Nirvana In The Different Schools Of Buddhism

Soh:

The understanding of Nirvana in the different schools of Buddhism

Just saw Geoff (nana/jnana) wrote a great informative post explaining the different understanding of Nirvana in the various Hinayana or Mahayana traditions of Buddhism:

"For the Theravāda, nibbāna is an ultimately real dhamma (paramatthadhamma) and the only dhamma that is not conditioned (asaṅkhata). It is an object of supramundane cognition (lokuttaracitta) and is included in the mental phenomena sensory sphere (dhammāyatana) and the mental phenomena component (dhammadhātu). The four paths, four fruits, and nibbāna are classified as the unincluded level (apariyāpanna bhūmi), that is, not included in the sensual realm, the form realm, or the formless realm. According to the Visuddhimagga, nibbāna "has peace as its characteristic. Its function is not to die; or its function is to comfort. It is manifested as the signless; or it is manifested as non-diversification (nippapañca)."

According to the Sarvāstivāda, nirvāṇa is an analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyānirodha) that is a disjunction from impure dharmas that occurs through analysis (pratisaṃkhyāna), which is a specific type of discernment (prajñā). This analytical cessation is substantially existent (dravyasat) and ultimately exists (paramārthasat).

For Sautrāntika commentators nirvāṇa as an analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyānirodha) is a merely a conceptual designation (prajñapti) and doesn't refer to an entity or state that is substantially existent (dravyasat). It is a non-implicative negation (prasajyapratiṣedha), that is, a negation that doesn't imply the presence of some other entity. Therefore nirvāṇa simply refers to a cessation that is the termination of defilements that are abandoned by the correct practice of the noble path.

According to the Yogācāra, for those on the bodhisattva path, nirvāṇa is non-abiding (apratiṣṭha nirvāṇa). The dependent nature (paratantrasvabhāva) is the basis (āśraya) of both defilement and purification. The all-basis consciousness (ālayavijñāna) is the defiled portion (saṃkleśabhāga) of the dependent nature. Purified suchness (viśuddhā tathatā) is the purified portion (vyavadānabhāga) of the dependent nature. Synonyms for purified suchness are the perfected nature (pariniṣpanna) and non-abiding nirvāṇa. Non-abiding nirvāṇa is the revolved basis (āśrayaparāvṛtti) that has eliminated defilements without abandoning saṃsāra.

Madhyamaka authors accept the notion of non-abiding nirvāṇa, but they don't use the three natures model used by the Yogācāra. Rather, they simply consider all things to be conceptual designations (prajñapti) that are empty of nature (svabhāva). For them, conceptual designations are relative truth (saṃvṛtisatya) and only emptiness is ultimate truth (paramārthasatya).

Zen, Pure Land, Vajrayāna, etc., are practice traditions more so than doctrinal schools, and authors writing from any of these perspectives would generally rely on Yogācāra or Madhyamaka śāstras or a specific Mahāyāna sūtra."

Dmytro asked: "Hi Ñāṇa,

And how you would put the Buddha's description of Nibbana in relation to said above?"

Geoff replied: "Given the definition given in SN 38.1, SN 43.1-44, and Abhidhamma Vibhaṅga 184, I would say that it's a designation (paññatti, prajñapti) referring to the elimination of passion, aggression, and delusion. Or with regard to the four paths (stream-entry, etc.), a designation referring to the elimination of fetters terminated by each path. This is similar to the Sautrāntika interpretation."

I concur. Sautrantika has the closest understanding of Nirvana to the original teachings of Buddha, which I shall elaborate in the comments section.

Unlike ·  · Unfollow Post · March 6 at 2:39am near Brisbane, Queensland

Seen by 175

You like this.

Soh: Some weeks ago I also wrote something elsewhere:

"Nagarjuna wrote in his seventy verses that rejected Nirvana as a true existence or as the annihilation of a real being or entity: #24.

Opponent: If there is no origination and cessation, then to the cessation of what is nirvana due? Reply: Is not liberation this: that by nature nothing arises and ceases?

.

#25.

If nirvana [resulted] from cessation, [then there would be] destruction. If the contrary, [there would be] permanence. Therefore it is not logical that nirvana is being or non-being."

Not only does the Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñapāramitā Sutra talk about Nirvana as illusory, the Samadhiraja Sutra also says 'The ultimate truth is like a dream; And nirvana is similarly like a dream. The wise take them that way And this is the supreme discipline of mind" and "When the bodhisattva addresses these things: The truth of cessation is like a dream, Nirvana also is essentially a dream; That is called the discipline of speech."

Some Theravadins have a slightly eternalistic interpretation of Nibbana. In the past, the Sautrantika (which was even much more popular than Theravada until it died out in India along with the whole of Buddhism in general, leaving Theravada in other countries like Sri Lanka etc) which follows the Buddha's teachings or suttas more to the letter would strictly define nirvana in terms of cessation or elimination of fetters. Which is what the Buddha taught that Nirvana is. An eternalistic interpretation of Nirvana as some ultimately existing reality has no basis at all in the Pali canon/Buddha's words which clearly defined in so many instances that Nirvana, not-conditioned, not-born, death-free and so on are simply synonyms for the "elimination of passion, aggression and delusion". (reference: http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/447451)

The analogy given by the Buddha on Nirvana is a fire going out - and Nirvana simply means cessation, termination, gone out, etc. And with cessation there is no remainder of any kind of being or existence, nor could it be understood in terms of non-being, both or neither.

"Even in the Vedic period there was the dilemma between `be­ing' and `non-being'. They won­dered whether being came out of non-being, or non-being came out of being. Katham asataþ sat jàyeta, "How could being come out of non-being?"[23] In the face of this di­lemma regarding the first be­ginnings, they were some­times forced to conclude that there was neither non-being nor being at the start, nàsadàsãt no sadàsãt tadànãm.[24] Or else in the confusion they would sometimes leave the matter unsolved, say­ing that perhaps only the creator knew about it.

All this shows what a lot of confusion these two words sat and asat, being and non-being, had created for the philosophers. It was only the Buddha who presented a perfect solution, after a complete reappraisal of the whole problem of existence. He pointed out that existence is a fire kept up by the fuel of grasp­ing, so much so that, when grasping ceases, existence ceases as well.

In fact the fire simile holds the answer to the tetralemma in­cluded among the ten unexplained points very often found men­tioned in the suttas. It concerns the state of the Tathàgata after death, whether he exists, does not exist, both or neither. The presumption of the ques­tioner is that one or the other of these four must be and could be an­swered in the affirmative.

The Buddha solves or dissolves this presumptuous tetra­lemma by bringing in the fire simile. He points out that when a fire goes out with the exhaustion of the fuel, it is absurd to ask in which direction the fire has gone. All that one can say about it, is that the fire has gone out: Nibbuto tveva saïkhaü gacchati, "it comes to be reckoned as `gone out'."[25]

It is just a reckoning, an idiom, a worldly usage, which is not to be taken too literally. So this illustration through the fire sim­ile drives home to the worldling the absurdity of his presumptu­ous tetra­lemma of the Tathàgata.

In the Upasãvasutta of the Pàràyaõavagga of the Sutta Nipàta we find the lines:

Accã yathà vàtavegena khitto,

atthaü paleti na upeti saïkhaü,

"Like the flame thrown out by the force of the wind

Reaches its end, it cannot be reckoned."[26]

Here the reckoning is to be understood in terms of the four proposi­tions of the tetralemma. Such reckonings are based on a total mis­con­ception of the phe­nomenon of fire.

It seems that the deeper connotations of the word Nibbàna in the context of pañicca samuppàda were not fully appreciated by the com­mentators. And that is why they went in search of a new etymol­ogy. They were too shy of the implications of the word `extinction'. Proba­bly to avoid the charge of nihilism they felt compelled to rein­terpret certain key passages on Nibbàna. They con­ceived Nibbàna as something existing out there in its own right. They would not say where, but sometimes they would even say that it is everywhere. With an undue grammatical em­phasis they would say that it is on coming to that Nibbàna that lust and other defilements are aban­doned: Nibbànaü àgamma ràgàdayo khãõàti ekameva nibbànaü ràgakkhayo dosakkhayo mohakkhayo ti vuccati.[27]

But what do we find in the joyous utterances of the theras and therãs who had realized Nibbàna? As recorded in such texts as Thera- and Therã-gàthà they would say: Sãtibhåto'smi nibbuto, "I am grown cool, extinguished as I am."[28] The words sãtibhåta and nibbuta had a cooling effect even to the listener, though later scholars found them inadequate.

Extinction is something that occurs within an individual and it brings with it a unique bliss of appeasement. As the Ratana­sutta says: Laddhà mudhà nibbutiü bhu¤jamànà, "they experi­ence the bliss of appeasement won free of charge."[29] Nor­mally, appeasement is won at a cost, but here we have an ap­peasement that comes gratis." ~ Venerable Nanananda, http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana01.htm"

The Meaning of Nirvana - SgForums.com

sgforums.com

This type of blackout cessation is experienced by all sorts of yogis including those practicing non-Buddhist systems. Thus, it has nothing to do with the correct engagement of vipassanā. The cessation of unsatisfactoriness (dukkhanirodha) is the cessation of craving (taṇhā), not the cessation of phe...[Preview cut off]

March 6 at 2:41am · Like · Remove Preview

Soh: That being said, I do not see contradiction between Buddha's understanding of Nirvana and Yogacara's understanding of 'perfected suchness' (especially when we take into consideration the Buddha's teaching on suchness such as Kalaka Sutta). The notion of eliminating defilements yet not abandoning samsara is however a Mahayana development (which does not however contradict the Buddha's early teachings insofar as it does not present a substantialist understanding of Nirvana, especially for Madhyamika).

March 6 at 2:49am · Edited · Like

Jackson Peterson: Yes, your last point is correct I believe as well in Vajrayana and Dzogchen: nothing is eliminated nor is samsara "abandoned". However through a profound arising of prajna, wisdom etc., these same phenomena are simply "seen" differently. It gets tricky at this point because the question becomes "What was it that saw these phenomena in a different light?" Here is an opportunity for reification or substantialization of the "seer". But if true "prajna seeing" occurred, two-fold emptiness is intrinsically "seen", thus preventing the view from wandering into substantialism. That's why rigpa-seeing as prajna is seen to contain the wisdom of all the yanas within its spontaneous wisdom. Hence its uniquely superior understanding.

March 6 at 6:44am via mobile · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: The "seer" is Buddha.

March 6 at 6:45am via mobile · Like

Rita Friedman: I would agree with the Buddhas analogy of nirvana. Here there are almost no triggers . What is appearing involves no "outside" forces such as "others", rather it involves perceived Reality and this physical interaction in it. The current state is one of peace, balance. There are moments of bliss and intense joy . Mainly the "norm" would be described as peace. I have noticed that when nirvana is mentioned to most, its perception is one of a "blissed out, orgasmic" state. To function on any level within the Illsuion in that state would be impossible. If one is unwilling to release that state, you will die in that state unless someone is meeting your physical needs.

March 6 at 7:45am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Simply the "unestablished" as a pointer, leaves no subjectification nor objectification of experience. Remaining as the "unestablished" is nirvana.,

March 6 at 11:31am via mobile · Like

Rita Friedman: True 

March 6 at 3:56pm · Like

Rita Friedman: I love the way you said that and took it down to its most simplistic form  thank you

March 6 at 3:58pm · Edited · Like

Soh: Hi Jackson, I agree with all of what you said, except:

"That's why rigpa-seeing as prajna is seen to contain the wisdom of all the yanas within its spontaneous wisdom. Hence its uniquely superior understanding."

I would suggest that even if the basic teachings in Pali suttas (which does talk about emptiness) and early Mahayana/Prajnaparamita Sutras are understood correctly, there is not much danger in "wandering into substantialism"... this 'right seeing as prajna' is not just a view unique to one particular tradition or yana to the exclusion of all others. Perhaps this is not what you meant but just want to clarify for others as well.

For example, most Theravadins nowadays who follow their orthodox traditional interpretation of Nirvana will have a slightly eternalistic and substantialist understanding of Nirvana (even though not 'as' substantialist as the Advaitins, for example), and in fact all dharmas - all phenomenas may be treated as having some true existence.

But this is not the vision as presented in the pali suttas but by their commentarial tradition, and there are teachers even in Theravada, perhaps somewhat radical, that does not buy into it. The Theravadin Venerable Nanananda for example teaches Kalaka Sutta, Phena Sutta, Kaccayanagotta Sutta and other emptiness suttas - he seems quite clear about the twofold emptiness and does not reify 'nirvana'.

March 6 at 4:21pm · Edited · Like · 1

Din Robinson: Jackson wrote:

"What was it that saw these phenomena in a different light?" Here is an opportunity for reification or substantialization of the "seer". But if true "prajna seeing" occurred, two-fold emptiness is intrinsically "seen", thus preventing the view from wandering into substantialism."

when i read this it's confirming what i see that all there is, is consciousness/awareness, which includes everything and every "one" that appears in/as IT

March 6 at 4:19pm · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Consciousness/awareness are empty as well.

March 6 at 4:46pm · Like · 1

Soh: Also related to my OP: 

Nirvana is not a blackout state. http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/447451

The Meaning of Nirvana - SgForums.com

sgforums.com

This type of blackout cessation is experienced by all sorts of yogis including those practicing non-Buddhist systems. Thus, it has nothing to do with the correct engagement of vipassanā. The cessation of unsatisfactoriness (dukkhanirodha) is the cessation of craving (taṇhā), not the cessation of phe...[Preview cut off]

March 7 at 4:51am · Like · Remove Preview

Jackson Peterson: To say anything about Nirvana is "establishing" the ever "unestablished". This is why Chan teaches nirvikalpa or "no mind" "Wu Hsin" as the unestablished way... to the unestablished.

March 7 at 9:15am via mobile · Like

Din Robinson: the mind will always want to "get it", it needs to be busy doing something, these days it's busy just being busy with whatever arises, it no longer has any real traction because the mind is too spacious and still to take any thoughts or perceptions seriously

March 7 at 9:19am · Like

James O'Neill: A precis by scientist philosopher Thomas Metzinger on how the brain has created a solid belief ,perception ,model of a self ,and it doesnt know it has done this .There isnt a self

http://www.philosophie.uni-mainz.de/Dateien/beingnoone2.pdf

http://www.philosophie.uni-mainz.de/Dateien/beingnoone2.pdf

www.philosophie.uni-mainz.de

March 7 at 10:49pm · Like · 1

Soh: A very relevant explanation by Ajahn Brahmavali which exposes many misunderstandings of Nirvana within the Theravada tradition:

http://community.dhammaloka.org.au/showthread.php/432-Nibbana?s=1a638d713a5f8115199abbc50cf3d736

Dhammaloka Community

community.dhammaloka.org.au

This is a Buddhist discussion forum.

March 9 at 5:44pm · Like · Remove Preview

Soh: And on what exactly Nirvana is, I highly recommend reading this as it is a very good experiential description and based on scriptures: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/great-resource-of-buddhas-teachings.html

Awakening to Reality: Great Resource of Buddha's Teachings

awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com

very interesting articlesomewhat reminds me of u.g. krishnamurtis talkse.g. talking about deathlessness?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C570V0OM5kU&feature=player_detailpage#t=374sand seeing eye + form + consciousness as a single unit?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C570V0OM5kU&feature=player_detailpa...

March 9 at 6:16pm · Edited · Like · Remove Preview