Buddhism identifies nirvāņa as the ultimate reality that any being could hope to attain.[1] Walpola Rahula describes nirvāņa as “the cessation (Nirodha) of dukkha” (What the Buddha Taught 40). This description of nirvāņa highlights the fundamental Buddhist teaching regarding the nature of existence. According to Buddhism, all phenomena are in a state of constant change; therefore, all forms of existence are impermanent. At the same time, every phenomenon is devoid of its own-being; there is nothing about a phenomenon that could be identified as the essence of that phenomenon that holds it together on a permanent basis. Ordinary beings operate under the illusion that phenomena are permanent and ‘self’ (in the sense that they possess some form of essence that establish them as identities distinguishable from each other). Driven by this illusion, they become ‘willing’ individuals and crave for existence that has the illusion of permanence and ‘self.’ Nevertheless, due to the fundamental mismatch between their convictions and the true nature of reality, they constantly run into situations of hopelessness, and this sense of hopelessness gives rise to suffering. This is the sense in which all forms of existence is dukkha. From this perspective, the cessation of dukkha is the attainment of nirvāņa.
The statement ‘The cessation of dukkha is the attainment of nirvāņa’ raises the question “What does the cessation of dukkha really mean?” If dukkha is the very condition of existence the cessation of dukkha, logically speaking, should result in an annihilation of existence. According to the dominant meaning of this statement, anyone who attains nirvāņa should cease to exist. However, most, if not all, of those who are known to have attained nirvāņa, including the Buddha himself, did not “cease to exist” as an immediate result of this attainment, in the dominant sense of the term. This shows that the existence that gets annihilated at the moment of the attainment of nirvāņa is an existence of a different kind, or rather, existence understood in a different way. What the attainment of nirvāņa signifies an annihilation of is the condition that perpetuates existence through the accumulation of karmic energy. The annihilation of this condition does not end existence immediately, as it does not affect what the condition had already brought into existence and the karmic energy that had already been accumulated before the moment of the annihilation; nevertheless, existence as we know it is bound to come to an end, as the condition that keeps it going is not in place. According to Buddhism, what brings about the annihilation of the condition that perpetuates existence is the realisation that everything is empty of its own-being.[2] This realisation indicates one’s conviction that everything that is conditioned is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self. When one is convinced that everything about existence is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self she realises the futility of any attempt to attach herself to any form of existence.
This understanding of nirvāņa shows that to attain nirvāņa is to realise it, know it, or to be convinced of it. Nirvāņa, in this sense, is a form of knowledge. It is knowing how, as well as the knowledge that certain propositions are true.[3] It is not a gift that is granted by a superior being for the meritorious deeds that one has done in her lifetime; nor is it a superior place that one wins the right to enter into or one is allowed into. The knowledge that nirvāņa represents indicates a shift of focus from what are perceived to be individual phenomena with fixed identities to the quality that is most fundamental to all phenomena, which is emptiness, or the absence of own-being.
The realisation that all forms of existence are empty of their own-being indicates a rejection not only of the various categories in terms of which one understands existence, but also the very notion of categorisation. When something is empty of its own-being there is nothing about it that provides a basis for the construction of an identity for it. Such a phenomenon is always elusive, as it cannot have a fixed identity, and any identity given to such a phenomenon is illusive. The conviction that all forms of existence are empty of their own-being makes one realise that this truth applies not only to the phenomena that are external to her but also to her own self. She perceives the emptiness of the distinction between the self and the other and the meaninglessness of the concept of “I.” This understanding results in a diffusion of her individuality.
The diffusion of one’s individuality that the realisation of all forms of existence as empty of their own-being brings about, however, does not mean that she immediately ceases to exist as an individual. Rahula describes the one who has come to this realisation, and thereby has attained nirvāņa, as someone who lives fully and happily in the present.[4] This shows that such an individual continues to exist as an individual until her life lasts. Nevertheless, her individuality differs from that of an ordinary person in that she does not respond to the phenomena around her in the same way an ordinary person does. The realisation that she has gained enables her to experience the world without attaching herself to it. Her individuality is no longer self-centric. This is the sense in which the diffusion of her individuality needs to be understood.
Notes
[1] Buddhism talks about two types of nirvāņa: the nirvāņa attained during one’s life (nirvāņa) and the nirvāņa attained after death (parinirvāņa). [Please see Collins (39-47) for a discussion of the distinction between the two.] Collins argues “But there has been some confusion here, both because some scholars have conflated the two, either in order to argue a particular case or inadvertently, and because of the way the two words are used” (39). Nevertheless, the fact that the nirvāņa attained during one’s lifetime is signified by the unmarked term nirvāņa (as opposed to its marked counterpart parinirvāņa) indicates that any understanding of nirvāņa should be based on an analysis of the unmarked term. Therefore, the paper primarily focuses on this version of nirvāņa. This choice of focus is also based on the consideration that the Platonic Idea, which nirvāņa is being compared to, is also something attained during one’s lifetime.
[2] The fundamental Buddhist claim that everything is empty of its own-being is often used to argue that Buddhism is nihilistic. This, on the one hand, is the inevitable reduction that any attempt to assess Buddhism in terms of the specifically western concept of nihilism leads to. On the other hand, it indicates a misconceptualisation of both Buddhism and nihilism.
[3] Steven Collins (in Nirvana: Concept, Imagery, Narrative) states, “Pali words for enlightened knowledge can thus be seen to donate various forms of knowing how, as well as the knowledge that certain propositions are true” (43). Given that Pali is the language of Buddhism, especially the Theravāda version of it, the Pali words of enlightened knowledge could be seen as adequate representations of what enlightened knowledge mean in Buddhism.
[4] Rahula states: “He who has realized the Truth, Nirvāņa, is the happiest being in the world. He is free from all ‘complexes’ and obsessions, the worries and troubles that torment others. His mental health is perfect. He does not repent the past, nor does he brood over the future. He lives fully in the present. Therefore he appreciates and enjoys things in the purest sense without self-projections. He is joyful, exultant, enjoying the pure life, his faculties pleased, free from anxiety, serene and peaceful. As he is free from selfish desire, hatred, ignorance, conceit, pride, and all such ‘defilements’, he is pure and gentle, full of universal love, compassion, kindness, sympathy, understanding and tolerance. His service to others is of the purest, for he has no thought of self. He gains nothing, accumulates nothing, not even anything spiritual, because he is free from the illusion of Self, and the ‘thirst’ for becoming” (43).
The statement ‘The cessation of dukkha is the attainment of nirvāņa’ raises the question “What does the cessation of dukkha really mean?” If dukkha is the very condition of existence the cessation of dukkha, logically speaking, should result in an annihilation of existence. According to the dominant meaning of this statement, anyone who attains nirvāņa should cease to exist. However, most, if not all, of those who are known to have attained nirvāņa, including the Buddha himself, did not “cease to exist” as an immediate result of this attainment, in the dominant sense of the term. This shows that the existence that gets annihilated at the moment of the attainment of nirvāņa is an existence of a different kind, or rather, existence understood in a different way. What the attainment of nirvāņa signifies an annihilation of is the condition that perpetuates existence through the accumulation of karmic energy. The annihilation of this condition does not end existence immediately, as it does not affect what the condition had already brought into existence and the karmic energy that had already been accumulated before the moment of the annihilation; nevertheless, existence as we know it is bound to come to an end, as the condition that keeps it going is not in place. According to Buddhism, what brings about the annihilation of the condition that perpetuates existence is the realisation that everything is empty of its own-being.[2] This realisation indicates one’s conviction that everything that is conditioned is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self. When one is convinced that everything about existence is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self she realises the futility of any attempt to attach herself to any form of existence.
This understanding of nirvāņa shows that to attain nirvāņa is to realise it, know it, or to be convinced of it. Nirvāņa, in this sense, is a form of knowledge. It is knowing how, as well as the knowledge that certain propositions are true.[3] It is not a gift that is granted by a superior being for the meritorious deeds that one has done in her lifetime; nor is it a superior place that one wins the right to enter into or one is allowed into. The knowledge that nirvāņa represents indicates a shift of focus from what are perceived to be individual phenomena with fixed identities to the quality that is most fundamental to all phenomena, which is emptiness, or the absence of own-being.
The realisation that all forms of existence are empty of their own-being indicates a rejection not only of the various categories in terms of which one understands existence, but also the very notion of categorisation. When something is empty of its own-being there is nothing about it that provides a basis for the construction of an identity for it. Such a phenomenon is always elusive, as it cannot have a fixed identity, and any identity given to such a phenomenon is illusive. The conviction that all forms of existence are empty of their own-being makes one realise that this truth applies not only to the phenomena that are external to her but also to her own self. She perceives the emptiness of the distinction between the self and the other and the meaninglessness of the concept of “I.” This understanding results in a diffusion of her individuality.
The diffusion of one’s individuality that the realisation of all forms of existence as empty of their own-being brings about, however, does not mean that she immediately ceases to exist as an individual. Rahula describes the one who has come to this realisation, and thereby has attained nirvāņa, as someone who lives fully and happily in the present.[4] This shows that such an individual continues to exist as an individual until her life lasts. Nevertheless, her individuality differs from that of an ordinary person in that she does not respond to the phenomena around her in the same way an ordinary person does. The realisation that she has gained enables her to experience the world without attaching herself to it. Her individuality is no longer self-centric. This is the sense in which the diffusion of her individuality needs to be understood.
Notes
[1] Buddhism talks about two types of nirvāņa: the nirvāņa attained during one’s life (nirvāņa) and the nirvāņa attained after death (parinirvāņa). [Please see Collins (39-47) for a discussion of the distinction between the two.] Collins argues “But there has been some confusion here, both because some scholars have conflated the two, either in order to argue a particular case or inadvertently, and because of the way the two words are used” (39). Nevertheless, the fact that the nirvāņa attained during one’s lifetime is signified by the unmarked term nirvāņa (as opposed to its marked counterpart parinirvāņa) indicates that any understanding of nirvāņa should be based on an analysis of the unmarked term. Therefore, the paper primarily focuses on this version of nirvāņa. This choice of focus is also based on the consideration that the Platonic Idea, which nirvāņa is being compared to, is also something attained during one’s lifetime.
[2] The fundamental Buddhist claim that everything is empty of its own-being is often used to argue that Buddhism is nihilistic. This, on the one hand, is the inevitable reduction that any attempt to assess Buddhism in terms of the specifically western concept of nihilism leads to. On the other hand, it indicates a misconceptualisation of both Buddhism and nihilism.
[3] Steven Collins (in Nirvana: Concept, Imagery, Narrative) states, “Pali words for enlightened knowledge can thus be seen to donate various forms of knowing how, as well as the knowledge that certain propositions are true” (43). Given that Pali is the language of Buddhism, especially the Theravāda version of it, the Pali words of enlightened knowledge could be seen as adequate representations of what enlightened knowledge mean in Buddhism.
[4] Rahula states: “He who has realized the Truth, Nirvāņa, is the happiest being in the world. He is free from all ‘complexes’ and obsessions, the worries and troubles that torment others. His mental health is perfect. He does not repent the past, nor does he brood over the future. He lives fully in the present. Therefore he appreciates and enjoys things in the purest sense without self-projections. He is joyful, exultant, enjoying the pure life, his faculties pleased, free from anxiety, serene and peaceful. As he is free from selfish desire, hatred, ignorance, conceit, pride, and all such ‘defilements’, he is pure and gentle, full of universal love, compassion, kindness, sympathy, understanding and tolerance. His service to others is of the purest, for he has no thought of self. He gains nothing, accumulates nothing, not even anything spiritual, because he is free from the illusion of Self, and the ‘thirst’ for becoming” (43).