What Is Buddhist Nirvana?

What is nirvana in Buddhism? It's not the same as enlightenment. The two can be confused with one another. Nirvana is actually the event that leads to enlightenment. Now, nirvana is also the same word as nibbana. Nirvana is the Sanskrit term. Nibbana is the Pali term. They mean the same thing. Now, in this video, what I want to do first is to describe what nirvana is, at least from the early texts. Then we'll take a look at some of the controversies over its ontological status, sort of what it really means. And then last, I'll look to some later developments in later Buddhist ideas of what nirvana came to mean. As always, there will be a lot of references to this material down in the notes if you want to learn more. First, I want to turn to some descriptions of nirvana. How is it described in the early texts? Sometimes nirvana is said to be indescribable. However, this claim is apparently falsified by these early texts themselves that at least purport to give descriptions of nirvana. Indeed, if nirvana were entirely beyond description, beyond comprehension, it's not clear why we should even care about it. So nirvana at least should be understandable and describable to the extent that we consider it a valuable and worthwhile state to try to achieve. In any event, in the early suttas, nirvana is described in any number of ways. A series of suttas describe it this way. The unconditioned, the undefiled, the truth, the far shore, the subtle, the peaceful, the freedom from death, the sublime, the incredible, the amazing, the untroubled, extinguishment, dispassion, purity, freedom, not clinging, the island, the protection, the shelter, the refuge. Nirvana is also perhaps most famously described in the Dhammapada as the ultimate pleasure or happiness or bliss. In early Buddhism, there is a kind of a hierarchy of pleasures that we try to attain. Most of the ones, the pleasures on the higher end, are pleasures of deep meditative absorption of one kind or another. However, none of these is of the height of nirvana. Nirvana is the greatest pleasure of all in early Buddhism. In a nutshell, nirvana is a kind of an event, perhaps we can call it an experience, that has a life-changing importance to us. Any event that does not have a kind of a life-changing importance to us in the way nirvana does is not going to be nirvana. In particular, nirvana is the event that leads us to enlightenment. Any state that does not lead to enlightenment, therefore, is not nirvana. Now, to be clear, there are examples in early Buddhism of people having a glimpse of nirvana. That's not the same as really the attainment of nirvana. This glimpse is what leads some in early Buddhist texts to what's known as stream entry. This ability to catch a glimpse of the final destination that leads to the evaporation of doubt. That, of course, is not the same as enlightenment itself. That's simply a stage along the path, but it has this a similar kind of life-changing importance to us in the way that it evaporates doubt. So, in any event, nirvana is a kind of an experience or a kind of an event in our lives that is life-changing in this very particular way. And one early Buddhist text, the Brahmajala Sutta, lists many different examples of people mistaking one or another apparent meditative state for nirvana. In other words, we may have a blissful experience in deadly life or in meditation because that experience we have is so blissful, perhaps it's more blissful than anything else we've experienced, that we immediately assume that that is nirvana. This happens all the time, or at least from the text it seems to have happened quite a lot. And, again, so we have to be careful that nirvana is a state not only that's blissful, but that has this kind of life-changing importance. So, now that we have some idea of some descriptions of nirvana under our belts, I want to turn to perhaps the great controversy about nirvana within Buddhism, which is its ontological status. Disagreements and arguments over this status have gone on in Buddhism over the millennia and down to the present day. To summarize a great amount of material quickly, I will say that there are two major strains or approaches to this ontological question. We can call them the inflationary view of nirvana and the deflationary view of nirvana. I'll describe both of these. There's also a third way of understanding nirvana that I think is somewhat similar to the deflationary picture, which is known as the apophatic view, and that's quite a mouthful. I'll get to that view closer to the end. Now, for the inflationary view, if you're interested in this, I'll link to a video down below in the notes by Bhikkhu Bodhi, an interview with him with Daniel Aitken, where he describes how, if you look at some of the early suttas, they describe nirvana as having a kind of a real existence. Bhikkhu Bodhi points to suttas such as this one. There is, mendicants, that dimension where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no wind, no dimension of infinite space, no dimension of infinite consciousness, no dimension of nothingness, no dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, no this world, no other world, no moon or sun. So, here nirvana is described as a kind of a dimension or a base, in other words. And many of these descriptions here are states of meditation that one might mistake for nirvana. So, this sutta seems to be saying that nirvana is a kind of a dimension that is without aspects of the other dimensions that we're more familiar with in meditation or in daily life. Elsewhere, Bhikkhu Bodhi points out that nirvana is described as an element, as in the deathless element or the element without death. Indeed, in one sutta, the Buddha talks about there being two nirvana elements, the nirvana element with something left over and the nirvana element with nothing left over. The first of these, the nirvana element with something left over, is what we attain during this lifetime, what the enlightened being has attained during this lifetime. Something's left over, that is, the body and the mind still are active. Then the nirvana element with nothing left over, that's what happens after the enlightened being dies, attains what becomes known as parinirvana, that is, when nothing is left over. Now, expressions such as these suggest to Bhikkhu Bodhi and to some others that nirvana is a really existing thing in the same category as dimensions, bases, or elements might be considered really existing things in early Buddhism with their own self-nature in a certain sense. However, some problems arise for us with this view. The sutta, as we've seen, that describes nirvana as an element actually says that there are two nirvana elements, as we've just seen, one with something left over and one with nothing left over. Does that mean we're supposed to assume that there are two different kinds of nirvana? I don't know of anybody who accepts a view like that. Also, elements in particular, perhaps even bases and so on, are in early Buddhism considered to be changing. They're not permanent. They don't exist eternally. And is that true also of nirvana? Presumably not. So there are disanalogies between the idea of an element or a base, a dimension, and nirvana. One sutta that I did an earlier video on discusses the ways that elements can indeed decay over time. Presumably that's not the case of nirvana. This leads us to our second potential ontological interpretation of nirvana, which I'll term the deflationary view. As one commentator to Aryadeva said, the sutra says that there is a nirvana datu, or nirvana element. But that is in order to reprove people who deny nirvana. There is, in fact, a complete cessation of the fire of passions and of suffering. Now this, of course, is a much later text. It's not an early Buddhist text at all. But nevertheless, it emphasizes the point that the deflationary view is trying to make, which is that phrases such as the nirvana element should not be taken literally. They're kind of a rhetorical device to make the point that there is a real ending of dukkha. There is a real ending of suffering. Elsewhere, we read, for example, that Sariputta, when he was asked about nirvana, said this, the ending of greed, hate, and delusion is called nirvana. Similarly, when the Buddha was asked about the unconditioned, which is a common kind of description for nirvana, the Buddha's response was, what is the unconditioned? The ending of greed, hate, and delusion. This is called the unconditioned. In other words, the unconditioned isn't some separate thing that we might consider having a capital U being a really existing thing. It simply refers to states that are unconditioned, in particular, unconditioned by greed, hate, and delusion. Similarly, when the Buddha was asked about the nirvana datu by a mendicant, this is what happened. Sir, they speak of the removal of greed, hate, and delusion. What is this designation for? Mendicant, the removal of greed, hate, and delusion is a designation for the nirvana element. It's used to speak of the ending of defilements. So, arguably, all of these designations, nirvana, the nirvana element, the unconditioned, and so on, are simply expressions to describe the ending and cessation of greed, hatred, and delusion. In perhaps one of the most famous descriptions of nirvana, the Buddha is asked by Vāca, or Vāca-gota, about the status of an enlightened being after they die, and this is the conversation that they had. Suppose that fire burning in front of you was extinguished. Would you know, this fire in front of me is extinguished? Yes, I would, Master Gautama. But, Vāca, suppose they were to ask you, this fire in front of you that is extinguished, in what direction did it go? East, south, west, or north? How would you answer? It doesn't apply, Master Gautama. The fire depended on grass and logs as fuel. When that runs out and no more fuel is added, the fire is reckoned to have become extinguished due to lack of fuel. In the same way, Vāca, any form by which a Tathāgata might be described has been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future. They're reborn. They're not reborn. They're both reborn and not reborn. They're neither reborn nor not reborn. None of these apply. All of these descriptions seem to imply that nirvana is not a place, nor a state, nor a thing. It's not a place you go to, and it's not really a state that you are in, except simply understood as the ending of greed, hate, and delusion. It is, indeed, the quote-unquote ultimate bliss or ultimate happiness, as we saw described earlier. However, when this description came up, Sariputta was challenged by Venerable Udayi on this very point, and this is what happened. This is what they discussed. Reverends, nirvana is bliss. Nirvana is bliss. When Sariputta said this, Venerable Udayi said to him, but Reverend Sariputta, what is blissful about it since nothing is felt? The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what's blissful about it. Again, on this view, nirvana is not a place, nor a state, nor a way of being, nor even really an experience or a state of consciousness. Nirvana is simply the ending of greed, hate, and delusion, the three fires. And this leads to the ending of the traditionally understood rounds of rebirth. When the enlightened being dies, there is nothing further to be said about them. For example, they understand when my body breaks up and my life has come to an end, everything that's felt, since I no longer take pleasure in it, will become cool right here. Only bodily remains will be left. Only bodily remains will be left, period. Nothing else will remain. This means the breaking up of the five aggregates, including the aggregate of consciousness. Nothing will be left. This is what it is to break the chain of dependent origination. However, some people are not really happy accepting the simple cessationism of the deflationary approach to nirvana. And so one possible example that people have gone with is what's known as the apophatic or negative approach. This approach says that there is something to nirvana. However, it's something about which nothing can be said or even conceived. So, for example, as we've seen, the Buddha had nothing to say about the status of the enlightened being after they die. It may therefore be that there is something to what it is to be an enlightened being. There is something to that nirvanized being. However, what there is to that is something that cannot be spoken or even conceived upon. That is, the death of the enlightened being implies the cessation of them in every conceivable way, but perhaps not in every way. This, as I say, is known as the apophatic or negative approach to nirvana. And this is indeed a position that many people accept. However, as I noted at the beginning of this video, it's apparently falsified by the many descriptions of nirvana that we get in the early texts. Now, it may simply be that all of these are simply manners of speaking and none of them is really true when we get right down to it. However, this notion that nirvana is something, that there is something to being in the state of nirvana or the nirvanized person, but that we can't describe or conceive of it. What would that mean? Why should we care about such a state if we can't even conceive of it? It seems to make the point of the path into something that's inconceivable in some sense. And then why should we care? And this notion of not really being able to conceive of the actual goal of our practice is indeed something that some later practitioners have run with, particularly in, let's say, Zen practice. So third, I want to turn to some developments about nirvana in later Buddhist schools. Now, of course, there's way too much for me to discuss all of what's developed after the early Buddhist texts. However, I'll just give a general overview, a picture, because things changed pretty significantly. There was a general unwillingness to accept what I've termed the deflationary view about nirvana in later Buddhism. There was a desire to see the Buddha, and indeed Buddhas plural, as continually effective in the world, as not having, as it were, disappeared from view, but as beings who are still around. This kind of viewpoint went with what I've termed creeping docetism, this view that Buddhas, the Buddha himself and Buddhas in general, became known as more generally godlike figures, figures that weren't simply human, but that had godlike abilities and powers. The classic Mahayana understanding is that the kind of nirvana we've been discussing so far is in fact a lesser form of nirvana called pratistha, or abiding nirvana. This is the nirvana towards which arahants practice and which arahants achieve. However, in the Mahayana view, Buddhas achieve a greater form of nirvana known as apratistha, or non-abiding nirvana. This kind of nirvana is higher and it allows the Buddhas to remain active in the world even after having achieved it. Now, so far as I can tell, this claim is a little strange in the light of early Buddhist texts for several reasons, one of those being that one early text, a text that we've already looked at from the Udana, the one that claims that there's this dimension where there's no earth, water, fire, and so on, also describes that nirvana as being apratistha, or apatitta in Pali, non-abiding. So it sounds as though the Buddha is recommending a non-abiding nirvana to his arahants. So in any event, there's a little bit of a question mark here on a sort of a historical reading of how this kind of idea might have developed. So the upshot here is that nirvana is the true end goal of Buddhist practice, the referent of the third noble truth, the extinguishment of dukkha through the extinguishment of clinging, of craving, of greed, hatred, and delusion. However, its ontological status has been something that's been a controversy within Buddhism for centuries, for millennia, and we've seen that there are a couple of different ways we can approach this. Perhaps nirvana is a really existing thing, like an element or some kind of a plane of being, as it were, something with real ontological status. Or, perhaps, nirvana is simply the cessation, as I say, of greed, hatred, and delusion, and essentially nothing more. That's how it should be understood. If neither of these views appeals to you, there's the third view that's at least... there are many views, but there's the third view, the apophatic view, which basically says that nirvana is a something, but it's a something about which we can say or conceive nothing. So perhaps even words like something aren't quite adequate to it because they also are a kind of description. It's not a nothing, but it's not a something either. That's kind of the apophatic view. Further still, later practitioners, particularly in the Mahayana, believe that there is, again, something more. There is a different kind of nirvana, a higher kind of nirvana, than the cessation view that we've been discussing so far. That is a nirvana that allows Buddhas to remain in existence, to remain active in the world even after having attained nirvana, or we might say having become nirvanized. Now, one question, one related question for us that may be of some interest, is what it means to have an experience of nirvana or the attainment of nirvana in this very life, which is a particular description we find in early Buddhism. I did a video about that a while back, and I'll leave a link to it up here on the screen if you haven't seen it or would like to see it again. Thanks so much. If you're getting something out of these videos of mine, consider taking a look at my Patreon page and see if you want to help support the channel. Thanks so much, and we'll catch you on the next one. And meanwhile, all of you, be well.