying.

At least we can admit to ourselves and others, openly, we do not know. This is the only sincere, upright and noble act.

1 Like
43

Can you explain a bit more about this?

44

Because Nibbana is beyond Mind & Matter. It is beyond these 6 senses. How can you describe or interpret something which is beyond 6 senses?

Regards,
Amit

1 Like
45

There are several levels of meaning here, and they are not to be confused with one another.

  1. What the Buddha had in mind.
  2. What is recorded in the Pali canon in Pali and attributed to the Buddha
  3. What the translator thinks the Pali meant.
  4. What you (or the reader) thinks the translator meant.

In most of my discussions here, people are essentially asserting the 4th level (some are talking about the 3rd level), but think they are talking about level 1 or level 2. It is because they do not recognize the difference between level 2 and level 3, or between level 3 & level 4.

I am interested in the 2nd level rather than the 3rd or 4th level. I get the feeling you are talking about the translation, not about the source Pali. Translations by definition convey only approximate meanings. Sometimes they convey incorrect meanings.

So regarding your assertion that you were not stating your opinion, but was merely quoting the text - that is not true, you were quoting the translation, not the source text. The source text is translated in a certain way, and you think the translations say what the source says. They don’t.

For example:

Here the source says: ‘Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṁ brahmacariyaṁ, kataṁ karaṇīyaṁ, nāparaṁ itthattāyā’ti pajānāti
The translation says: They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’”
Your interpretation of the translation : In other words…cessation.

Let us see what the source actually means:
khīṇā jāti = Birth is ended
vusitaṁ brahmacariyaṁ = brahmacarya is fulfilled
kataṁ karaṇīyaṁ = (what) had to be done, is done
nāparaṁ itthattāya = (there is) no further return (back) to this state (of existence).

So you can see that by blindly relying on a wrong translation, you got your own conclusions wrong. The original doesnt say “any state of existence” it explicitly says “this state of existence”. ittha / ittham means “this”, it does not mean “any”. Therefore your conclusion (that it means “cessation”) is based on a translation which doesnt represent the original accurately, but you thought it did.

The source text says “Viññāṇassa nirodhena natthi dukkhassa sambhavo.” (With the destrunction of the thinking-faculty, dukkha doesnt arise). This holds good for everyone at death, not just for those that have attained nibbāna - so viññāna-nirodha does not have to mean nibbāna, even simple death results in viññāna-nirodha - because viññāna is part of the khandas which are part of the psychophysical body, which perishes at death. So everytime a person dies, their dukkha stops at death because they dont have a body or its khandas to feel the dukkha any more. This is not unique to the permanent personal extinction that you call cessation.

What it actually means is – When (classifying things) into nāma (names) & rūpa (forms) begins, the citta (reasoning-faculty) arises as a result. When such classification into names and forms ceases - the reasoning faculty recedes.

This again has nothing to do with nibbāna, and the sutta is actually about how satipaṭṭhānāna works - not about any cessation (permanent personal extinction) that you assume it to be.

Again, you are apparently reinterpreting someone else’s translation in a way that fits your preconception. Let’s now look at the source.

The source says quite explicitly:
"Atthi, bhikkhave, ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ.
(There is, bhikkhus, an unborn, unmade…)

No cetaṃ, bhikkhave, abhavissa ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ, nayidha jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa nissaraṇaṃ paññāyetha.
(If such an unborn, unmade… didnt exist, an escape/exit from the born & the made… wouldn’t have been known)

Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, atthi ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ, tasmā jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa nissaraṇaṃ paññāyatī’’ti.
(Because there exists an unborn, unmade… as a result of that, the escape/exit from the born, made… is known).

The word “ajātam” does not mean “freedom from rebirth” or “without birth”. In the phrase ajātam, abhūtam, akaṭam and asaṅkhatam are all adjectives referring to one and the same thing, not to 4 different freedoms-from-different-things, further the verb atthi is singular and cannot be referring to 4 different freedoms. So basically your reinterpretation does not make sense from a grammatical or semantic point of view.

In none of these is cessation (i.e. permanent personal extinction) even hinted about.

1 Like
46

Suggest you read the links I offered in the last post along with those by several Venerables who explicitly stated the position and translations about this sutta that offer different understandings from your interpretations.

Another is: What do you think about Ven Thanissaro’s view on Nibbāna?
And others can be found using the Search Function.

Actually, I was using the Pāli here. We just don’t agree on all the points. Fair enough.

For some reason, you keep attributing thoughts to me that I don’t have. And again, I don’t appreciate the use of judgmental terms like “weird” and “blindly” in discussions here.
Meanwhile, the translation I used in my prior post regarding “all existence” was by Ven. Sujato. So yes, here I’m following the translation of this highly respected scholar-monk.
I understand, and have read, other translations.

Your interpretation of Viññāṇassa …

Consider reading DN15, where it’s explicitly stated that dukkha does not end for a non-arahant because there is craving and rebirth as the stream of consciousness and nāmarūpa combine to form a new being/dukkha.

Also, all the khandhas cannot end with the death of a non-arahant, as the consciousness aggregate remains – as in DN15, for example.
And since in MN43 perception, feeling, and consciousness are utterly interdependent and cannot be separated, these khandhas must also be present.

I respect your input but the use of judgmental words, as cited above, is something I’m not appreciating so I’m going to respectfully disengage.

Wishing you the best. :pray:

1 Like
47

Apologies, didnt mean to offend. Please consider those words retracted.

It appeared to me that you were simply quoting from readymade translations mostly as the pali texts you quoted were few and far between, and you didnt appear to explain why you thought a word meant what you took them to be.

So yes, here I’m following the translation of this highly respected scholar-monk.

Highly respected by me too, but the word itthattāya is translated wrong in my opinion, and that is the word you are evidently basing your conclusion about cessation on.

48

In general, i can see or sense that translating Pali texts into English is not mere about Pali expertise. It seems it cannot been seen apart from how a translator personally understands Dhamma or even wants to understand it. This is not to blame or accuse anybody but the sphere but also the meaning in translations can differ quit a lot.

In any discussion there comes a moment that a Pali expert says the translation is wrong or will be better if…but better suited to his or her understanding, wishes, desires? Can one avoid such things?

For a lay person studying Dhamma, no Pali expert, it is not easy to see what makes sense.
There is so much more going on in translating then expertise of language.

49

Yes the translation can make or break notions of what the text is speaking about - and translators sometimes have a preconceived notion of what they are expecting to see in the text, and translate in accordance with those notions.

One needs to know enough Pali to take the translations apart and see if they actually mean what the source says. Most readers aren’t going to be able to do that, and they argue about the significance of words they see in the translations, which are themselves approximations of the source texts.

When the translation of specific key words is wrong, it diametrically alters the sense of the sutta. A critical reading of a translation is therefore essential.

Here on Suttacentral, I see several translations are actually translating from the English (or other more prominent large language) rather than from Pali, and the same mistakes are also translated into newer languages. So they become translations of translations.

2 Likes
50

Of course. :pray:

Actually, I agree with you agree that itthattāya refers to a particular state of existence. But it’s in the context of no further rebirth – so imo whether it’s translated as “this state of existence” or “any state of existence” doesn’t seem to matter: the point being the final release from all conditional existence (whether “this” or “any”) and no rebirth – as would happen when a non-Arahnt dies → final liberation.

It’s in this sense that I’ve used cessation, as there’s no birth or re-bhava-ing, so to speak after the death of an arahant. :slightly_smiling_face:

I do also incline to understanding final nibbāna as full cessation, but with all due respect, as I’ve mentioned before, to the understanding of others who see if differently – as a kind of timeless citta or ineffable “something” or “existence”.
In this sense, perhaps there would be a difference between “this” and “any.”

We appear to have different views about this which, of course, is fine.
We may agree to disagree…

:pray: :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like
51

It is said that those six sense vinnana always arise dependend on a sense-imput and cannot and may not be seen is something present. Even while awake vinnana arises and ceases and is not every moment present. Vinnana is not taught as a continues stream but in between moments of vinnana there is no vinnana. It is not like a river that is continuous flowing. Is is more like on and off.

If vinnana is absent, for a moment, or longer (while unconscious) are we ceased? I do not think life nor Dhamma support this. Cessation of vinnana happens all the time but is not considered to be the end of suffering. If the cessation of vinnana would be the cessation of suffering we only have to die unconsciously.

I read a mahayana teacher who taught that it is quit normal that death is such a shock that there is for a time a period of total black out, unaware of anything, no vinnana’s, but at a certain moment this starts again. This feels oke for me. Life does not depend on vinnana.

Probably this refers to kamma-vinnana or rebirth linking vinnana. Probably not sense vinnana.
There are many kinds of vinnana’s with different meanings and different role in Dhamma.
I do not know why this gets no attention at all. I also do not understand why it gets no attention that vinnana and mind cannot be the same because unconscious one is not mindless.

52

It is talking about a return to this state of existence (mortal existence). If it wanted to say permanent personal extinction, it would have said it. But Buddhism is in fact opposed to ucchedavāda, as you may know, so to consider nibbāna as being the same thing (ucchedavāda) under another name is not a proper view.

1 Like
53

Well I hope we might agree that ucchedavāda refers to the annihilation of any kind of self.
What I and others are pointing to is the cessation of selfless khandhas.

Since the khandhas are anicca, they are dukkha:
SN22.15 - “Yad aniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ”. And
SN56.11 - yaṁ kiñci samudayadhammaṁ sabbaṁ taṁ nirodhadhamman. And
SN12.125 - " Dukkhameva uppajjamānaṁ uppajjati, dukkhaṁ nirujjhamānaṁ nirujjhatī Ettāvatā kho, kaccāna, sammādiṭṭhi hoti.

So, if everything conditional is inherently dukkha and the teaching is about the final cessation of dukkha – I’m guessing we agree on this point – then the final cessation of all this is simply the cessation of dukkha, and not the annihilation of any kind of self.

Those who post a kind of existence after the final death of an arahant might wish to offer citations from the suttas in which the Buddha makes this clear.
Ud8.1 and Ud8.3 have been cited in support of this, but as we’ve discussed earlier (and as has been discussed extensively in other posts, some of which I’ve put into my posts here), there are quite reasonable and well-supported differences in accepting this as “proof” of final nibbāna as a kind of existence.
KR Norman, for example, also saw the negations in Ud8.3 as indicating “without birth” rather than “an unborn.” As do Venerables Sunyo, Brahmali, and Sujato.

Beyond that, what is the clear evidence in the suttas for a timeless “something” after the death of an arahant?
Again, this has been extensively on this forum.

1 Like