From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by zan »

This being the classical forum, I won't be reading or responding to any posts promoting the idea that nibbana is self or consciousness. I'm just saying this because I know a lot of users believe nibbana is consciousness or self, and I don't want them to waste their time writing posts that are irrelevant to this sub forum without knowing. A comically huge amount of suttas demonstrate that the Buddha completely, and utterly ruled out nibbana being self, or consciousness.

That said, the things that rule out things being self, per the Anattalakkhana sutta, are being impermanent, and leading to suffering/not being able to say "let my [insert aggregate here] be thus.". Nibbana is permanent, and does not lead to suffering. The only thing it doesn't have is being able to say what you want it to be.

It is also made abundantly clear that nothing ends up in nibbana, not mind, matter, or anything else.

But none of this rules out it being self. Obviously it rules it out in the usual sense of what a self is, which is a thinking, living being of some kind. But what rules out something that is totally barren of everything that we normally think of as self from being known as self? However, again, the Buddha was emphatic that nibbana is not self. Why?
Last edited by zan on Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:05 am, edited 3 times in total.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by Goofaholix »

How can a state be a self?
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by cappuccino »

zan wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:40 pm It is also made abundantly clear that nothing ends up in nibbana, not mind, matter, or anything else.
that would be annihilationism
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by zan »

Goofaholix wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:49 pm How can a state be a self?
Obviously in the usual sense of what self is, there is no logical reason to call nibbana self. However, I'm only looking at the rules. To my knowledge, the rules are that things that are impermanent, and lead to suffering are not self, these things are literally everything but nibbana. Since nibbana doesn't fall under these descriptions, what rules it out from being self?

For example, If there were an eternal rock, made of pure stone, no mind, nothing, just a rock, in the suttas as well, I'd ask the same question: If it's permanent, and does not lead to affliction, why isn't it self?
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by cappuccino »

zan wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:56 pm why isn't it self?
It is the Unconditioned

S 43.1-44
SarathW
Posts: 21240
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by SarathW »

What Buddha said was "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta"
Nibbana is a Dhamma.
What is Dhamma? Anything created in the mind is Dhamma.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by zan »

cappuccino wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:51 pm
zan wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:40 pm It is also made abundantly clear that nothing ends up in nibbana, not mind, matter, or anything else.
that would be annihilationism
I'm merely paraphrasing the classical position:
Absence of Mind and Matter in Nibbāna
In nibbāna there are no such things as mind or mental concomitants, which can be met with in the sense-sphere or form-sphere. It naturally follows that mind and matter that belong to the thirty-one planes of existence are totally absent in nibbāna. However, some would like to propose that after the parinibbāna of the Buddha and the Arahants, they acquire a special kind of mind and matter in nibbāna. Such an extraordinary way of thinking may appeal to those who cannot do away with self or ego.
-Mahasi Sayadaw, On the Nature of Nibbana
...the Ancients said:

There is no doer of a deed
Or one who reaps the deed’s result;
Phenomena alone flow on—
No other view than this is right.

-Vism XIX.20
after the last consciousness of the Arahant, who has
abandoned arousing [future aggregates] and so prevented kamma from giving
result in a future [existence], there is no further arising of aggregates of existence,
and those already arisen have disappeared.

-Vism XVI.73
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
pegembara
Posts: 3466
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by pegembara »

Because the self is conditioned and impermanent.
"If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self.' So the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Forms are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self and forms are not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Consciousness at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Contact at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Feeling is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self. If anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of craving are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self.' Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self, craving is not-self.

"Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain. If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one relishes it, welcomes it, or remains fastened to it, then one's passion-obsession gets obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats one's breast, becomes distraught, then one's resistance-obsession gets obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, or escape from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession gets obsessed. That a person — without abandoning passion-obsession with regard to a feeling of pleasure, without abolishing resistance-obsession with regard to a feeling of pain, without uprooting ignorance-obsession with regard to a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, without abandoning ignorance and giving rise to clear knowing — would put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now: such a thing isn't possible.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Self is a fabrication.
"Or he doesn't assume form to be the self... but he may have a view such as this: 'This self is the same as the cosmos. This I will be after death, constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change.' This eternalist view is a fabrication... Or... he may have a view such as this: 'I would not be, neither would there be what is mine. I will not be, neither will there be what is mine.' This annihilationist view is a fabrication... Or... he may be doubtful & uncertain, having come to no conclusion with regard to the true Dhamma. That doubt, uncertainty, & coming-to-no-conclusion is a fabrication.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by zan »

SarathW wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:16 am What Buddha said was "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta"
Nibbana is a Dhamma.
What is Dhamma? Anything created in the mind is Dhamma.
Your way, nibbana is imaginary and has no real existence. This is not the classical position. See below.
The Buddha refers to Nibbana as a 'dhamma'. For example, he says "of all dhammas, conditioned or unconditioned, the most excellent dhamma, the supreme dhamma is, Nibbana". 'Dhamma' signifies actual realities, the existing realities as opposed to conceptual things.
Bhikkhu Bodhi, Nibbana is an Existing Reality
Great seers who are free from craving declare that Nibbana is an
objective state which is deathless, absolutely endless, unconditioned,
and unsurpassed.
Thus as fourfold the Tathagatas reveal the ultimate realities—
consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbana.
-Bhikkhu Bodhi, Acariya Anuruddha, A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, page 260
Last edited by zan on Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by Goofaholix »

zan wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:56 pm To my knowledge, the rules are that things that are impermanent, and lead to suffering are not self, these things are literally everything but nibbana. Since nibbana doesn't fall under these descriptions, what rules it out from being self?
Does the Buddha use the word only though.

I think you are over thinking it.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by cappuccino »

zan wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:17 am I'm merely paraphrasing the classical position:
:coffee:
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by zan »

Goofaholix wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:23 am
zan wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:56 pm To my knowledge, the rules are that things that are impermanent, and lead to suffering are not self, these things are literally everything but nibbana. Since nibbana doesn't fall under these descriptions, what rules it out from being self?
Does the Buddha use the word only though.

I think you are over thinking it.
Not that I know of, I'm just curious as to the reasoning of the commentators, and if possibly even the suttas themselves clear this up more by delineating further.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by Ceisiwr »

According to the commentaries one of its characteristics is emptiness, along with signless and intentionless.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by zan »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:27 am According to the commentaries one of its characteristics is emptiness, along with signless and intentionless.
I don't think they meant it in a way compatible with your Nagarjuna-esque understanding, where everything is empty and ultimately non existent. The commentators saw nibbana as an ultimate existent. See below:
Both samsara and nirvana,
Neither of these two exists;
The thorough understanding of cyclic existence
This is referred to as "nirvana"
-Nagarjuna, Sixty Stanzas, verse 6
Great seers who are free from craving declare that Nibbana is an
objective state which is deathless, absolutely endless, unconditioned,
and unsurpassed.
Thus as fourfold the Tathagatas reveal the ultimate realities—
consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbana.
-Bhikkhu Bodhi, Acariya Anuruddha, A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, pages 260
Nibbana is an existing reality, an article by Bhikkhu Bodhi
Regarding the nature of Nibbana, the question is often asked: Does Nibbana signify only extinction of the defilements and liberation from samsara or does it signify some reality existing in itself? Nibbana is not only the destruction of defilements and the end of samsara but a reality transcendent to the entire world of mundane experience, a reality transcendent to all the realms of phenomenal existence.

The Buddha refers to Nibbana as a 'dhamma'. For example, he says "of all dhammas, conditioned or unconditioned, the most excellent dhamma, the supreme dhamma is, Nibbana". 'Dhamma' signifies actual realities, the existing realities as opposed to conceptual things. Dhammas are of two types, conditioned and unconditioned. A conditioned dhamma is an actuality which has come into being through causes or conditions, something which arises through the workings of various conditions. The conditioned dhammas are the five aggregates: material form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. The conditioned dhammas, do not remain static. They go through a ceaseless process of becoming. They arise, undergo transformation and fall away due to its conditionality.

However, the unconditioned dhamma is not produced by causes and conditions. It has the opposite characteristics from the conditioned: it has no arising, no falling away and it undergoes no transformation. Nevertheless, it is an actuality, and the Buddha refers to Nibbana as an unconditioned Dhamma.

The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as an 'ayatana'. This means realm, plane or sphere. It is a sphere where there is nothing at all that correspond to our mundane experience, and therefore it has to be described by way of negations as the negation of all the limited and determinate qualities of conditioned things.

The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as a, 'Dhatu' an element, the 'deathless element'. He compares the element of Nibbana to an ocean. He says that just as the great ocean remains at the same level no matter how much water pours into it from the rivers, without increase or decrease, so the Nibbana element remains the same, no matter whether many or few people attain Nibbana.

He also speaks of Nibbana as something that can be experienced by the body, an experience that is so vivid, so powerful, that it can be described as "touching the deathless element with one's own body."

The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as a 'state' ('pada') as 'amatapada' - the deathless state - or accutapada, the imperishable state.

Another word used by the Buddha to refer to Nibbana is 'Sacca', which means 'truth', an existing reality. This refers to Nibbana as the truth, a reality that the Noble ones have known through direct experience.

So all these terms, considered as a whole, clearly establish that Nibbana is an actual reality and not the mere destruction of defilements or the cessation of existence. Nibbana is unconditioned, without any origination and is timeless.
Nibbāna is Real
Since nibbāna means the cessation of mind, matter, and mental formations, suggestions have often been put forward that it signifies nothing and is thus useless. However, nibbāna is absolute reality, the reality of the nullification of the activities of mind, matter, and mental formations to which the knowledge of the Path, Fruition, and reviewing (paccavekkhaṇa) is inclined. It is the mind-object to which this knowledge is directed. Buddhas, Arahants, and Noble Ones vouch for the truth of its reality. For the sake of argument, let us say that there is no nibbāna where all the cycles of defilement, actions, and results cease. Then no one in this Universe can find peace. In the absence of nibbāna, defilement will play havoc with our lives to produce action, which will bring about results, which will create conditions for the arising of a new group of aggregates attended by suffering. It is only the Path and its Fruition that can exterminate defilements, and this extermination will bring the cycle of suffering to an end. This cessation of suffering is real. Buddhas and Arahants actually reach this stage, and after their parinibbāna all sufferings come to an end.
-Mahasi Sayadaw, On the Nature of Nibbana
Last edited by zan on Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:44 am, edited 3 times in total.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by Ceisiwr »

zan wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:37 am

I don't think they meant it in your Nagarjuna-esque understanding. See below:
Yes they are similar but different, but I wasn’t giving my own view. You asked for the classical explanation and I gave it.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Post Reply