Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What exactly is nirvana?
I've heard many explanations before, most of which were confusing. In advaita, unconditioned consciousness is our true nature. Is nirvana something similar, or is it the negation of consciousness altogether? If the latter, then what are we, if not conscious?
0
Comments
From the Buddhist pov the holding of consciousness as the unconditioned as done in advaita is complete ignorance.
Whereas in Buddhism it is the releasing of consciousness which brings about the greatest freedom aka peace.
What we are is a bundle of afflictions.
Freedom from that is release/nirvana.
You may enjoy this talk by Rob Burbea on nirvana and transcendence.
The Buddha never had real trouble explaining nirvana and said it is the cessation of existence (of a not-self process). It is not a state of consciousness, it's simply disappearing. Why is this so good? Because everything else is impermanent, non-self and thus suffering. Of course, hard to accept, and that's why many minds try to find a way around it or another way of interpreting the Buddha's words. But if you read the suttas and are very honest, it may become very clear that this is what he was on about. No wonder he initially didn't really think anybody would understand. Luckily people did, however!
Consciousness without feature/unconditioned consciousness are Hindu ideas that got into Buddhism. It's impossible to have unconditioned consciousness basically, because consciousness is always conditioned, both by it's object and by craving, that's the nature of it. No craving means no consciousness after death.
Now there is also the nirvana while still alive, but I left that out of this post, because that's not the final goal.
I know this is a sensitive topic
With metta,
Sabre
In terms of the aggregate of consciousness (vinnana-khandha), it's clear that consciousness is a dependently existing phenomena. Sensory consciousness can only arise with the presence of the appropriate sense organ and its corresponding object of reference. The process of seeing, for example, is described as a conditional process where "dependent on eye and visible forms, eye-consciousness arises" (SN 12.43). Without the presence of the appropriate sense organ (e.g., the eye) or the corresponding object of reference (e.g., rock), sensory-consciousness (e.g., eye-consciousness) can't arise. So none of the six forms of sensory consciousness can stand on its own without the corresponding stimulus to make it manifest or arise.
Nevertheless, there are a couple of sutta passages that seem to suggest there's a form of consciousness that doesn't come under the aggregate of consciousness. For example, Thanissaro Bhikkhu states in a note to his translation of MN 109: There are those in academia who also acknowledge this possibility. Peter Harvey, professor of Buddhist Studies at the University of Sunderland, writes in his Introduction to Buddhism: While the view that there's a type of consciousness that lies outside of space and time, and therefore, outside the consciousness-aggregate altogether, isn't a view that's supported by the 'classical' Theravada Tradition in which the entire Tipitaka and its commentaries are considered authoritative, the imagery of consciousness that "does not land or increase" mentioned in SN 12.64 does seem to support such a possibility, even if some might say that comparing this imagery of consciousness to the consciousness of nibbana is taking it out of context. At least I think so.
The commentaries, on the other hand, gloss the term vinnanam anidassanam in a way that denies such a possibility. Using the Kevatta Sutta (DN 11), for example, Suan Lu Zaw, a Burmese lay-teacher of Pali and Abhidhamma, explains that according the the Kevatta Sutta Atthakatha [DN 11 commentary], vinnanam doesn't refer to the usual meaning of 'consciousness' here, but instead defines it as, "There, to be known specifically, so (it is) 'vinnanam'. This is the name of Nibbana." He also explains that the following line of DN 11, "Here (in Nibbana), nama as well as rupa cease without remainder. By ceasing of consciousness, nama as well as rupa ceases here" illustrates this point. He states that, "Nibbana does not become a sort of consciousness just because one of the Pali names happens to be vinnanam."
He concludes by using a quote from a section of the Dhammapada Attakatha [Dhammapada commentary], which apparently states that there's no consciousness component in parinibbana after the death of an arahant. This, of course, is in direct contrast to Thanissaro Bhikkhu's note to this particular sutta.
Basically, what this controversy seems to boil down to is the experience of nibbana and the nature of that experience, especially after death. The general tendency is to either describe nibbana as the ending of all consciousness, all awareness, or in other words, to stress the cessation aspect of nibbana, or to describe nibbana as a state of purified awareness, 'consciousness without feature,' or in other words, to stress the transcendent aspect of nibbana. The 'classical' Theravada Tradition favours the former view of nibbana while others, especially some within the Thai Forest Tradition, favour the latter.
My view, as I mentioned in my post about nibbana, is that both interpretations have support in the suttas, as well as sophisticated arguments as to why their view doesn't fall into either extreme of annihilationism or eternalism, and I'm sympathetic to both, having held each view at one point or another. But lately, I've been content with viewing nibbana as the extinguishing of greed, hatred and delusion (SN 38.1), and consciousness without feature as the living arahant's consciousness devoid of defilements and non-attached to any phenomena whatsoever, and leaving it at that.
If vinnanam anidassanam was so important, surely it wouldn't be in just two suttas. Also, this term is not ascribed to the Buddha in all occasions in the existing versions of the canon (there is more than just one). I've seen translations where this is ascribed to the Brahma, which makes a lot more sense because the Buddha in one occasion ends with "With the cessation of consciousness everything comes to an end." Why would he say that if he was just before talking about some featureless eternal consciousness? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Aside from that, these things are poetry. I think we shouldn't base our view on that. Ideally we shouldn't base our view on suttas at all, of course. Even if something occurred 100 times, because something is in a sutta, doesn't make it true. But at least it's more likely that what occurs more is what the Buddha actually taught. And what occurs many many times is the word remainderless cessation / fading away. Remainderless, so not with some consciousness remaining. This apart from the many other occasions that point to this, I don't think I need to give them.
At least, that's how I see it. Obviously not everybody agrees, not even some who are ordained for a long time. But hey, who'se to say they are wise?
Not trying to convince you of anything. I think taking a neutral stance is very wise. Just for your information.
I think nirvana as the end of all experience is an amazingly beautiful teaching, somebody just doesn't make this up.
With metta!
Sabre
/Victor
Lasting happiness starts with clarity, with clear seeing of reality. We see that all things are impermanent and selfless (interdependent), including ourselves (the abandonment of self-view). Given that grasping and clinging are therefore fruitless endeavors that only lead to pain, we begin to let go of these activities. We let go of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. The mind becomes still, peaceful, unperturbed and steadfast; it's all uncertain, there's nothing to grasp.
There are a lot of ways people like to define Nirvana, but they're mostly concerned with existential realities... will I exist after death? and so on. What Nirvana is is the cessation of craving/clinging, which ends all suffering. The Buddha didn't answer these existential questions because they are based on delusional thinking to begin with... you think you exist now?
As long as we are in the body, isn't it impossible to experience cessation of consciousness aka nirvana?
It is difficult to address your question when the passage is question is absent. I found this passage which might be helpful.
I thought the context made it clear, but this last part is about the experience of nibbana after 'death.' The problem is, to understand that (at least from an intellectual standpoint), one also has to try and also understand the nature of nibbana as a living experience and what that entails since the two are so intimately tied together, e.g., is nibbana just the destruction of the taints and the end of existence, or is it opening up to a whole new realm of experience? Is it an awareness that's not harmed by death — an awareness that's not in time and space (whatever that might mean) — or does the liberated mind simply cease after death, etc.? Just something I find interesting to contemplate.
You see this for example in the counterpart of dependent origination, where the Buddha said, from the cessation of ignorance etc etc cessation of becoming (another word for existence). For example, here (this was not the Buddha speaking but one of the enlightened diciples) At least to me it's always been quite obvious that that's what he was on about. I'm aware that opinions vary. But I always tought this is an amazing teaching. And it immediately makes clear why it is craving is such a problem.
http://www.lifepositive.com/spirit/world-religions/buddhism/dalai-interview.asp
If the goal of life is happiness, where does nirvana fit in?
Now you are talking about another level. At the first level, you need to practice basic human values. Then, you can talk of nirvana, which means permanent cessation of suffering. So we come back to happiness!
How can nirvana be made possible?
(Laughs) It is possible because it is possible to eliminate all negative emotions! When Buddha Sakyamuni experienced mahaparinirvana, his mind ceased and he was freed from the karmic cycle of birth and death. Nagarjuna says clearly that the pure mind has no counterforce, and only those that have a counterforce can cease, like matter. The mind, and space too, have no counterforce and so have no reason to cease. In the case of other afflictive emotions, they might end if they have strong positive counter forces. But in case of the mind, we cannot say that it will come to an end, as it is difficult to find a strong antidote that will hinder its existence, as in the case of space. Here, you could argue by saying that in that case, could we put an end to loving-kindness or compassion because they have strong counter-forces? On investigation, we will realize that kindness and love usually accompany wisdom whereas anger and hatred might seem strong but have no praman (proof/basis). Everything that is good and right is the result of valid perception. Based on this, the more you analyze, the more you will be able to hold on to reality. If it is something wrong, however strong it appears, as you analyze it, its falsehood will be revealed.
So it's both seeing and the resultant non-craving and non-suffering.
Cessation of existence.
Look up the word 'bhava' in a pali dictionary and you'll see becoming and existence are synonyms. People began to translate it as 'becoming' to emphasize the non-self aspect of existence, but if we know what we are talking about we can also use the word existence, it's just a matter of semantics. But because it is no self, this is also why one can't say the Buddha is or isn't 'being' after death, because he also wasn't 'being' before, it was all non-self. Being dead or alive has nothing to do with that.
If we also take into account suttas such as "The all" where the Buddha says there is just the 6 senses, nothing more - And all the times he talks about the cessation of consciousness without even mentioning there would arise some other kind of consciousness - how he praises impermanence and doesn't talk about permanence - how the Brahmajala sutta goes against permanent existence - and a lot of other accounts - to me it's clear what the Buddha taught. But we don't need to read a lot - to me it's already in the four noble truths.
Now of course this sounds like the most scary and 'useless' nibbana one could ever want. But it's exactly out of the sense of self that we want to preserve something. The sense of self gives rise to thinking there is actually something valuable in existing in one way or the other. But if you see there is no such self, and everything is just arising and passing away, nothing remains to be clung to, not even some kind of consciousness.
Now just imagine the universe would work like this: Don't you think it would be amazing?
For clarification: I'm talking about parinibbana (final nirvana) here, that is nirvana after death.
With metta!
Here is a brief extract from MN9, the Discourse on Right View, specifically on the birth ( jati ) and being ( bhava )nidanas of dependent origination. It seems to describe being ( bhava ) as the process of existence in one of the realms ( samasara ), and birth ( jati ) as actual physical birth.
In the first paragraph we see "With the cessation of being there is the cessation of birth", ie cessation of the cycle of birth and death in the realms ( samsara ).
What I'm not clear about is whether cessation of being occurs at nibbana or at pari-nibbana.
Birth:
26. "And what is birth, what is the origin of birth, what is the cessation of birth, what is the way leading to the cessation of birth? The birth of beings into the various orders of beings, their coming to birth, precipitation [in a womb], generation, manifestation of the aggregates, obtaining the bases for contact — this is called birth. With the arising of being there is the arising of birth. With the cessation of being there is the cessation of birth. The way leading to the cessation of birth is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration.
Being
30. "And what is being, what is the origin of being, what is the cessation of being, what is the way leading to the cessation of being? There are these three kinds of being: sense-sphere being, fine-material being and immaterial being. With the arising of clinging there is the arising of being. With the cessation of clinging there is the cessation of being. The way leading to the cessation of being is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration.
So it doesn't have to be immediate, and with the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of existence in the future, that is, after death.
So does this mean that pari-nibbana is complete extinction, ie there is nothing "beyond" samsara?
But it is how I have come to see and appreciate the beauty of the Buddha's teaching. I personally never could belief in some eternal thing that ever lasts, neither material or immaterial.