Query about Nibbāna as an Independent Dhamma

Abhidhamma
1

Hi. I am new here. :folded_hands:
I am looking to clarify a few points concerning Classical Theravadin Abhidhamma. I would be grateful for any insights on the following:

In the Classical Theravadin Abhidhamma framework, do the five aggregates that constitute what we conventionally designate as an ‘Arahant’ cease entirely at death ? If this is the case, what is the specific role or function of Nibbāna’s objective existence as a distinct dhamma?

To provide context: from the Sautrāntika perspective, Nibbāna is merely the cessation of the aggregates and nothing further—liberation being the simple absence of further arising. What are the primary justifications within Classical Theravadin Abhidhamma for asserting that Nibbāna exists as an independent dhamma (asankhata-dhamma), rather than being a nominal designation for the cessation of the khandhas? I am genuinely seeking to learn and comprehend these distinctions from Classical Theravadin Abhidhamma framework perspective; I am not looking to prove a point or nothing like that.

I would also value any recommendations for study materials on Classical Theravadin Abhidhamma.

Many thanks. :folded_hands:

2 Likes
2

Welcome to the forum, @Paulo!

First, we have to understand the distinction between realities and concepts. All nāma and rūpa dhammas are realities in the ultimate sense—that is to say, they are paramattha dhammas. Everything else we experience is just concepts created by the mind—but they are concepts that have those paramattha dhammas as their basis. A “person” is an example of a concept. Paramattha dhammas are real in the ultimate sense; concepts are real in a conventional sense only.

Since nibbāna is real in the ultimate sense, it falls into the category of paramattha dhammas. Specifically, it is a nāma dhamma (probably categorized that way because it has no form, but I am only speculating). It is the only dhamma that does not actually arise—and therefore it does not pass away either. It is sometimes called the “unarisen.”

The cittas that cognize that dhamma have the function of removing the defilements. All defilements are rooted in moha.

When an Arahant passes away at his final parinibbāna, since all ten fetters have been removed, no more nāma and rūpa dhammas can arise again. Therefore, no groups of khandhas can arise again. The person (conventionally speaking) is said to be like a flame that has gone out.

@RobertK is an expert on the Abhidhamma, and can likely explain it better.

R

1 Like
3

Here are some reliable resources:

Browse some of these books and see if any of them take you:

Or you might prefer some videos:

https://www.youtube.com/@IntlDhammaDiscussions/videos

Some posts on ‘Parinibanna’:

8388, 8391, 9367, 9693, 9868, 16569, 16486, 18153, 18113, 21955, 31717, 47562, 64915, 165046

I wish you the best with your studies.

R

1 Like
4

Great questions Paulo, welcome to the forum.
This sutta explains very well.
Yamaka Sutta and Commentary

The Commentary notes that Spk: If he had thought, “Formations arise and cease; a simple process offormations reaches nonoccurrence, this would not be a view (diṭṭhigata) but
knowledge in accordance with the Teaching .But since he thought, A being is
annihilated and destroyed,” this becomes a view.

All samsara is is the arising and ceasing of conditioned elements, thus no self at all. Each stream of arising and ceasing elements is of course entirely different from another, thus terms like people, me , him, they, are necessary designations. But without the teaching these conceptual referents are given a quality they don’t have: real, permanent, sukkha etc.

Now to answer your question: yes the term is khandha parinibbana - the ceasing of the aggregates. Just as Renaldo said:

The Dispeller of Delusion (pali text society) trans. Bhikku Nanamoli:
page 121, volume1:

"this division too should be known, namely momentary death (khanika-
marana), conventional death (samutti marana) and death as cutting
off (samuccheda-marana)

also Vism. xliii “

There are three kinds of death: death as
cutting off, momentary death, and conventional death. Death as cutting off belongs
to those whose cankers are exhausted (and are Arahants). Momentary death is
that of each consciousness of the cognitive series beginning with life-continuum
consciousness, which arise each immediately on the cessation of the one preceding.
Conventional death is that of all (so-called) living beings

Samuccheda-marana is the final death of the arahat.

1 Like
5

it is a bit hard to understand. Nibbana is that special reality that neither arises nor passes away. It can be the object of lokuttara citta.

2 Likes
6

Yes, based on what I have read, Nibbana is a real Dhamma. It’s not simply another name for the absence of Nama and Rupa. Nibbana is an actual ultimate reality that exists and is unarisen. It is also called “fading away” in the Visuddhimagga because on coming in contact with it (when attaining path and fruit), defilements like lust, hatred and delusion fade away. It is not just the mere destruction of defilements. It is an ultimate reality that when one sees it via the path and fruit knowledges, defilements are abandoned.

Nibbana is a real thing. It exists. It’s a real Dhamma. It’s not a concept.

1 Like
7

Thank you for your replies!

My initial understanding is then: the nibbāna dhamma, when cognised, performs the primary function of inhibiting the five aggregates from arising again.

I shall read all the recommended material.

Many thanks, all! :folded_hands:

1 Like
8

I am not an expert on classical Theravada. I thought that the Theravada nibbāna is the same just saying 5 aggregates ceased, no more arising that is it.

Nibbāna exist means it’s possible to end suffering. Nibbāna element means just there’s nibbāna. Seeing nibbāna is seeing the cessation of everthing. Like sariputta said, cessation of existence is nibbāna.

I don’t agree that one has to have nibbāna as an ontologically positive thing to suppress 5 aggregates from arising again.

9

See this thread on whether or not the aggregates of an arahant cease at death:

10

Your very welcome, Paulo. :folded_hands:

If you have any other questions, don’t hesitate to ask.

R

1 Like
11

Bhante, this was taught in the Abhidhamma. If you need any resources for studying this, I would be happy to provide you with them. :folded_hands:

R

12

Yes please. A citation would be good.

13

Certainly, Bhante. :folded_hands:

On DSG Nina Van Gorkom wrote:

“In the first book of the Abhidhamma, the Dhammasangani (Buddhist Psychological Ethics), Nibbana is referred to as the unconditioned element, asankhata dhatu (See Appendix II), and it is nama or arupa (non rupa), but it is different from conditioned nama because it does not experience an object. Realities are either nama or rupa, and since nibbana is not rupa it is classified as nama. Kom has explained very clearly about the classification of the four paramattha dhammas. We read in the Atthasalini, Expositor (II, Book II, Part II, Suttanta Couplets, 392) an explanation of nama. Nama is derived from namati, bending towards an object, and it can also be a name. Citta and cetasika bend towards an object and experience an object, and also they cause one another to bend on to the object: “The four khandhas are name (nama) in the sense of bending, for they bend towards the object. In the sense of causing to bend all (of the foregoing, namely nibbana and the four nama khandhas) are ‘name’ (nama). For the four khandhas cause one another to bend on to the object; and nibbana bends faultless dhammas on to itself by means of the causal relation of the dominant influence of the object.” Thus, nibbana does not bend towards an object and does not experience an object, but it is the predominant object condition for the lokuttara cittas that experience it, bending them towards itself in that way.”

https://groups.io/g/dsg/messages?expanded=1&msgnum=13849

“There are citta, cetasika, rupa, and nibbana as ultimate realities. No other things are realities. Only these four are real in their ultimate sense and they are always true at any given time and at anywhere. In the previous pages, citta, cetasika, and rupa have been discussed in some detail. There is a fourth ultimate realities. It is nibbana.”

—Htoo Naing, Patthana Dhamma, 2005

From the Abhidhammattha-saṅgaha:

"Nibbāna however is termed supramundane, and is to be realized by the wisdom of the Four Paths. It becomes an object to the Paths and Fruits, and is called Nibbāna because it is a departure (ni) from cord-like, (vāna) craving.

Nibbāna is onefold according to its intrinsic nature.

According to the way (it is experienced) it is twofold - namely, the element of Nibbāna with the substrata remaining, and the element of Nibbāna without the substrata remaining.

It is threefold according to its different aspects, namely, Void (60), Signless (61), and Longing-free (62).

Great seers who are free from craving declare that Nibbāna is an objective state (63) which is deathless, absolutely endless, non-conditioned (64), and incomparable.

Thus, as fourfold the Tathāgatas reveal the Ultimate Entities-consciousness mental states, matter, and Nibbāna."

And from ‘the notes’:

Nibbāna is an ultimate reality (vatthu-dhamma) which is supramundane (lokuttara), that is, beyond the world of mind and body or the five ‘aggregates’.

https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/a-manual-of-abhidhamma/d/doc7990.html

I hope this will suffice.

R

1 Like
14

Thank you for this gift of Dhamma.

1 Like
15

To provide context: from the Sautrāntika perspective, Nibbāna is merely the cessation of the aggregates and nothing further—liberation being the simple absence of further arising

How does this contradicts what you quoted?

16

Nibbāna is one of the four types of paramattha dhammas—ultimate realities.

Paramattha dhammas have sabhāva, or own-nature. Essentially they exist, and have their own nature.

R

17

Many excellent points..although nibbana is different from the others as it doesn’t arise…

18

Hi Robert,

Correct. It is called asaṅkhata dhātu. It does not arise or pass away.

And if I am not mistaken nibbana is timeless because its intrinsic nature is without arising, change & passing away.

R

19

I spoke with my teacher and he said it’s just prone to be misunderstood when the language of the abhidhamma is framed so positive.

Nibbāna is not ontologically positive thing.

It is ontologically negative.

Or else there’s a clear difference between nibbāna (ontologically positive) Vs what materialist atheist think what death is. And @bksubhuti had said nibbāna is like the latter.

20

We have to understand that nibbāna is real, at least in the functional sense (and it has its own sabhāva). That is to say, it becomes the real object of lokuttara cittas. It also acts as object condition for lokuttara cittas to contact it. Those lokuttara cittas uproot real defilements when they do contact it. But it’s tricky because nibbāna does not arise, change, or pass away, making it unique among paramattha dhammas. But this does not mean that Arahants “enter” some kind of nibbāna when they pass away. It isn’t like that at all. Nibbāna is simply a paramattha dhamma, and it is contacted by lokuttara cittas when they perform their function. For Arahants, there are no more conditions for the arising of any nāma or rūpa again after they pass away. At parinibbāna, there is no “entering” some kind of nibbāna.

“Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;
The deed is, but no doer of the deed is there;
Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters it;
The path is, but no traveler on it is seen.”

—Vism. XVI

And from The Dispeller of Delusion:

(“Herein, which is the unformed element? It is the destruction of greed, the destruction of hate and the destruction of delusion”) is this: the unformed element is nibbāna, whose nature (sabhāva) is unformed. But because greed and so on are destroyed on coming to this (etaṃ āgamma), it is therefore called “the destruction of greed, the destruction of hate and the destruction of delusion”. This is the agreed commentary of the Teachers.

  1. But a controversialist (vitandavādin) said: There is no independent nibbāna; nibbāna is just the destruction of the defilements. He said: ‘Quote a sutta.’ The Jambukhādaka-sutta was quoted thus: “'Nibbāna” is said, friend Sāriputta; what, friend, is nibbāna?’ ‘That which is the destruction of greed, the destruction of hate and the destruction of delusion — that is called nibbāna’ (S iv 251). [Then] he said: ‘By this sutta it should be understood that there is no independent nibbāna; nibbāna is just the destruction of the defilements.’ He should be asked: ‘But how? Is the meaning according to this sutta [literally] so?’ Surely he will say: |52| ‘Yes, there is no meaning apart from the sutta.’
  2. Then he should be told: ‘Now this sutta has been quoted by you; quote the next one to that.’ The sutta next to that [says:] ‘“Arahatship” is said, friend Sāriputta; what, friend, is Arahatship?’ ‘That which is the destruction of greed, the destruction of hate and the destruction of delusion — that is called Arahatship’ (S iv 251). This is the sutta quoted next to that. But on this being quoted, they said to him: ‘Nibbāna is a mental datum included in the mental-data base; Arahatship is the four [immaterial] aggregates. The General of the Norm [i.e. Sāriputta] who had realised nibbāna and dwelt therein, on being asked about nibbāna and on being asked about Arahatship, said it was just the destruction of the defilements. But how? What, then, are nibbāna and Arahatship, one or multiple? Whether they are one or multiple, what according to you who make excessively fine distinctions is the meaning here? You do not know what is one and what is multiple. Surely when that is known, it is good?’ Being thus questioned again and again, being unable to deceive, he said: ‘It is because of its being arisen in one who has destroyed greed, etc. that Arahatship is called the destruction of greed, hate and delusion.’
  3. Then they said to him: ‘A great work has been done by you! And even one getting you to say that by giving a reward, would have got you to say just that. And just as this [sutta] has been explained by you, so too [you should] discern that. For it is on coming to nibbāna that greed, etc. are destroyed, and so nibbāna is called the destruction of greed, the destruction of hate and the destruction of delusion. And these are just three terms for nibbāna.’
  4. If even when this is said he is convinced (sannattiṃ gacchati), it is well. If not, he should be made to work with a plurality of nibbānas. How? This should firstly be asked: ‘Is the destruction of greed the destruction of greed only, or is it that of hate and delusion? Is the destruction of hate the destruction of hate only, or is it that of greed and delusion? Is the destruction of delusion the destruction of delusion only, or is it that of greed and hate?’ Surely he will say: ‘The destruction of greed is the destruction of greed; the destruction of hate is the destruction of hate; the destruction of delusion is the destruction of delusion.’ Thereupon he should be told: ‘According to your assertion, destruction of greed is one nibbāna, destruction of hate is another nibbāna and destruction of delusion is another nibbāna. In the destruction of the three roots of the unprofitable, three nibbānas come to be; in the destruction of the four clingings, four [nibbānas]; in the destruction of the five hindrances, five; in the destruction of the six groups of craving, six; in the destruction of the seven inherent tendencies, seven; in the destruction of the eight wrongnesses, eight; in the destruction of the nine things rooted in craving, |53| nine; in the destruction of the ten fetters, ten; in the destruction of the 1500 defilements, there being a special nibbāna for each, many nibbānas come to be. But there is no limit to these nibbānas. But instead of taking it thus, [saying rather:] ‘It is on coming to nibbāna that greed, etc. are destroyed,’ it is the same one nibbāna that is called the destruction of greed, the destruction of hate and the destruction of delusion. Take these three as just three terms for nibbāna.’
  5. If when this is said he does not discern it, he should be made to work with grossness. How? ‘Blind fools and also bears, leopards, deer, monkeys, etc., being invaded by defilements, fornicate (vatthuṃ patisevanti). Then, when their fornicating is over, the defilement subsides. According to your assertion, bears, leopards, deer, monkeys, etc. have [then] reached nibbāna. Gross indeed is your nibbāna, and coarse; the only thing is, you cannot adorn your ear with it.’ But instead of taking it thus, [saying rather:] ‘It is on coming to nibbāna that greed, etc. are destroyed,’ it is the same one nibbāna that is called the destruction of greed, the destruction of hate and the destruction of delusion. Take these three as just three terms for nibbāna.
  6. But if even when this is said he does not discern it, he should be made to work with change of lineage (gotrabhū). How? He should first be questioned thus: ‘Do you assert that change of lineage exists?’ ‘Yes, I do.’ ‘At that moment of change of lineage, have the defilements been destroyed, are they being destroyed or will they be destroyed?’ ‘They have not been destroyed, they are not being destroyed, but rather they will be destroyed.’ ‘But what does change of lineage make its object?’ ‘Nibbāna.’ ‘In your moment of change of lineage the defilements have not been destroyed, are not being destroyed, but rather they will be destroyed; while the defilements are still undestroyed you make known nibbāna which is the destruction of the defilements; while the inherent tendencies are still unabandoned, you make known nibbāna which is the abandoning of the inherent tendencies. This does not agree. But instead of taking it thus, [saying rather:] “It is on coming to nibbāna that greed, etc. are destroyed,” it is the same one nibbāna that is called the destruction of greed, the destruction of hate and the destruction of delusion. Take these three as just three terms for nibbāna.’
  7. But if even when this is said he does not discern it, he should be made to work with the path. How? He should first be questioned thus: ‘Do you assert the path?’ ‘Yes, I do.’ ‘At the moment of the path, have the defilements been destroyed, are they being destroyed or will they be destroyed?’ Knowing, he will say: ‘It is not right to say that they have been destroyed or that they will be destroyed; |54| it is right to say that they are being destroyed.’ ‘If this is so of the path, which is the nibbāna that is the destruction of the defilements? Which are the defilements that are destroyed by the path? Which defilements does the path cause to be destroyed by making which nibbāna as destruction of the defilements its object? Therefore do not take it thus. [Saying rather:] “It is on coming to nibbāna that greed, etc. are destroyed,” it is the same one nibbāna that is called the destruction of greed, the destruction of hate, the destruction of delusion. These three are just three terms for nibbāna.’

—The Dispeller of Delusion

:folded_hands:

R

1 Like