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. Sāriputta and
Ven. Mahākotthita 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 Nibbāna
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 Nibbāna 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
samādhi, and taking this as Nibbāna. 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, nibbāna.” (AN4:34) Here,
as is common in the suttas, Nibbāna is used
synonymously with nirodha. Nirodha means “cessation”, the
very opposite of a “reality existing in itself”. To fit in with
this, Nibbāna 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 Nibbāna is achieved, it is
irreversible, and thus asankhata.
Āyatana often does refer to a “realm, plane or sphere”,
but not always. For example at AN9:46,
saññāvedayitanirodha, “the cessation of perception and
feeling” (which is the cessation of the mind), is called an
āyatana. Here the word āyatana simply seems to
point to the fact that such cessation is possible. In this context
āyatana cannot refer to a “realm”; rather it
refers to the ending of all realms. Again, when Nibbāna is
called an āyatana (which actually is very rare; the most
celebrated occurrence being Ud 8:1), it is probably used in the
same way as nirodhāyatana, and it is perhaps best
translated as “the principle of extinguishment“.
The word dhātu, too, is used in a variety of contexts,
and the translation “element” is often not suitable. These contexts
include saññāvedayitanirodhadhātu (“the dhātu of
the cessation of perception and feeling”), avijjādhātu
(“the dhātu of ignorance”), nirodhadhātu (“the
dhātu of cessation”) and then there is the passage
jātipaccayā bhikkhave jarāmaranaṃ uppādā vā Tathāgatānaṃ
anuppādā vā Tathāgatānaṃ ṭhitā va sā dhātu (“monks, from the
condition of birth, there is old age and death; whether Tathāgatas
arise or not, that dhātu persists”) (SN12:20). In all these cases
“principle” might be the most suitable translation of
dhātu. Given this wide usage of the word dhātu,
it is not given that nibbānadhātu 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”; kāyena phusati) means
“direct experience”, i.e. in contrast to inferential understanding.
Even the attainment of full cessation
(saññāvedayitanirodha) 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
amatadhātu, “the death-free principle”, should probably be
understood in the same way.
In the main Nikāyas, this expression only occurs in verse, once
in the Dhammapada and once in the Theragāthā. 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 dhātu 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 Nibbāna.
In sum, Nibbāna 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 Nibbāna
as a “state” is that most translations into English leave
Nibbāna untranslated. I believe this is a mistake. The
word Nibbāna 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
Nibbāna 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
Nibbāna in the English translations, I believe we would be
much less likely to regard it as a “state”.
With metta.