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 TheravÄ�da, nibbÄ�na is an ultimately real dhamma (paramatthadhamma) and the only dhamma that is not conditioned (asaá¹…khata). It is an object of supramundane cognition (lokuttaracitta) and is included in the mental phenomena sensory sphere (dhammÄ�yatana) and the mental phenomena component (dhammadhÄ�tu). The four paths, four fruits, and nibbÄ�na are classified as the unincluded level (apariyÄ�panna bhÅ«mi), that is, not included in the sensual realm, the form realm, or the formless realm. According to the Visuddhimagga, nibbÄ�na "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 SarvÄ�stivÄ�da, nirvÄ�ṇa is an analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyÄ�nirodha) that is a disjunction from impure dharmas that occurs through analysis (pratisaṃkhyÄ�na), which is a specific type of discernment (prajñÄ�). This analytical cessation is substantially existent (dravyasat) and ultimately exists (paramÄ�rthasat).
For SautrÄ�ntika commentators nirvÄ�ṇa as an analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyÄ�nirodha) 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 (prasajyapratiá¹£edha), that is, a negation that doesn't imply the presence of some other entity. Therefore nirvÄ�ṇa 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 YogÄ�cÄ�ra, for those on the bodhisattva path, nirvÄ�ṇa is non-abiding (apratiá¹£á¹ha nirvÄ�ṇa). The dependent nature (paratantrasvabhÄ�va) is the basis (Ä�Å›raya) of both defilement and purification. The all-basis consciousness (Ä�layavijñÄ�na) is the defiled portion (saṃkleÅ›abhÄ�ga) of the dependent nature. Purified suchness (viÅ›uddhÄ� tathatÄ�) is the purified portion (vyavadÄ�nabhÄ�ga) of the dependent nature. Synonyms for purified suchness are the perfected nature (pariniá¹£panna) and non-abiding nirvÄ�ṇa. Non-abiding nirvÄ�ṇa is the revolved basis (Ä�Å›rayaparÄ�vá¹›tti) that has eliminated defilements without abandoning saṃsÄ�ra.
Madhyamaka authors accept the notion of non-abiding nirvÄ�ṇa, but they don't use the three natures model used by the YogÄ�cÄ�ra. Rather, they simply consider all things to be conceptual designations (prajñapti) that are empty of nature (svabhÄ�va). For them, conceptual designations are relative truth (saṃvá¹›tisatya) and only emptiness is ultimate truth (paramÄ�rthasatya).
Zen, Pure Land, Vajray�na, etc., are practice traditions more so than doctrinal schools, and authors writing from any of these perspectives would generally rely on Yog�c�ra or Madhyamaka ś�stras or a specific Mah�y�na sūtra."
Dmytro asked: "Hi ÑÄ�ṇa,
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 Vibhaá¹…ga 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 SautrÄ�ntika interpretation."
I concur. Sautrantika has the closest understanding of Nirvana to the original teachings of Buddha, which I shall elaborate in the comments section.
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 Aá¹£á¹asÄ�hasrikÄ�prajñapÄ�ramitÄ� 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 is 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"
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 not 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).
"Nagarjuna wrote in his seventy verses that rejected Nirvana as a true existence or as the annihilation of a real being or entity: #24.
Rejecting Nirvana as a true existence is to liberate the attachment of Nirvana that of the Hinayana school to a higher level.
or as the annihilation of a real being or entity: #24 - it denied the truth attained of ancient externalist ascetics attachment of a real being - nothingless, and also some intellectual perceiving that only one life.
Originally posted by Nyorai:Rejecting Nirvana as a true existence is to liberate the attachment of Nirvana that of the Hinayana school to a higher level.
or as the annihilation of a real being or entity: #24 - it denied the truth attained of ancient externalist ascetics attachment of a real being - nothingless, and also some intellectual perceiving that only one life.
To be more precise, rejecting Nirvana as a true existence frees you from the substantialist attachment of Nirvana belonging to *some* of the Hinayana schools, since among the main Hinayana schools, only Theravada and normal Sarvastivadins hold a substantial view with regards to Nirvana whereas the Hinayana school of the Sautrantika do not hold Nirvana to be a truly existing entity.
Basically since the Pali suttas do not suggest a substantialist view of Nirvana, we can logically deduce that the early Sangha or arahants did not view Nirvana as some true existence, but it is the result of latter deductions and commentaries that Nirvana is being treated that way.
Annihilation of a real being or entity does not apply either when a true existing entity cannot be established in the first place for it to be annihilated later. No Buddhist school as far as I know fall into such an extreme.
basically hinayana is lesser vehicle the synonym for theravada. the term hinayana was not in used since 1950 by world buddhism fellowship. the emptiness of theravada is different from emptiness of mahayana.
Originally posted by Nyorai:basically hinayana is lesser vehicle the synonym for theravada. the term hinayana was not in used since 1950 by world buddhism fellowship. the emptiness of theravada is different from emptiness of mahayana.
No, Hinayana is not synonym for Theravada. Actually, there were 18 Hinayana schools in the past. But the only surviving one out of the 18 today is Theravada. Why? Because of the Islamic invasion in the 13th century which virtually wiped out all of Buddhism from India including the more popular Hinayana schools at that time, leaving only the 'less popular Hinayana schools' like Theravada which remain unaffected since they only existed in places like Sri Lanka and other places. Needless to say, Mahayana also remained unaffected since they only existed at the outskirts and other places outside India at that time.
The emptiness of Theravada focuses on person-empty, while Mahayana teaches both person-empty and dharma-empty. However in the earliest suttas, i.e. Pali Suttas, that the Hinayana schools follow, the dharma-empty teachings are already taught but later not grasped correctly thus resulting in doctrines of substantial dharmas in the Abhidharma later.
Buddhism can never be wiped. Those being wiped out were forms like statue, temple that can be reconstructed depending on availability of wealth and condition. Well if looking at conspicuous present of Islam dominance is read as death of Buddhism, is swallowed. Buddha can don muslim head dress, not separable. Moreover, the demise of buddhism in India was due mainly to materialism and instability of political situation then. Schools are like different rivers. Lesser vehicle and great vehicle defined two main approach. My opinion about the dharma-empty of hinayana as mentioned is that Theravada is not entirely person-empty point of view, it embarked on liberating other aaa well and themselves is not as the same. And the understanding of dharma is not as wholesome as that of great vehicle entirely realized and actualised. Wishing the buddhahood of all emerged spontaneously.
A very relevant explanation by Ajahn Brahmavali which exposes many misunderstandings of Nirvana within the Theravada tradition:
http://community.dhammaloka.org.au/showthread.php
Ajahn Brahmavali:
Dear Dania,
I feel a bit awkward criticizing Ven. Bodhi. I consider him as one of my
main teachers of the Dhamma. For a long time I have been reading his
writings and much of my comprehension of the Dhamma is due to his
excellent translations and commentaries. I have a great sense of
gratitude towards him and much respect. At the same time, I suppose
there comes a time when a student has gained enough understanding to
stand on his own two legs. So perhaps in this case it would not be wrong
to present my own understanding of this issue.
It seems to me that the main mistake Ven. Bodhi makes here is to give a
direct answer to a question that is based on a misunderstanding. There
is an exchange between Ven. S�riputta and Ven. Mah�kotthita in the
Anguttara Nikaya (AN4:173) which makes this very point:
So these very questions are just proliferations; they are
misconceived. The Dhamma is not about attaining or not attaining an
existing reality. It’s about ending suffering. The reason why anyone is
concerned about what happens when the arahant dies is because of their sense of self. The sense of self makes us perceive the death of an arahant either
as annihilation or some sort of eternal existence. Once the false sense
of self is removed, one no longer perceives the death of an arahant in
either of these ways, and the concern about what happens to them after
death just falls away. I feel Ven. Bodhi should have pointed this out
rather than try to answer the question. That would have been much more
useful for the inquirer’s understanding of the Dhamma.
Having said this, I also do not find Ven. Bodhi’s arguments persuasive.
Before I consider Ven. Bodhi’s individual points, I should point out a
general danger in arguing that NibbÄ�na is “an existing reality”. It is impossible to conceive of a reality beyond the six senses, at least for non-ariyans. For this reason, any idea of NibbÄ�na as an existing reality will by default be understood in terms of the eternal continuation of one or more of the five khandhas. The result of this will often be attachment to a refined form of the five khandhas, in particular refined states of samÄ�dhi, and taking this as NibbÄ�na.
So the best thing to do is to put this question aside and instead
practice the path until one penetrates non-self. Only when one sees this
will one understand that the very question was misconceived.
Now let me try to reply to some of Ven. Bodhi's points.
The full quote that Ven. Bodhi is referring to reads: “To whatever
extent there are phenomena conditioned or unconditioned, dispassion is
declared the foremost among them, that is, the crushing of pride, the
removal of thirst, the uprooting of attachment, the termination of the
round, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, nibbÄ�na.” (AN4:34) Here, as is common in the suttas, NibbÄ�na is used synonymously with nirodha. Nirodha means “cessation”, the very opposite of a “reality existing in itself”. To fit in with this, NibbÄ�na must simply refer to “extinguishment”, which is its literal meaning, rather than to an existing reality.
“Extinguishment” is unconditioned because it is not dependent on
conditions. That is, it is “free from the conditioned”, which is
probably a more appropriate translation of asankhata than “unconditiooned”. Once NibbÄ�na is achieved, it is irreversible, and thus asankhata.
Ä€yatana often does refer to a “realm, plane or sphere”, but not always. For example at AN9:46, saññÄ�vedayitanirodha, “the cessation of perception and feeling” (which is the cessation of the mind), is called an Ä�yatana. Here the word Ä�yatana simply seems to point to the fact that such cessation is possible. In this context Ä�yatana cannot refer to a “realm”; rather it refers to the ending of all realms. Again, when NibbÄ�na is called an Ä�yatana (which actually is very rare; the most celebrated occurrence being Ud 8:1), it is probably used in the same way as nirodhÄ�yatana, and it is perhaps best translated as “the principle of extinguishment“.
The word dhÄ�tu, too, is used in a variety of contexts, and the translation “element” is often not suitable. These contexts include saññÄ�vedayitanirodhadhÄ�tu (“the dhÄ�tu of the cessation of perception and feeling”), avijjÄ�dhÄ�tu (“the dhÄ�tu of ignorance”), nirodhadhÄ�tu (“the dhÄ�tu of cessation”) and then there is the passage jÄ�tipaccayÄ� bhikkhave jarÄ�maranaṃ uppÄ�dÄ� vÄ� TathÄ�gatÄ�naṃ anuppÄ�dÄ� vÄ� TathÄ�gatÄ�naṃ á¹hitÄ� va sÄ� dhÄ�tu (“monks, from the condition of birth, there is old age and death;
whether TathÄ�gatas arise or not, that dhÄ�tu persists”) (SN12:20). In all
these cases “principle” might be the most suitable translation of dhÄ�tu. Given this wide usage of the word dhÄ�tu, it is not given that nibbÄ�nadhÄ�tu must refer to something existing. Rather, “the principle of extinguishment” might again be a suitable translation.
In my understanding of the sutta idiom, this expression (“experienced with the body”; kÄ�yena phusati) means “direct experience”, i.e. in contrast to inferential understanding. Even the attainment of full cessation (saññÄ�vedayitanirodha)
is said to be experienced “with the body”, that is, “directly”
(AN4:87). In this case, presumably, the meaning is that you experience
the process of entering and emerging from cessation. The meaning of
directly experiencing the amatadhÄ�tu, “the death-free principle”, should probably be understood in the same way.
In the main Nik�yas, this expression only occurs in verse, once in
the Dhammapada and once in the Therag�th�. It is very difficult to draw
any conclusion on the basis of such rare usage, but I would suggest
that pada here is used like dh�tu is used above, and that it therefore should be understood in the same way.
Again, there is also nirodha-sacca, which is the third noble truth, which is Nibb�na.
In sum, Nibb�na is very closely related to nirodha, and
they are frequently used as synonyms. There is little indication that
they should be understood as referring to different realities. On the
contrary, when they are respectively translated as “extinguishment” and
“cessation”, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they must be
referring to the same thing.
I think one of the main reasons people tend to see NibbÄ�na as a “state” is that most translations into English leave NibbÄ�na untranslated. I believe this is a mistake. The word NibbÄ�na in
itself is meaningless to English speakers, and thus they will tend to
read almost anything into it, in particular the idea of an existing
“something”. Once you translate NibbÄ�na with “extinguishment”, it becomes much more difficult to read inappropriate ideas into it. Nobody, as far I know, understands nirodha, “cessation”, as some kind of “state”. In the same way, if we read “extinguishment” rather than NibbÄ�na in the English translations, I believe we would be much less likely to regard it as a “state”.
With metta.
And on what exactly Nirvana is, I highly recommend reading this as it is a very good description: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/great-resource-of-buddhas-teachings.html
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]
really like the fire simile. Thanks
the english translation of Nibbana- as a "state" is faulty?
Should we use extinguishment as it is more appropriate correct...?
I like "release". "Termination" "extinguishment" etc as well.
Theravada of Nrvana can be realized in this sutta.
For centuries, the reputation of the Conservative Buddhist schools had been stigmatized by the term “Hinayana”, used indiscriminately to label them. The Pali/Sanskrit word "Hinayana" means “low, undesirable, or despicable vehicle”. It is a contemptuous term coined by early Mahayanists to label all the early Conservative schools that did not subscribe to the Mahayana doctrine.
There is no Hinayana in Buddhism. There never was. Hinayana is a false derogatory term! Today the law considers it as defamatory. Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike, are strongly advised to stop using it to describe any Buddhist school, whether existing or extinct. There is no legal or moral justification in using this libellous term anymore!
Gentle speech and courtesy are two Dhammas taught by Lord Buddha that lead to welfare and happiness. When gentle speech and courtesy are practised among the Buddhists, there is goodwill; then harmony and unity will prevail, irrespective of the school or vehicle they follow.
From - ‘No Hinayana in Buddhism’ By Chan Khoon San & Kåre A. Lie
Originally posted by Aik TC:
For centuries, the reputation of the Conservative Buddhist schools had been stigmatized by the term “Hinayana”, used indiscriminately to label them. The Pali/Sanskrit word "Hinayana" means “low, undesirable, or despicable vehicle”. It is a contemptuous term coined by early Mahayanists to label all the early Conservative schools that did not subscribe to the Mahayana doctrine.
There is no Hinayana in Buddhism. There never was. Hinayana is a false derogatory term! Today the law considers it as defamatory. Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike, are strongly advised to stop using it to describe any Buddhist school, whether existing or extinct. There is no legal or moral justification in using this libellous term anymore!
Gentle speech and courtesy are two Dhammas taught by Lord Buddha that lead to welfare and happiness. When gentle speech and courtesy are practised among the Buddhists, there is goodwill; then harmony and unity will prevail, irrespective of the school or vehicle they follow.
From - ‘No Hinayana in Buddhism’ By Chan Khoon San & Kåre A. Lie
yes... agreed with your post here
i felt that we should be thankful for the very early arahants in the first council. Without the arahants compiling the suttas, we can't enjoy what we have today; reading and gaining wisdom, from the so-called "Hinayana"....
Of all schools, without Pureland school, to achieve in this one life is nearly impossible. Even going to heaven also not as easy as pureland. Grateful to Buddha Gotama for revealing this in the scripture specifically for dharma ending era, 3000 years later from then....