Why don't we realise space instead Nibbana?

[Gabriel_L]

The way I make sense of this is that Buddha’s teaching has not much to say about the realization of space, its origin or end. In other words, it does not offer much in terms of solving any ontological problem related to the physical world space and time takes place.

At the same time, Buddha’s teaching is mostly focused on the problem of suffering, its origination and cessation. The idea and possibility of nibbana is all about the cessation of suffering.

You see, the third ennobling task makes clear that the realization of nibbana is to be eventuated at the individual level. Hence, nibbana is not about an ontological problem because it is a possibility to experience and existence and does not require any change in the reality of things outside an individual stream of experience.

Hence, answering the topic’s opening question, while I can’t tell whether or not realizing space is a possibility I can affirm that the Buddha’s teaching has nothing to say about that. This is for its focus is to enable through the gradual internalization of four noble truths for the experience of no-suffering (i.e. nibbana) to come about in oneself. The way this occurs is impersonal and natural, and a brief but powerful description of it is found in EBTs focused on the dependent origination of liberation such as AN10.2, AN11.2 and SN12.23

[sujato]

@jimisommer

Just as motion is conditioned by form as you need a reference point to which you’re moving towards or away from. So that’s interesting, that means that even space itself, is sunyata just like everything else. In the sense that it has no intrinsic quality or even existence, without form to define it.

Yes, exactly. And this is why it became a problem for the later Abhidhamma theorists: they wanted to say that the things mentioned by the Buddha as dhātu were sabhāvadhamma, essentially existing phenomena, and space is obviously problematic to treat in this way. So some tried to escape the problem by claiming it was unconditioned. But both the understanding of space as inherently existing and as unconditioned contradict the relational perspective of the EBTs. In this respect, I think Nagarjuna got it right.

[Mat]

@sujato

Yes, exactly. And this is why it became a problem for the later Abhidhamma theorists: they wanted to say that the things mentioned by the Buddha as dhātu were sabhāvadhamma, essentially existing phenomena, and space is obviously problematic to treat in this way. So some tried to escape the problem by claiming it was unconditioned. But both the understanding of space as inherently existing and as unconditioned contradict the relational perspective of the EBTs. In this respect, I think Nagarjuna got it right.

Yes, this is correct. If sabhāvadhamma was true, and not it wasn’t relational, phenomena wouldn’t cease because of their causes ceasing as they would be self existent. This would be materialism. The death of the organism would be the end of samsara!

with metta