This article explains why the Nirvana of Buddha should not be understood as the 'I AM'.
http://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/vinna%E1%B9%87a-is-not-nibbana-really-it-just-isn%E2%80%99t/
and
http://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/nibbana-remains-not-vinnana/
I’ve just read yet another assertion that tries to slip a ‘cosmic consciousness’ Nibbana into the Suttas. In these kinds of arguments the same mistakes are made again and again, and you should beware of them.
One popular argument is based on the famous passage:
viññÄ�ṇÄ�á¹� anidassanaá¹� anantaá¹� sabbato pabhaá¹�
‘Consciousness non-manifest, infinte, radiant all around.’
This is sometimes said to be a term for Nibbana, although since it is an obscure poetic passage of dubious meaning we should not infer any major conclusions from it.
This obscure passage has been often exalted to the revelation of the highest teachings of Nibbana. One of the arguments one hears is that viññÄ�ṇa normally means ‘separative consciousness’, and that this has been revalued to refer to an infinite awareness. This argument is wrong.
The etymology of viññÄ�ṇa is invoked to justify this conclusion. ‘Vi’, so the story goes, means ‘separation’, and ‘ñÄ�ṇa’ means ‘knowing’, so viññÄ�ṇa means ‘separative knowing’ (as opposed to the universal cosmic consciousness of Nibbana.)
But you cannot derive the meaning of a word by adding up a root with a prefix. Words derive meaning from context. This is especially true in the case of words in abstract philosophical use.
In any case, the etymology of viññÄ�ṇa does not mean ‘separative consciousness’. The prefix ‘vi’ has many different meanings, which you can check up on in the Pali Text Society’s dictionary. If you don’t want to read the entire entry, the applied meanings it gives are four:
1. expansion, spreading out
2. disturbance, separation, mixing up (opp. sa�)
3. the reverse of the simple verb, or loss, difference, opposite
4. in intensifying sense
Obviously, there is no requirement to read vi in its separative sense here.
There are many terms formed from the root ‘ñÄ�’ in Pali that all refer to knowing in some way (‘know’ is in fact the English cognate): aññÄ�, ñÄ�ṇa, pariññÄ�, paññÄ�, paá¹iññÄ�, saññÄ�, and so on. In some cases these words are interchangeable, in some cases usage tells us that they carry different nuances. In no cases can we simply infer the meaning from adding prefix + root.
Given that vi- is probably the second most common prefix in Pali, and has an extremely wide variety of implications – including in some cases not affecting the meaning at all – we can’t say anything meaningful from the etymology.
Even if we did look to the etymology, we can come to all sorts of different conclusions. In some cases, viññÄ�ṇa is clearly a synonym of paññÄ�, ‘wisdom’ (e.g. Sutta NipÄ�ta 92-3). Here the implication could be that vi- means ‘intensive’, or ‘clear’ (as it does, say, in vipassanÄ�).
It is true that the Buddha often presented viññÄ�ṇa in an analytical way as the consciousness of the six senses. But this tells us nothing about what the word means. He also used plenty of other terms related to the six senses: vedanÄ�, phassa, or saññÄ�, for example. The fact that a word is used in an analytical sense does not mean that the basic meaning of the word is analytical.
On the contrary, what the ‘viññÄ�ṇa = Nibbana’ school overlook is that viññÄ�ṇa is in fact used very commonly in the sense, not of ‘separative consciousness’, but of ‘infinite consciousness’. This is, of course, in the standard passage on the formless attainments. This samadhi meaning is directly applicable in the case of the so-called ‘Nibbanic consciousness’, as they are both described as ‘infinite’ (anantaá¹�).
The Buddhist texts strongly suggest that this idea is pre-Buddhist. And we do indeed find the phrase ‘infinite consciousness’ in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads. But more on that later. First let us survey the use of viññÄ�ṇa briefly in the oldest Upanishad, the Brihadarannyaka. This probably pre-dates the Buddha by a century or so, and many of its ideas and turns of phrase can be felt in the Suttas.
ViññÄ�ṇa is used in the ordinary sense of ‘sense consciousness’:
jihvay� hi ras�n vij�n�ti || BrhUp_3,2.4 ||
For one knows tastes through the tongue.
More commonly it is found as the final of the four terms, ‘seen’, heard’, ‘thought’, ‘cognized’, a set that is frequently found in the Suttas. In this context it is said that ‘how can one cognize the cognizer’, a means of pointing beyond limited sense experience to the true Atman.
kaṃ vijÄ�nÄ«yÄ�t yenedaṃ sarvaṃ vijÄ�nÄ�ti taṃ kena vijÄ�nÄ«yÄ�t sa eá¹£a neti nety Ä�tmÄ� |agá¹›hyo na hi gá¹›hyate | aśīryo na hi śīryate |asaá¹…go na hi sajyate |asito na vyathate na riá¹£yati |vijñÄ�tÄ�ram are kena vijÄ�nÄ«yÄ�d ity
Through what should one know that owing to which all this is known ? This self is That which has been described as ‘Not this, Not this’. It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered – it never feels pain, and never suffers injury. Through what, O Maitreyi, should one know the Knower?
BrhUp_2,4.14
See also BrhUp_3,4.2, BrhUp_2,4.5
The self is defined in terms of viññÄ�ṇa.
katama Ä�tmeti — yo ‘yaṃ vijñÄ�namayaḥ prÄ�ṇeá¹£u há¹›dy antarjyotiḥ puruá¹£aḥ
What is the Self? This very person made of viññÄ�ṇa, among the breath (life-faculties), the light in the heart.
BrhUp_4,3.7 ||
sa vÄ� ayam Ä�tmÄ� brahma vijñÄ�namayo
This very Self is Brahma, made of viññÄ�ṇa… (a long list of other things of which Brahma is formed follows)
BrhUp_4,4.5
yo vijñÄ�ne tiá¹£á¹han vijñÄ�nÄ�d antaro yaṃ vijñÄ�naṃ na veda yasya vijñÄ�naṃ Å›arÄ«raṃ yo vijñÄ�nam antaro yamayaty eá¹£a ta Ä�tmÄ�ntaryÄ�my amá¹›taḥ || BrhUp_3,7.22 ||
He who inhabits the viññÄ�ṇa, but is within it, whom the viññÄ�ṇa does not know, whose body is the viññÄ�ṇa, and who controls the viññÄ�ṇa from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
As in Buddhism, viññÄ�ṇa is closely associated with rebirth. In the following passage, the phrase ekÄ«bhavati refers to the withdrawal of the sense at the time of death – which is interesting since in Buddhism the same term is used to mean samadhi. ViññÄ�ṇa has two meanings here: in the first use it refers to sense-consciousness (because others realize that the dying person no longer hears or responds). Later it refers to the conscious self that takes rebirth.
ekÄ«bhavati na vijÄ�nÄ�tÄ«ty Ä�huḥ | tasya haitasya há¹›dayasyÄ�graṃ pradyotate | tena pradyotenaiá¹£a Ä�tmÄ� niá¹£krÄ�mati | caká¹£uá¹£á¹o vÄ� mÅ«rdhno vÄ�nyebhyo vÄ� Å›arÄ«radeÅ›ebhyaḥ | tam utkrÄ�mantaṃ prÄ�ṇo ‘nÅ«tkrÄ�mati | prÄ�ṇam anÅ«tkrÄ�mantaṃ sarve prÄ�ṇÄ� anÅ«tkrÄ�manti | savijñano bhavati | saṃjÄ�nam evÄ�nvavakrÄ�mati | taṃ vidyÄ�karmaṇī samanvÄ�rabhete pÅ«rvaprajñÄ� ca ||
He becomes united; then they say, ‘He does not have viññÄ�ṇa’. The top of the heart brightens. Through that brightened top the self departs, either through the eye, or through the head, or through any other part of the body. When it departs, the vital force follows; when the vital force departs, all the organs follow. Then the self has viññÄ�ṇa, and goes to the body which is related to that consciousness. It is followed by knowledge, kamma and past experience.
BrhUp_4,4.2
But the most directly applicable passage is the following. Like several of the above it is the teaching of YÄ�jñavalkya, who should be recognized as the father of the teachings of consciousness as the great Brahman. Notice the simile of the lump of salt, also familiar in Buddhism. The passage from which this is taken is full of such parallels, as I discussed in A History of Mindfulness.
evaṃ vÄ� ara idaṃ mahad bhÅ«tam anantam apÄ�raṃ vijñÄ�naghana eva | etebhyo bhÅ«tebhyaḥ samutthÄ�ya tÄ�ny evÄ�nuvinaÅ›yati | na pretya saṃjñÄ�stÄ«ty are bravÄ«mi | iti hovÄ�ca yÄ�jñavalkyaḥ || BrhUp_2,4.12 ||
As a lump of salt dropped into water dissolves with (its component) water, and no one is able to pick it up, but from wheresoever one takes it, it tastes salt, even so, my dear, this great, endless, infinite Reality is but sheer mass of viññÄ�ṇa. This comes out from these elements, and is destroyed with them. After this it has no more perception (saññÄ�). This is what I say, my dear. So said Yajnavalkya.
Compare with the Buddhist line above. Both describe viññÄ�ṇa as ‘infinite’ (anantaá¹�). Both use the philosophical term mahÄ�bhÅ«ta, although in different sense: in the Buddhist context it is a word for the four elements which the state of viññÄ�ṇa described goes beyond, whereas here it is the Great Reality itself. The Upanishadic passage describes the infinite consciousness as having disappeared or become non-manifest like salt dissolved in water, just as the Buddhist passage describes viññÄ�ṇa as ‘non-manifest’ (anidassana). The Buddhist passage speaks of viññÄ�ṇa as ‘radiant’, just as elsewhere the self that is viññÄ�ṇa is said to be the ‘light in the heart’.
The parallels are by no means arbitrary. In fact the Buddhist passage appears in a specifically Brahmanical context. The text is the Kevaddha Sutta (Digha Nikaya 11: text here, translation here, parallels here.) A monk wants to find out where the four Great Elements (mahÄ�bhÅ«ta) end, and goes to Brahma for the answer. Brahma, however, doesn’t know, and he sends the monk back to the Buddha. The Buddha rejects the original question, and tells the monk how it should be reformulated.
The basic idea is clear enough. Brahma’s realm extends as far as jhana, as Buddhists assume that the Brahmanical philosophy was based on jhanic experience (at best). So Brahma doesn’t know what lies beyond this, while the Buddha does.
The problem is that, apparently, what lies beyond is a kind of consciousness. Given the evident connections between this description and the Brahmanical conception of the higher atman as a form of infinite consciousness, the most obvious inference is that it refers to the formless attainments, specifically that of ‘infinite consciousness’, where the ‘four great elements’ don’t find a footing.
It is in the next lines of the verse, which are usually overlooked by the viññÄ�ṇa = Nibbana school, that the Buddha’s true position is stated. With the cessation of viññÄ�ṇa all this comes to an end. The ‘infinite consciousness’ is merely the temporary escape from the oppression of materiality, but true liberation is the ending of all consciousness.
‘Kattha Ä�po ca pathavÄ«,
Tejo v�yo na g�dhati;
Kattha dÄ«ghañca rassañca,
Aṇuṃ thūlaṃ subh�subhaṃ;
Kattha nÄ�mañca rÅ«pañca,
Asesaṃ uparujjhatÄ«’ti.Where does water and earth
fire, air not find a footing?
Where does long and short
Small, gross, fair and ugly,
Where does name and form
Without remainder cease?Tatra veyyÄ�karaṇaṃ bhavati—
For that the explanation is:‘ViññÄ�ṇaṃ anidassanaṃ,
Anantaṃ sabbatopabhaṃ;
Ettha �po ca pathavī,
Tejo vÄ�yo na gÄ�dhati.ViññÄ�ṇa non-manifest
Infinite, radiant all-round
There water and earth
fire, air do not find a footingEttha dÄ«ghañca rassañca,
Aṇuṃ thūlaṃ subh�subhaṃ;
Ettha nÄ�mañca rÅ«pañca,
Asesaṃ uparujjhati;
ViññÄ�ṇassa nirodhena,
Etthetaṃ uparujjhatÄ«’”ti.There does long and short
Small, gross, fair and ugly,
There does name and form
Without remainder cease:
With the cessation of viññÄ�ṇa
There this ceases.
The problem is not so much the interpretation of viññÄ�ṇa as such, but the syntax of the verses – which is one reason why poetry should not decide doctrine. The Buddha rephrases the original question, but his rephrasing has three question words and two verbs. It may be read as a single complex question, but this assumes that the two verbs mean the same thing (which they don’t: na gÄ�dhati means ‘does not find a firm footing’, like a man crossing a ford, while uparujjhati means ‘ceases’) – and that viññÄ�ṇa means ‘infinite consciousness of Nibbana’ in the first occurrence and ‘separative sense consciousness’ in the second.
It is simpler and more natural to read the verses as asking two questions, with the verb uparujjhati (ceases) acting as a ‘lamp’ to apply to both the preceding clauses. In that case the syntax of the answer would be expressed thusly:
Water, earth, fire, air do not find a footing in viññÄ�ṇa that is non-manifest, infinite, radiant all-round.
(i.e., the four material elements cease temporarily in the formless attainments, which is the highest reach of the Brahmanical teachings – even this much Brahma, being a deity of the form realm, did not know.)
Long and short, small, gross, fair and ugly, name and form cease without remainder with the cessation of viññÄ�ṇa. This is where this all ceases.
(i.e., the Buddha’s real teaching is not to temporarily escape materiality, but to reach an ending of suffering. And since all forms of viññÄ�ṇa (yaá¹� kiñci viññÄ�ṇaá¹�…) are said countless times to be suffering, even the infinite consciousness has to go.)
In this reading, the reason for the Buddha’s reformulation of the original question becomes clear. The errant monk had asked where the ending of the four elements was – which is of course the formless attainments. But the Buddha said the question was wrongly put, as this would merely lead beyond the form realm of Brahma to the formless realms. The real question is what lies beyond that, with the cessation of consciousness. It is not enough for matter to be transcended, one must also transcend mind as well. If not, one ends up, apart from all the other philosophical problems, with a mind/body dualism.
And one ends up with a description of the Buddhist goal which is not merely indistinguishable from the Brahmanical Higher Self, but is quite evidently the same thing. A description that was meant to critique the inadequate conception of the Brahmanical goal is turned into a description of the Buddhist goal. Meanwhile, the hundreds of times when the Buddha explicitly and definitively refuted this idea (viññÄ�ṇaá¹� aniccaá¹�…) are explained away with a trivial etymological mistake. And so it goes…
Informative article, enjoy reading it.
I dunno but all I know is Nirvana is end of existence, hence end of suffering. not becoming is end of suffering isnt it.
Even in this life, you can know the end of suffering. The end of afflictions (craving, anger, ignorance, sorrow, lamentation, and so on) is the end of suffering. The end of craving is the end of suffering.
There is nirvana with remainder and nirvana without remainder. Nirvana with remainder is end of afflictions by body, feelings, senses still functioning. Nirvana without remainder is when an arhant passes away, so no more body and feelings as well.
I agree with Jacky. Nirvana is the end of existence. But maybe this answer is too simplistic. Just like our understanding of Quantum, we cannot explain or define it, at least not for now.
It is like telling the fish about running and juming. He have no idea what it is, but he do know it is about movement.
I agree with Jacky. Nirvana is the end of existence. But maybe this answer is too simplistic. Just like our understanding of Quantum, we cannot explain or define it, at least not for now.
Yes, it is simplistic to say that Nirvana is the end of existence. That is something the Blessed One did not teach. A materialist or a nihilist would likely give the same answer that after physical death nothing existed.
Basically the Buddha teaches us to let go of everything that we cling on to that continuously give rise in us the notion of the existence of a false ‘Self’. This clinging and craving bring to us a great deal of pain, suffering and stress and also at time some happiness and satisfaction as well, but always never on a permanent basis. In short, the state of Nibbana is arrived at when this false notion of ‘Self’ is abandoned. Of course, as a person we will still continue to exist until our parinibbana.
In Sutta MN 72, Vacchagotta the wanderer asked the Buddha the question on his existence or non-existence after death. The Buddha’s reply was:
…….."And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, 'This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"
"...I would reply, 'This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.'"
"If the fire burning in front of you was to go out, would you know that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out'?"
"...yes..."
"And suppose someone was to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"
"That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)."…….
From the above Sutta’s quote, one can see that our existence and becoming are dependent originated and based on a lot of other factors and sustenance for each individual to continue to exist. Without them, like the fire, it goes out, but will come back again when such conditions are right and favorable.
Of course, for one who have realized No-Self and attain to the state of Nibbana, there will be no more such favorable conditions, no any sustenance needed for such a person to re-appear here or anywhere else. So the question of existence and non-existence as stated in MN 72 does not applied at all.
Actually it is not only that those for those who realize no-self, 'existence' and 'non-existence' don't apply.
Even for sentient beings, deluded and have idea of 'self', 'existence' and 'non-existence' don't apply. Why? Because there is no self, whether buddha or sentient being. There is already always no self, therefore 'existence' don't apply, 'non-existence' also don't apply since non-existence implies the end of a pre-existing existence.
Therefore the view of eternalism (self exists eternally) and annihilation (self exists but ceases on death) are wrong.
"Nirvana is the end of existence" is a tricky statement. it can also imply that an "identity" with become permanent, which seem not very right with the three characteristics of existence.
The three characteristics of existence taught by the Buddha are Impermanence, Suffering and Impersonality.
http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/Universal.htm
When worldly people see existence, they think that there is a real existence. When they see cessation, they think that it has really ceased. This is the perverted view of the two extremes. By compassion the Enlightened Ones, when they see Dharma arising, know that it is not nothingness, while at the same time not becoming attached to it as something real. When they see the Dharma disappear, they do not become attached to its extinction nor at the same time do they think that the extinction is real and means nothing at all. This is because, according to the Law of Dependent Origination, when there is a cause there will be an effect. When the cause ceases, the effect ceases. The Dharma is alive. It can exist or cease, rise or fall. If it is something real that has a permanent identity, then it should not cease and become extinct. If it is nothing, then it should not rise and exist. The Dharma rises and ceases, it can exist and become extinct. If we investigate the core of all things, we will realize that everything is conditioned and has empirical names. Things have no permanent identity, existence, extinction, rise or fall. Their nature is empty and silent.
Thus, when we talk about emptiness, we do not deny the rising, falling, existence and extinction of all phenomena. In fact, emptiness explains the truth of rising, falling, existence and extinction. This is the main teaching of the Tathagatha. Do not misunderstand Circulation and Cessation as two separate identities. From these Laws of Circulation and Cessation, we can see the creation and extinction, rising and falling of all phenomena and hence realize the truth of emptiness in all things. This is the Principle of Emptiness of the Middle Path, the ultimate explanation of the Middle Path. It is also the special characteristic of Buddhism — the Truth of Emptiness and of Dependent Origination. This is also "the immediate moment is empty" that is always mentioned by Mahayana scholars.
....
From the rising and falling, existence and extinction of conditioned phenomena, one should eliminate the idea of an absolute, independent, permanent identity. Once we are able to realize the nature of emptiness, we will be liberated. To realize the nature of emptiness through the understanding of Dependent Origination is a penetration to the core of things. It is not a superficial understanding only. This is the truth of the Buddha’s explanation of the Circulation and Cessation of human life. It can be used to identify our own religion, and to distinguish it from the other religions. This is the speciality of Buddhism.
Buddhism - The Middle Path http://www.buddhanet.net/cbp2_f4.htm
/\
The examples given by the moderators e.g. Aik Tat, AEN and Sinweiy are good...! Thx
but AEN's posts usually have to do with the 5 aggregates... 色�想行识