https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1oc0zx7/is_nirvana_truly_the_ending_of_rebirth_or_the/

11h ago

R41NBOWRUMP3R

Is Nirvana truly the ending of rebirth or the understanding that rebirth was not happening to begin with?

Question

Been desperately trying to get some conceptual grasp on samsara and rebirth for a while now.

I’ve seen folks try to scientificate it by relating it to atoms in your body becoming a tree later on

I’ve seen it related back to karma as in rebirth is the collective consequences with made you and which you added to continuing on

I’ve seen it described in countless other ways

What all these descriptions seem to lack, in my eyes, is a compatibility with being ended

If it’s just an ‘energy continuing on in absence of a body’ then how does insight END that? My body won’t just disappear once I realize my Buddha nature

So is salvation actually just insight into anatta? Thus, if I truly understand anatta, I will subsequently understand my misconceptions about rebirth previously, recognize that rebirth isn’t compatible with no self, and at that point escape it? Realizing it was never there to begin with?

I’m willing to just continue the practice with an expectation that I might one day understand, I just wanted to vocalize my problem that every explanation I have seen for samsara and rebirth has been wholly incompatible with the concept of escaping said process. Curious what others think about that.

Edit: thank you all for your replies and discussions, I appreciate it all and it’s helped me formulate my next steps in research and practice. I hope I never came off argumentative, it was just my method to try to understand. Thanks again.

Upvote

21

Downvote

49

Go to comments

u/xabir avatar

xabir

•

10h ago

An intellectual understanding of no-self or anatman is far from the experiential realization of it. But even the experiential realization only marks the beginning of the path to liberation from samsara. It is the attainment of stream entry, in which Buddha gave the assurance that one will attain liberation from samsara within seven more lifetimes (or this very life if one is diligent in practice).

On what stream entry entails, see: https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/igored/insight_buddhism_a_reconsideration_of_the_meaning/

No-self is completely compatible with rebirth.

Rizenfenix wrote:

“Continuing consciousness after death is, in most religions, a matter of revealed truth. In Buddhism, the evidence comes from the contemplative experience of people who are certainly not ordinary but who are sufficiently numerous that what they say about it is worth taking seriously into account. Indeed, such testimonies begin with those of the Buddha himself.

Nevertheless, it’s important to understand that what’s called reincarnation in Buddhism has nothing to do with the transmigration of some ‘entity’ or other. It’s not a process of metempsychosis because there is no ‘soul’. As long as one thinks in terms of entities rather than function and continuity, it’s impossible to understand the Buddhist concept of rebirth. As it’s said, ‘There is no thread passing through the beads of the necklace of rebirths.’ Over successive rebirths, what is maintained is not the identity of a ‘person’, but the conditioning of a stream of consciousness.

Additionally, Buddhism speaks of successive states of existence; in other words, everything isn’t limited to just one lifetime. We’ve experienced other states of existence before our birth in this lifetime, and we’ll experience others after death. This, of course, leads to a fundamental question: is there a nonmaterial consciousness distinct from the body? It would be virtually impossible to talk about reincarnation without first examining the relationship between body and mind. Moreover, since Buddhism denies the existence of any self that could be seen as a separate entity capable of transmigrating from one existence to another by passing from one body to another, one might well wonder what it could be that links those successive states of existence together.

One could possibly understand it better by considering it as a continuum, a stream of consciousness that continues to flow without there being any fixed or autonomous entity running through it… Rather it could be likened to a river without a boat, or to a lamp flame that lights a second lamp, which in-turn lights a third lamp, and so on and so forth; the flame at the end of the process is neither the same flame as at the outset, nor a completely different one…”

Upvote

8

Downvote

Reply

Award

Share

302

u/R41NBOWRUMP3R avatar

R41NBOWRUMP3R

OP

•

10h ago

This gets to the heart of my question though. You’ve provided a great concept of what not self really is getting at, or a possibility thereof. However it doesn’t seem compatible with liberation?

If the continuing essence is a stream of consciousness, what then is the escape FROM? Where is that stream wandering off to in order to be eternally free of suffering? A judeo Christian heaven? Orrrrrr

Upvote

2

Downvote

Reply

Award

Share

u/xabir avatar

xabir

•

10h ago

Anatman rejects an “essence”, there is no entity but just a stream of consciousness.

Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith said before, “Malcolm wrote: Omniscience is the content of a mind freed of afflictions. Even the continuum of a Buddha has a relative ground, i.e. a the rosary or string of moments of clarity is beginingless.

Origination from self is axiomatically negated in Buddhadharma,

Each moment in the continuum of a knowing clarity is neither the same as nor different than the previous moment. Hence the cause of a given instant of a knowing clarity cannot be construed to be itself nor can it be construed to be other than itself. This is the only version of causation which, in the final analysis, Buddhadharma can admit to on a relative level. It is the logical consequence of the Buddha's insight, "When this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose." “

Even this stream of consciousness never ceases after liberation or Buddhahood, but it is transformed or purified (of delusion and afflictions) into its pure modality of jnana/wisdom.

This is also what Nirvana is - not a place or destination like some sort of heaven, but the end of afflictions.

Wrote this in Reddit years ago regarding anatman (no self) and nirvana:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/2xuq7b/is_nirvana_basically_nonexistence/cp3k7c2/

“Nirvana is simply the cessation of craving, aggression, and delusion. Delusion includes the construct of self, that I exist, that I am the perceiver or controller of experiences and actions. Nirvana is not annihilation because what ends is simply a process of delusional I-making and mine-making and other related mental afflictions, it is not the annihilation of some actual self (which never existed).

Nirvana is when, in seeing the seen, it's realized and experienced that there is simply that scenery, and no seer. No you in terms of that. In hearing sound, there's simply (always already) only sound, no hearer. In thinking... only thought, no thinker. When this is realized, not merely intellectualized, and directly experienced as being so, and all sense of self are being released, then that is Nirvana. This is peace, bliss, freedom from suffering. It is not boring: in fact, boredom only exist when there is a sense of self, and a sense of dissatisfaction with what is present, therefore a craving for something to be 'better than what is'. There is a subject and object here: 'I' want 'something better out there'. But when anatta is realized and actualized, there is no sense of self, there is no subject and object, no dichotomy of perceiver and perceived, and everything is just lucid and luminous and blissful and perfect as it is. Nirvana is also the cessation of craving.

(For more information check out Bahiya Sutta)

Also Buddha teaches that we have past lives and future lifetimes, but if you attain Nirvana, you are no longer stuck in this cycle of samsaric rebirth and suffering.

Mahayana Buddhists then say the Buddhas continue to emanate out of compassion to guide suffering beings out of samsara.

....

Also, for a much longer, detailed, accurate explanation with multiple scriptural citations on Anatman (no self) and Nirvana, please read this well written writing by Geoff: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2012/09/great-resource-of-buddha-teachings.html “

Likewise there is a good post by Krodha recently: In chapter 2, sections 69 through 80, The Suvarṇaprabhāsottamasūtra says: Noble ones, the bodhisattva mahāsattvas know through these ten qualities that the Tathāgata Arhat Samyaksaṃbuddha correctly and truly teaches that there is a great passing into nirvāṇa. What are these ten? First, nirvāṇa means that the tathāgatas have completely eliminated the obscuration of the kleśas and the obscuration of knowledge. Second, nirvāṇa means that the tathāgatas know that there is no self in the individual and no self in phenomena. Third, nirvāṇa means that there is a transformation of the body and of qualities. Fourth, nirvāṇa means that there is a spontaneous guidance of beings. Fifth, nirvāṇa means that there is sameness in the dharmakāya because there is no differentiation of characteristics through the truth becoming manifest. Sixth, nirvāṇa means that there is no duality between the nature of samsāra and nirvāṇa. Seventh, nirvāṇa means that purity is manifested through the realization of the essence of phenomena. Eighth, nirvāṇa means that there has been the skillful accomplishment of all phenomena being devoid of birth and devoid of destruction. Ninth, nirvāṇa means that there is the attainment of the gnosis (jñāna) of the equality of the true nature, the dharmadhātu, and the ultimate conclusion. Tenth, nirvāṇa means that there is the knowledge that there is no difference between the nature of all phenomena and the nature of nirvāṇa. https://84000.co/translation/toh556

Also, Krodha previously clarified:

"Nirvana is just a total purification of the mindstream, not a place that is entered or departed from." "Does the mind-stream continue after Parinirvana? "Yes, it is unceasing. Nirvana etc., is only the total purification of the mindstream."

Upvote

1

Downvote

Reply

Award

Share

107

u/R41NBOWRUMP3R avatar

R41NBOWRUMP3R

OP

•

10h ago

I really appreciate the thorough answer and citations.

Is it then a misnomer that nirvana is escape from samsara? If their natures are no different?

Upvote

1

Downvote

Reply

Award

Share

u/xabir avatar

xabir

•

10h ago

It is an escape from samsara in the sense that there is an end to karmic births and deaths in samsara. Yet, this escape, or nirvana, turns out to be samsara (the world of phenomena) rightly perceived with wisdom. This is why samsara and nirvana is nondual, etc. The nature of all phenomena is of the same nature as nirvana because all phenomena that dependently originates are fundamentally without birth and cessation, are non-arising and non-originated (anutpada) due to lack of an essence or self-nature — i.e. empty.

Upvote

3

Downvote

Reply

Award

Share

70

u/R41NBOWRUMP3R avatar

R41NBOWRUMP3R

OP

•

9h ago

But how can something both have a birth and death but also be without birth and cessation?

This is the root of my question in OP. Is nirvana just realizing that birth and death aren’t real? Or is it an actual cessation of a rebirth process?

I’m not sure how you escape something by realizing it doesn’t exist. Surely that means you were never trapped to begin with? If it’s just the cessation of illusion, or the right perception that you were girdled by a falsehood then why do we insist of saying rebirth actually exists? Shouldn’t the masters have just said “it might seem to you that you exist in a cycle of rebirth, but this is an illusion, and you’ll understand that if you practice” etc etc

Upvote

1

Downvote

Reply

Award

Share

u/R41NBOWRUMP3R avatar

R41NBOWRUMP3R

OP

•

9h ago

You’ve verbalized a thought I had a bit earlier before writing the OP. Like, the best possible remedy for my skepticism at embracing the questionable and seemingly illogical aspects of Buddhism is that I can’t seem to get a straight answer about any of it out of anybody haha.

Upvote

2

Downvote

Reply

Award

Share

u/xabir avatar

xabir

•

8h ago

First thing one must understand is that emptiness does not deny conventional validity and functionalities. It is not the naive and nihilistic assertion that “everything is just nothingness, non-existent”, etc.

Rather: It is precisely because all things lack an essence or svabhava, svabhava being an essence (of a self or phenomena) that exists independent of the various causes and conditions contributing to the arising of a given phenomena, that the soteriological value of the Buddhadharma is made possible, and an end to samsara is possible. If there were svabhava or essence in self and phenomena, everything would exist independent of causes and conditions, would be static and immutable, and hence suffering cannot be ended, the path would be impossible, and so on.

The Sixty Stanzas states: “That which originates due to a cause… disappears when the conditions are absent—how can it be understood to ‘exist’ (in itself)?”

From the Madhyamaka standpoint, “not born” (anutpāda) negates inherent birth—birth from its own side—without denying the dependent, conventional arising of aggregates. Nāgārjuna’s Chapter 24 is explicit: to deny dependent arising is to undercut emptiness itself, which would “contradict all worldly conventions” and make action/karma, etc impossible; if things had svabhāva, “the whole world would be unarising, unceasing, and static.” In short: conventional arising depends on the ultimate absence of svabhāva.

This is why he can also say, in the very same chapter, that for whom emptiness is clear, everything (on the path and in the world) becomes clear/possible—and for whom it isn’t, nothing does (MMK 24:14). What looks paradoxical dissolves once “unborn” is read as “not inherently, but dependently arisen.”

Hence: It is precisely because of emptiness that all things are made possible, being a dependent origination and dependent designation, and the conventional validity of the four noble truths, the process that starts samsara and the liberation from samsara and cyclic rebirth is made possible. This is discussed in Chapter 24 of the Mulamadhyamikakarika by Arya Nagarjuna, chapter on the Four Noble Truths.

You basically asked: “How do you escape something by realizing it doesn’t exist?”

Continued below

Upvote

2

Downvote

Reply

Award

Share

34

u/xabir avatar

xabir

•

8h ago

The answer is: we are not negating valid functionalities; we are negating inherent existence. Seeing that “self”, “phenomena”, “birth” are an empty and dependently originating and dependently designated process that never truly originated as truly existent entities undercuts the ignorance and grasping that fuels its re-production—this is precisely how cessation of ignorance brings cessation of the rest. This is already the Buddha’s middle teaching and Nāgārjuna’s point in equating dependent arising ≡ emptiness ≡ the middle way ≡ dependent designation.

Emptiness should not be misunderstood as nothingness or non-existence (which pertains to the wrong view of the nihilists) but must be understood in terms of dependent origination.

“Pursuant to the middle view, Tson-kha-pa cites Nagarjuna's Yuk-tisastika and Candrakirti's Yuktisastika-vrtti. Nagarjuna: What arises in dependence is not born; That is proclaimed by the supreme knower of reality 😊 Buddha). Candrakirti: (The realist opponent says): If (as you say) whatever thing arises in dependence is not even born, then why does (the Madhyamika) say it is not born? But if you (Madhyamika) have a reason for saying (this thing) is not born, then you should not say it "arises in dependence." Therefore, because of mutual inconsistency, (what you have said) is not valid.) (The Madhyamika replies with compassionate interjection:) Alas! Because you are without ears or heart you have thrown a challenge that is severe on us! When we say that anything arising in dependence, in the manner of a reflected image, does not arise by reason of self-existence - at that time where is the possibility of disputing (us)!” - excerpt from Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real: Buddhist Meditation and the Middle View

Buddha described nirvāṇa as the cessation of the causal chain: with the cessation of ignorance there is cessation of formations … up to the cessation of birth, and thus aging-and-death (the standard reverse order of dependent origination). That is a conventionally real cessation—but it is the cessation of empty conditions, not the extinguishing of a self-thing. The Kaccānagotta Sutta guards the view: avoiding the extremes “everything exists” and “nothing exists,” the Tathāgata teaches the middle via dependent arising. It is because all phenomena are empty and appear in the manner of reflections through dependent origination — functional and appearing vividly yet illusory and having no core or essence anywhere like a mirage, arisen due to dependencies, that once these conditions are removed, they vanish. To give another analogy: If the reflection of moon in water had an essence of its own, that it truly originated and established its own independent existence inside the body of water, then its appearance could not be made to vanish by removing the conditions.

Madhyamaka thus preserves both sides: conventionally, rebirth and cessation talk track the functioning of causes and results; ultimately, “whatever is dependently arisen, that is emptiness… therefore a non-empty thing does not exist” (MMK 24:18–19). Hence the master formula: saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are non-different in emptiness, even while they are experientially distinct as bondage vs. release.

Contrary to the assertion that only things possessing an intrinsic nature (svabhāva) could function, the Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka reverses this. It is precisely because phenomena are empty of inherent existence that they can arise, change, and interact. As scholar Jay L. Garfield summarizes: "Nāgārjuna’s point is not that empty things are inefficacious, but that only because they are empty can they function; were they to possess intrinsic nature they would be inert.”

This is why emptiness in Buddhism does not negate the conventional validity and functionalities of karma and the twelve links of dependent origination. They are empty and illusory like reflections and water-moons, but not empty in the sense of conventionally non-existent such as rabbits with horns.

Jamgön Mipham, in his commentary on Candrakīrti's Madhyamakāvatāra, explicates this contrast with reference to karmic causality:

“Although virtuous and non-virtuous deeds are alike in lacking inherent existence, an unripened action will still ripen... Just as a patient with an ocular disease may see black lines [that appear and seem to function visually for that patient] that nevertheless disappear once the malady is cured, so too karmic seeds operate once and then cease. A rabbit’s horn, by contrast, never appears at all.” (Adapted from Introduction to the Middle Way, pp. 122-123)

Mipham further elaborates in his auto-commentary:

“All illusory objects—rabbit horns, black lines, water-moons—are equal in lacking inherent nature. Yet an ocular patient sees black lines, and these appearances condition a matching consciousness; they are functional [conventionally, for that perceiver]. A rabbit horn never appears, hence is non-functional. Likewise, virtue and non-virtue are equally unreal [i.e., empty of inherent existence], yet one yields happiness and the other suffering."

This illustrates that conventional phenomena, though empty like a water-moon, are not nothing; they appear and have specific functional capacities within the dependent web of reality. The illusion of inherent existence (svabhāva), however, is like a rabbit's horn—purely imaginary, not found even conventionally, and has no functional capacity. Nāgārjuna’s MMK 15 insists that if something were inherently existent, it would be as impossible to arise or cease as a rabbit’s horn; hence svabhāva is denied both ultimately and conventionally.

On the other hand, Indian exegesis links the water-moon to arthakriyaˉ (“pragmatic efficacy”): what appears empty can still perform a function, like a conceptual designation allowing trade in “fiat” currency. Because its appearance depends on multiple conditions (water, light, viewpoint), the image is vivid yet collapses under analysis—just as persons depend on the skandhas and labeling.

On the other hand, if phenomena possessed a fixed, independent, intrinsic nature, they would be immutable and causally inert. Nāgārjuna makes this point powerfully:

Continued below

Upvote

2

Downvote

Reply

Award

Share

36

u/xabir avatar

xabir

•

8h ago

Vigrahavyāvartanī (Vv) — the “where emptiness applies…” chain

My literal rendering of the Sanskrit chain (vv. ~70–71):

Where emptiness is operative, dependent origination is operative. Where dependent origination is operative, the Four Noble Truths are operative. … where those [truths and their practices] are operative, the ten wholesome dharmas are operative … the Three Jewels are operative … and worldly conventions hold good.

Published translation for the same passage (Bhattacharya):

“All things prevail for him for whom emptiness prevails … where the Four Noble Truths are in force, fruits, the spiritual community, and the Buddha are in force too … where the Three (Jewels) are in force, the conventions of the world are in force.” Internet Archive

(Source has the Sanskrit and Bhattacharya’s English together; the quoted lines condense the list he gives just beneath the verse.)

MMK 24 (Examination of the Four Noble Truths) — core verses

Objection/response setup (24:1–2):

“(Opponent:) If all of this is empty, neither arising nor ceasing, then for you it follows that the Four Noble Truths do not exist. If the Four Noble Truths do not exist, then knowledge, abandonment, meditation and manifestation will be completely impossible.”

Emptiness ↔ convention/efficacy (24:6–8):

“If dependent arising is denied, emptiness itself is rejected. This would contradict all the worldly conventions. If emptiness is rejected, no action will be appropriate. There would be action which did not begin, and there would be an agent without action. If there is svabhāva, the whole world will be unarising, unceasing, and static. The entire phenomenal world would be immutable.”

Identity of dependent arising and emptiness (24:18–19):

“Whatever is dependently co-arisen, that is explained to be emptiness. That, being a dependent designation, is itself the middle way. Something that is not dependently arisen—such a thing does not exist. Therefore a non-empty thing does not exist.”

Candrakīrti, Madhyamakāvatāra — conventions and the two truths

Conventional truth and “fabricated entities” (VI.28 in this translation excerpt):

“The true (satya) for a concealer [i.e., conventional truth] is that fabricated entities are merely conventional; ultimately they are not established.” Shantideva Center -

“Buddha did not quarrel with the world” — keeping everyday discourse intact (VI.82):

“The Perfect Buddha did not quarrel with the world; in the everyday world, aggregates, and so on, are accepted to exist.”

Upvote

2

Downvote

Reply

Award

Share

24