Nirvāṇa

The word Nirvāṇa in its proper definition has nothing at all to do with any empyrean ecstasy, cosmic peace or any of that later rubbish advertised in the Guru-Culture of today.

The word Nirvāṇa, literally an ‘Exhausting’, has its etymological roots in a fire that has ‘Come to Rest’. The Madhima Nikaya, the source most often cited, says it is like asking the direction taken by a dead fire: ‘To ask: ‘In which direction has [the dead] fire gone?’, is a question that: ‘does not fit the case’.

The answer to the question: ‘What is Nirvāṇa?’ lies in an understanding of the misunderstanding that underlies the question itself.

The self-scuttling has to be completed at the level of the questioner. Hence the early definition of Nirvāṇa as ‘The Exhaustion Of Philosophic Views’ [Is that a ‘Philosophic View’? A ‘Self-Eating Expression’?].

In Nirvāṇa the question: ‘What Is?’ is no longer your question. It’s not that answers are now miraculously revealed. Rather, the questions, having arisen from a false platform, simply dissolve.

Nirvāṇa enters the Dharmic dialogue at every level. It parallels the later construct of: ‘This Unformulate Principle’ and the The Mantra Of The Prajñā-Pāramithā, the core verse in the Hridaya [‘Heart’]Sūtra, and its approach-line: Śūnyathā.

It is markedly unwise, dangerously facile, to explain the nature of Nirvāṇa to one who can interpret it only from the platform of a Binary, as for instance that of a presumed independent [hence, separated] ‘Self’. [In other words, don’t write Sites like this one.]

It’s sort of like the situation at the counter at the Rolls-Royce dealership. If you need to ask the price you probably can’t afford it. If you need to have Nirvāṇa explained, you won’t understand it.

---

Six hundred years following the release of the ‘Diamond-Cutter’ Sūtra, here is the Scholar-Monk Nāgārjuna:

‘There is not a whit of difference between Nirvāṇa and Saṃsāra [a disoriented search]’. And in case you find that ambiguous, he adds: ‘And there is not a whit of difference between Saṃsāra and Nirvāṇa.’ [Mūlamadhyamakakārikā]

Eight hundred years following Nāgārjuna, here is the Chinese-Monk Ch’ing-yüan Wei-hsin [circa 850 CE]

‘Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters.

But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it’s just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters.‘