What is wrong with a positivist interpretation of Nibbana?

[Jasudho]

Hi,

@Dhabba

Just to make my point clearer I spontaneously read the quoted sutta instead as follows:

”Kaccāna, this world mostly relies on the dual notions of arising and ceasing.

But when you truly see the arising of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of ceasing regarding the world. And when you truly see the ceasing of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of arising regarding the world.”

Except the words in this portion of the sutta are not arising and ceasing:

"“Kaccāna, this world mostly relies on the dual notions of existence and non-existence.
“Dvayanissito khvāyaṁ, kaccāna, loko yebhuyyena—atthitañceva natthitañca.
But when you truly see the origin of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of non-existence regarding the world.
Lokasamudayaṁ kho, kaccāna, yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya passato yā loke natthitā sā na hoti.
And when you truly see the cessation of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of existence regarding the world.
Lokanirodhaṁ kho, kaccāna, yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya passato yā loke atthitā sā na hoti."

Atthi and its negation natthi mean existence and non-existence, not arising and ceasing.

The definitions of existence and annhilationsm/non-existence are not limited to Brahmanical sources. They point to the Buddha’s refutation of any permanent form of existence and to the refutation of the ceasing/annihilation of any kind of self.

This also applies to the Tetralemma you cited in your post.
See:

The six senses cease, is there nothing else?

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

But the Buddha gave his discovery more than 30 other names as well, to indicate ways in which it’s really worth desiring, really worth all the effort that goes into attaining it. The names fall into five main groups, conveying five different facets of that dimension: The first is that it’s not a blank of nothingness. Instead, it’s a type of consciousness. But unlike ordinary consciousness, it’s not known through the six senses, and it doesn’t engage in fabricating any experience at all—unlike…

Is Dependent Origination a parody of Vedic cosmology?

I wrote the following as part of a larger work on Dependent Origination, where I considered it too tangential to include.[1] Instead of throwing it in the bin, I thought I'd share it here, with a few extra thoughts. Perhaps it can lead to some fruitful exchange in your replies. In an influential article published in 2000 Joanna Jurewicz suggested Dependent Origination to be a polemic response to Vedic myths on the creation of the universe.[2] Various scholars have since voiced their accepta…

@Dhabba

But to become 100% annihilated?

But what’s extinguished, or annihilated as you wrote, is not what we deludedly take to be ourself – it’s the selfless khandhas and dukkha that are annihilated.
This is the crux of the matter.

As long as we identify with the khandhas/senses/consciousness there will be fear of full cessation.
But when all conditions are understood as fundamentally dukkha, then the ending of all that is the ultimate relief.

SN12.125:
“What arises and ceases is only suffering arising and ceasing.”
Dukkhameva uppajjamānaṁ uppajjati, dukkhaṁ nirujjhamānaṁ nirujjhatī
This is how right view is defined.
Ettāvatā kho, kaccāna, sammādiṭṭhi hoti.

And so

AN9.34:
“Reverends, extinguishment is bliss!
“sukhamidaṁ, āvuso, nibbānaṁ.
Extinguishment is bliss!”
Sukhamidaṁ, āvuso, nibbānan”ti.

Santi