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.‘
You must be logged in to post a comment.