(560) If nibbana exists as the state of individual nature and it is included in the continuity of living beings, then why is it not available as common for all just like assembly hall held at the cross road? Therefore to answer it there is the sentence, “ It is not shared by all because it can only be reached by one who has possessed the path (maggasamahginapattabbato asadharanam ).” It is uncreated (appabhavam): because it has no beginning, such as, “It has arisen during the period of such and such fully enlightened one.” In the existence of the path (maggabhave): in the existence of the noble path. Since it exists (bhavato): as it is present, as it is available.
Is he saying here that nibbāna is within every being? I find it hard to understand.
Venerable Ācariya Dhammapāla employs a classical analytical method. He begins by presenting a theoretical objection: “If nibbāna exists as individual nature and is within beings’ continuity, shouldn’t it be universally accessible, like a public assembly hall at a crossroads?” He then systematically addresses this misconception. The answer lies in the unique nature of nibbāna - it is “not shared by all because it can only be reached by one who has possessed the path.” This clarifies that nibbāna isn’t an inherent quality within beings, waiting to be discovered. Further, he emphasizes nibbāna’s timeless nature by describing it as “uncreated” (appabhavam). It has no point of origin and wasn’t brought into existence during any Buddha’s era. While nibbāna exists as an ultimate reality (bhavato), it becomes accessible only through the development and realization of the Noble Eightfold Path (maggabhave).
In fact, Venerable Dhammapāla’s commentary refutes this view, which sounds similar to the (tathāgatagarbha) Buddha-nature concept (which was likely created by the Mahāsāṃghikas, before further developing and expanding within the Mahāyāna) - in the same manner, where it may be said that nibbāna is somehow already present within beings and just needs to be “uncovered.” Instead, it emphasizes that nibbāna must be realized through active cultivation of the path.
All these complications come from the fact that nibbana has ceased to be considered a simple and understandable permanent cessation of that very thirst that leads to a new existence, wich is the 3d Noble Truth. Hence the appearance of great complexities that only confuse a person. Indeed, the cessation of thirst is what, even without any transcendental and metaphysical entities, stops suffering - which is the goal of the Buddha’s teaching.
Yes, permanent eradication of tanha is achieved. But this happens on four occasions together with ‘Bodhi’ , ekābhisamaya of the Four Noble truths (dukkhaṃ pariññābhisamayena, samudayaṃ pahānābhisamayena, nirodhaṃ sacchikiriyābhisamayena maggaṃ bhāvanābhisamayena)
Your statement shows a deficiency in presenting concepts, and in a very superficial manner. You have reduced Nibbāna to merely “the cessation of thirst/craving.”, the Buddha’s descriptions of Nibbāna are far more comprehensive. In Udāna (8.1), the Buddha describes Nibbāna as:
“Atthi, bhikkhave, tadāyatanaṁ, yattha neva pathavī, na āpo, na tejo, na vāyo, na ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ, na viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ, na ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ, na nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ, nāyaṁ loko, na paraloko, na ubho candimasūriyā. Tatrāpāhaṁ, bhikkhave, neva āgatiṁ vadāmi, na gatiṁ, na ṭhitiṁ, na cutiṁ, na upapattiṁ; appatiṭṭhaṁ, appavattaṁ, anārammaṇamevetaṁ. Esevanto dukkhassā”ti.
“There is that sphere, monks, where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air, no sphere of infinite space, no sphere of infinite consciousness, no sphere of nothingness, no sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, no this world, no world beyond, neither Moon nor Sun. There, monks, I say there is surely no coming, no going, no persisting, no passing away, no rebirth. It is quite without support, unmoving, without an object,—just this is the end of suffering.”
Complications are not something that arise from one thing based on another, but rather the nature of Nibbāna itself [unconditioned] is characterized by complexity. Even the simplest mental phenomena are extremely intricate. So, what can be said about Nibbāna, which represents the absolute truth? One will understand nothing without analyzing and examining the nature of things in the finest detail.
In (MN 26), the Buddha identifies the two most challenging topics in his teaching: dependent origination (paṭicca-samuppāda) and Nibbāna. Saying:
And so, being myself liable to be reborn, understand- ing the drawbacks in being liable to be reborn, I sought that which is free of rebirth, the supreme sanctuary from the yoke, extinguishment and I found it. Being myself liable to grow old, fall sick, die, sorrow, and become corrupted, understanding the drawbacks in these things, I sought that which is free of old age, sickness, death, sorrow, and corruption, the supreme sanctuary from the yoke, extinguishment and I found it."
Knowledge and vision arose in me: 'My freedom is unshakable; this is my last rebirth; now there’ll be no more future lives.
Then it occurred to me, ‘This principle I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute. But people like clinging, they love it and enjoy it. It’s hard for them to see this topic; that is, specific conditionality, dependent origination. It’s also hard for them to see this topic; that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment. And if I were to teach the Dhamma, others might not understand me, which would be wearying and troublesome for me.’"
Nibbāna, being the ultimate Dhamma, shares certain essential qualities, foremost among which [in this context] are its profound depth (gambhīro) and sublime refinement (paṇīto).
the Buddha consistently taught that reality extends beyond the merely material. The Dhamma includes both the lokiya (mundane) and lokuttara (supramundane) dimensions, Following something other than this makes it nothing more than a reductive, limited materialistic perspective that has no relation to the Buddha and his teachings.
If by the term “lokuttara” you understand not the overcoming and cessation of the world (six spheres of contact), but a transcendent metaphysical essence, then even if it did not exist and did not exist, dukkha would still cease with the complete and permanent cessation of its cause - tanha. The cessation of the effect with the permanent cessation of all causes is the unconditioned/freedom from conditioning/non-conditioning. One way or another, here the transcendent metaphysical essence will be superfluous, not an obligatory essence.
Buddha taught that the assertion of the existence of something in any case borders on thirst, clinging, holding on. If I came to him and asked: what should I seek, Teacher? - a transcendent metaphysical essence or the complete eradication of thirst as the cause of suffering? - I think his answer would be obvious.
I think in this sutta he describes what is called Bhava-Nirodha (because the tanha leading to a new Bhava ceases), or otherwise the contemplation of the final cessation of all existence, in which there is no mind, no matter, no concepts, since it is empty of them.
This does indeed refer to nibbana, cessation. But for this, transcendental metaphysical entities bordering in some places on the definition of atta are not needed.
It depends on what we mean by materialism and mundane/supra-mundane.
This is not the place for you to teach me the Abhidhamma. ‘paññatti’ is a very profound topic let alone ‘paramattha’. If you wish to learn more by all means ask questions.
I may not respond to your messages, and you to mine, if you like to be aggressive.
My position is not untraditional. The renowned teachers Ledi Sayadaw and Mahasi Sayadaw essentially held the same point of view, without reifying the property of peace and cessation.
In any case, this topic gives some scope for points of view and yours is not a standard. The aforementioned Sayadaws carry more weight for me.
The Realized One understands this as follows. There are ascetics and brahmins who assert a self that is non-percipient and free of disease after death, describing it as formed, or formless, or both formed and formless, or neither formed nor formless. But if any ascetic or brahmin should say this: ‘Apart from form, feeling, perception, and choices, I will describe the coming and going of consciousness, its passing away and reappearing, its growth, increase, and maturity.’ That is not possible. ‘All that is conditioned and crude. But there is the cessation of conditions—that is real.’ Understanding this and seeing the escape from it, the Realized One has gone beyond all that.
Some entity which does not perceive, is eternal and non-suffering, formless - can also be thought of as Atta. When Buddha asks whether it is reasonable to regard that which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change as one’s Atta - the correct answer is: “No, it is not reasonable, Teacher”.
But suppose we find some entity which would be permanent, non-suffering, not subject to change, even if it is formless and non-perceiving, we will no longer be able to say that it is not Atta. The converse statement will be “yes, it is reasonable, Teacher [to regard it as one’s Atta].”
Therefore Buddha leads us away from the idea of a permanent, non-suffering, non-perceiving entity. And points us to the cessation of all formations, understanding and seeing the escape from gross entities.
Nibbana is empty not only of dukkha, but also of “Atta”.
I am just reminding you till the moderators get back, please don’t turn this forum in to a circus like other forums. And please don’t respond to this, and I apologize if it seems harsh.
With regard to this proposition a learned Sayādaw reasoned that if there is a special kind of mind and matter in nibbāna, there must also be a special kind of rebirth which gives rise to a special kind of old age, disease, and death, which in turn bring about a special kind of sorrow, lamentation, suffering, distress, and despair. When the teachings explicitly say cessation, it will be improper to go beyond it and formulate an idea of a special kind of existence.Extinction points to nothing other than Nothingness. Nibbāna, which is not involved in mind and matter, cannot be made to get involved either in this world or in other worlds.
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.
Nibbāna is figuratively shown as the abode of cessation of all suffering brought about by defilements. Its nature is also described metaphorically as the very element of quiescence, the result of cessation of suffering. In actuality, nibbāna is the very nature of the annihilation of all the three cycles of suffering. Its characteristic, according to the Commentaries, is peace and calm (santi).
In other words, when the Path of Arahantship is reached, the cycle of suffering ceases. Nibbāna is thus the peace established with the annihilation of suffering. For the sake of brevity, please note only this — nibbāna is synonymous with absolute peace. Annihilation brings about complete elimination of the cycles of defilement, action, and the results of action. The Commentaries say that the state of peace (santi) is a characteristic of nibbāna. When this cooling occurs the embers of suffering are extinguished
I hold exactly the same view on this Dhamma as the Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw.
With reference to the Pāḷi text the encounter (sacchikaraṇa) should be understood. How is the deathless nibbāna encountered with the body? In the case of fire burning on one’s head and its extinguishing, being on the part of the body it is readily felt with one’s body. The extinguishing of the fire, too, being prominent on the part of the body is readily felt with one’s body.
In the case of being pierced by an arrow or spear, the piercing of one’s body is readily felt with one’s body; the removal of the arrow or spear, and the cure of the wound are also readily felt with one’s body.
In the case of small-pox afflicting one’s body and its cure the small-pox is felt with one’s body, and the cure is also felt with one’s body.
In the case of gastric trouble in the stomach and the cure, the gastric trouble and its cure are also readily felt with the body.
This is also the case for an impending event. For example, if a criminal is sentenced to capital punishment, and the death penalty is due to be carried out in days as decreed by the court, the criminal is burning with sorrow thinking: “I shall be hung on the tenth day.” However, if on the fifth day, it happens that he gets given amnesty, he is freed from the death penalty and his sorrow is greatly appeased. The death penalty is the gravest danger that has ever befallen him. The sorrow caused by the death penalty, and the cessation of sorrow given by the amnesty are readily felt in his mind; they are his personal experience. All cessation of coming dangers of the burning grief should be understood in the same way
In his book and in the preceding lines, the Venerable Ledi Sayadaw expounds and explains the nature of conceptual phenomena and real phenomena, and vividly proves that the simple permanent cessation of defilements, mental suffering, future rebirths is an experience of peace directly experienced by the body and mind. Just as the cessation of the burning of fire, or of illness is experienced and real. This is the characteristic of peace, santi. Nibbana-dhamma is nothing other than this characteristic itself. For Nibbana to be real, no reified, transcendent, metaphysical entity is required. It is nothing other than the cessation of defilements and suffering, which are real and experienced by the mind and body of the arahant.
means: “The First Discourse about Nibbāna” (Ānandajoti Bhikkhu, trans.)
There is another translation.:
‘Monks, there exists that condition wherein is neither earth nor water nor fire nor air wherein is neither the sphere of infinite space nor of infinite consciousness nor of nothingness nor of neither-consciousness-nor-unconsciousness; where there is neither this world nor a world beyond nor both together nor moon-and-sun. Thence, monks, I declare is no coming to birth; thither is no going (from life); therein is no duration; thence is no falling there is no arising. It is not something fixed, it moves not on, it is not based on anything. That indeed is the end of ill.’ (Woodward, F. L. (Trans.), & Rhys Davids, C. A. F. (Intro.). (1948). The Minor Anthologies of the Pali Canon, Part II: Udāna: Verses of Uplift, p. 97).
A third translation:
“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. There, mendicants, I say there is no coming or going or remaining or passing away or reappearing. It is not established, does not proceed, and has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.” (Ud 8.1; trans. Bhikkhu Sujato, Heartfelt Sayings: An uplifting translation of the Udāna, p. 96).
This Sutta is on the nature of extinguishment (Nibbāna).
In the Pāṭaligāmiyavagga, the 8th chapter of the Udāna, they are found 4 suttas:
They contain important teachings on the nature/descriptions of Nibbāna.
So you can stop playing the guessing game and do a little research on the text I am referring to.
The Buddha’s Dhamma is not a piece of furniture you can alter as you please. The Blessed One declared Nibbāna as “profound” (gambhīro), “subtle” (nipuṇo), “hard to see” (duddaso), “sublime” (paṇīto), and “unattainable by mere reasoning” (atakkāvacaro) - these transcendent qualities are explicitly stated throughout the Canon - Everything taught by the Tathāgata is interconnected - to attempt stripping away these essential qualities of Nibbāna or reducing it to mere empirical cessation not only contradicts the Buddha’s direct teachings but risks falling into materialist views (uccheda-diṭṭhi); these frameworks have no connection to the concept of self (atta), rather it is your materialist interpretation that paradoxically approaches eternalist views by trying to redefine what the Buddha clearly taught.
You can understand this from the context of the text. If it is difficult for you, let me clarify:
materialism here refers to the belief that only physical matter is real and that its destruction represents the absolute end. It is one of the views condemned by the Buddha, known as Ucchedavāda.
As for the second part, these are Pāli terms with specific meanings. Since you did not grasp what I referred to, here is another clarification, in very brief terms:
Lokiya: All conditioned phenomena bound by the cycle of birth and death (saṃsāra), subject to causes and conditions, marked by dukkha.
Lokuttara: The unconditioned state of Nibbāna and the transcendent paths/fruits leading to it, completely free from all defilements and beyond all worldly conditions.
What I am saying, however, indicates the complete cessation of dukkha. Whether you like it or not, dukkha ceases with the complete cessation of the cause. And this is precisely what the Buddha taught (I teach only suffering and the cessation of suffering). Uccheda-ditthi is the view that a living being consists of material elements and is destroyed at death. Since I do not assert a Self in any form, do not assert that life is reduced to material elements alone, but there is an element of vinñāna, and there is rebirth, the next world arising according to dependent origination, there is no question of any uccheda-ditthi. Apply the terms according to their meaning, and do not manipulate the terms.
These are all unfounded statements. I pointed out how exactly the idea of a permanent, even formless and non-perceiving essence borders on atta. You have not refuted this logic in any way, relying on the Buddha’s discourse on anatta-lakkhana. Quotes were also given where the Buddha shows that ideas about a formless, non-perceiving essence are possible. I did not understand at all what you mean about the border with eternalism. You speak in riddles and hook me with ideas that I did not assert.
I’m not saying that.
And these definitions are in complete agreement with my definition of the supramundane: it is the overcoming and cessation of the six spheres of contact (World, Everything). No metaphysical entities are needed.
Yes, ayatana - that is, the sphere of knowledge of the supramundane consciousness in the fruition samadhi. In which the Yogi realizes that Bhava-Nirodha is nibbana. He knows the cessation of everything conditioned, which is nibbana. There is no sun, no moon, etc.
Dear Learned friends
I put this section from the Sammohavinodani for possible consideration:
Sammohavinodanii (Dispeller of Delusion) (pp.61-64):
"(‘Herein, which is the unformed element? It is the destruction
of greed, the destruction of hate and the destruction of
delusion’)…the unformed element is nibbana, whose nature (sabhava)
is unformed. But because greed and so on are destroyed on coming to
this (etam aagamma), 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.
"But a contraversialist (vitandavaadin) said: ‘There is no
independent nibbana; nibbana is just the destruction of the
defilements.’ He said: ‘Quote a sutta.’ The Jambukhaadaka-sutta was
quoted thus: "‘Nibbana’ is said, friend Saariputta; what, friend, is
nibbana? That which is the destruction of greed, the destruction of
hate, and the destruction of delusion - that is called nibbaana’ (S iv
251). [Then] he said: ‘By this sutta it should be understood that
there is no independent nibbana; nibbana 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: ‘Yes,
there is no meaning apart from the sutta.’
"Then he should be told: ‘Now this sutta has been quoted by you;
quote the next one to that.’ The next sutta to that [says:]
"‘Arahatship’ is said, friend Saariputta, 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: ‘Nibbaana is a mental datum included in the mental data
base; Arahatship is the four [immaterial] aggregates. The General of
the Norm [i.e. Saariputta] who had realised nibbaana and on being
asked about Arahatship, said it was just the destruction of the
defilements. But how? What, then, are nibbaana 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.’
"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 to
you, so to [you should] discern that. For it is on coming to nibbana
that greed, etc. are destroyed, and so nibbana is called the
destruction of greed, the destruction of hate, and the destruction of
delusion. And these are just three terms for nibbaana.’
It seems we are going around in circles, mostly because you have not understood the direction which I refer to and what I mean precisely.
In a previous comment, you referred to Udāna (8.1), saying:
the sutta speaks about the nature of extinguishing (Nibbāna) as the final and ultimate state, as I have explained. Regardless, your earlier comment raises issue (1), implying that Nibbāna and Bhava-Nirodha are equivalent (which is incorrect).
Bhava-Nirodha (cessation of existence) occurs first and leads to Nibbāna, the final state. They should not be presented in a way that could be interpreted as ‘one being equivalent to the other.’ Nibbāna is the ultimate state, not ‘the extinguishing is the cessation of existence.’
Issue (2) arises from your statement:
“And the extinguishing is the cessation of existence (bhava-nirodha – nibbana).”
In fact, the cessation of existence/beingness precedes Nibbāna, not the other way around."
I see that I have resolved this part.
You are once (again) oversimplifying Nibbāna by reducing it merely to the cessation of dukkha. This risks losing the deeper transcendent nature of Nibbāna. Nibbāna possesses a unique existential status that goes beyond mere cessation. It is not merely the absence of suffering but an essential reality (dhātu) that exists regardless of whether anyone realizes it or not.
[Q. 5] But is not Nibbāna destruction, because of the passage beginning, “That, friend, which is the destruction of greed … [of hate … of delusion … is Nibbāna]?” (S IV 251).
[A.] That is not so, because it would follow that Arahantship also was mere destruction. For that too is described in the [same] way beginning, “That, friend, which is the destruction of greed … of hate … of delusion … is Arahantship]” (S IV 252). And what is more, the fallacy then follows that Nibbāna would be temporary, etc.; for if it were so, it would follow that Nibbāna would be temporary, have the characteristic of being formed, and be obtainable regardless of right effort; and precisely because of its having formed characteristics it would be included in the formed, and it would be burning with the fires of greed, etc., and because of its burning it would follow that it was suffering. (Vsm Chap. XVI.69)
But it is because the kind of destruction called “cessation consisting in non-arising,” [that is, Nibbāna,] serves figuratively speaking as decisive-support [for the path] that [Nibbāna] is called “destruction” as a metaphor for it.
[Q. 7] Why is it not stated in its own form?
[A.] Because of its extreme subtlety. And its extreme subtlety is established because it inclined the Blessed One to inaction, [that is, to not teaching the Dhamma (see M I 186] and because a Noble One’s eye is needed to see it (see M I 510). (Vsm Chap. XVI.70)
Abbreviation:
Vsm: Visuddhimagga
you are jumping to conclusions and making premature statements without fully understanding what I am pointing out. First, I have emphasized the qualities of Nibbāna, rejecting any abstraction, simplification, or dilution of its meaning. Secondly, you made the following statement:
This directly suggests a rejection of one aspect of the teaching that involves what is termed as “metaphysics.” If this is indeed the case, then it aligns with what I described as a materialistic and reductionist approach, which risks falling into (and, in fact, does fall into) uccheda-ditthi. If the intention behind this part is to reject the supra-mundane (metaphysical) aspects, then it would, without exaggeration, constitute clear heresy.
This is what my response was addressing. As a note, enough with the use of cliché phrases like “Apply the terms according to their meaning, and do not manipulate the terms.” Referring to what I’ve proposed, I have not done so in any way, and I believe my previous clarification makes that evident. On the contrary, this critique more aptly applies to those making such statements.
As is evident, this can be interpreted in multiple ways. However, since you clarified by stating the following:
I will exclude the first interpretation. You will, however, need to clearly explain what you mean by the previous part regarding “metaphysical entities”.
I believe that by understanding my (previous response) here, it will become clear to you what was built upon that.
Firstly, The word āyatana (correct spelling) has distinct meanings that should not be confused. In general, āyatana refers to the meeting points where experience occurs, Consists of:
Six internal bases (sense organs + mind)
Six external bases (their objects) where subjects reside.
• āyatana: Sense medium. The inner sense media are the sense organs: eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind. The outer sense media are their respective objects. (access to insight: A Glossary of Pali and Buddhist Terms).
• āyatana: (1) ‘spheres’, is a term for the four immaterial absorptions; see jhāna (5–8).
(2) The twelve ‘bases’ or ‘sources’, on which depend the mental processes, consist of five physical sense organs and consciousness, being the six personal (ajjhattika) bases; and the six objects, the so-called external (bāhira) bases, namely:
eye, or visual organ
ear, or auditory organ
nose, or olfactory organ
tongue, or gustatory organ
body, or tactile organ
mind-base, or consciousness (manāyatana)
visible object
sound, or audible object
odour or olfactory object
taste or gustatory object
body-impression, or tactile object
mind-object (dhammāyatana)
[…]
(Nyanatiloka Thera. Buddhist dictionary: Manual of Buddhist terms and doctrines (N. Thera, Ed.; 6th rev. ed.). (BPE).
But, in the commentaries (Specifically here on Udāna 8.1) it has a specific context and takes on a different technical meaning - that of “cause” or “condition” (kāraṇa).
The Sutta passage is describing Nibbāna itself (asaṅkhata dhātu), not primarily as a description of an experiential state or sphere of consciousness. Your phrase “sphere of knowledge of the supramundane consciousness in the fruition samadhi” is problematic because it might suggest that Nibbāna is a type of consciousness or mental state, while The sutta explicitly states there is “no consciousness” (viññāṇa).
Your statement risk reducing Nibbāna to a type of consciousness or experiential state, which the texts carefully avoid doing, and exposed against this.
I have previously clarified the part related to Bhava-Nirodha and Nibbāna.
“‘That āyatana’ means ‘that cause.’ The ‘d’ is for conjunction. Nibbāna is called ‘āyatana’ in the sense of being a cause because it serves as an object-condition for path and fruition knowledge, just as forms etc. serve as object-conditions for eye-consciousness etc.”
“Tattha yasmā nibbānaṃ sabbasaṅkhāravidhurasabhāvaṃ yathā saṅkhatadhammesu katthaci natthi, tathā tatthapi sabbe saṅkhatadhammā. Na hi saṅkhatāsaṅkhatadhammānaṃ samodhānaṃ sambhavati.”
“Because Nibbāna is of a nature contrary to all conditioned phenomena, just as it [Nibbāna] is not found anywhere among conditioned phenomena, so too all conditioned phenomena are not found there [in Nibbāna]. For there can be no combination of the conditioned and unconditioned phenomena.”
Excerpts from The Udāna-aṭṭhakathā (Translated via AI.)
“Revered Nāgasena, you keep on talking about nibbāna, but is it possible by simile or argument or cause or method to point out the shape or configuration or age or size of this nibbāna?”
“Without a counterpart, sire, is nibbāna, and it is not possible by simile or argument or cause or method to point out the shape or configuration or age or size of nibbāna.” (Milindapañha).
It is precisely this statement of yours that borders on eternalism, since it asserts a certain state or transcendental reality. No reality practically exists without the experience of knowing it, therefore I conclude that you endow this very nibbana with a cognitive contour, which is thought up by the mind as a result of intricate, mystified mysterious descriptions. While Bhava-Nirodha is essentially the cessation of all vinnana, chitta, mano and nama-rupa. Known during life as this dhamma empty of everything conditioned.
But Buddha, I repeat, said that he teaches suffering and the cessation of suffering. And not some mystical mysterious entities. You conclude about the mystical nature of this dhamma based on the term ayatana and dhatu. The eye is also an ayatana, there is nothing mystical in it. The earth is also a dhatu, there is nothing mystical in it. These are properties and spheres of knowledge. Precisely because nibbana is an Ayatana - there is nothing mystical in it, since it is cognized, not hidden.
What does the sutta essentially state: 1. there is ayatana - a field of knowledge, a property, 2. - where there are no things, any things. The first indicates the subject of the study, the second completely defines it as the absence of all samsaric manifestations. And from this you have already made a bunch of conclusions about the mystical nature.