I thank Prof. Y. Karunadasa who has taken time from his busy schedule to respond to the queries I raised and Mr. Padmaka Silva for his explanations. I became interested in the discussion some scholars had initiated on Nibbana only after reading Prof. Karunadasa’s article that appeared on 25th of December 2011, where he had referred to immortality or deathless as a term for Nibbana. The following is what the learned Prof. had to say:
"Monks, the cessation of greed, the cessation of aversion, the cessation of delusion: this is called Nibbana" [from Samyuttanikaya].
"Monks, the cessation of greed, the cessation of aversion, the cessation of delusion: this is called the unconditioned (experience)" [from Samyuttanikaya].
"Monks, the cessation of greed, the cessation of aversion, the cessation of delusion: this is what is called the deathless or the immortal" [from Anguttaranikaya].
As used here, "the unconditioned (experience)," and "the deathless" or "the immortal" are two other terms for Nibbana.”
Now Prof. had referred to Anguttaranikaya and Samyuttanikaya without giving the specific references and said “as used here "the unconditioned (experience)," and "the deathless" or "the immortal" are two other terms for Nibbana.” Prof. Karunadasa himself says in his response on 18th January 2012, “It all depends on the kind of perspective one adopts. In point of fact, in the Bahuvedaniya Sutta of the Majjhimanikaya the Buddha gives us a clear indication that the Dhamma he had discovered can be presented and described in many different ways, from many different perspectives. As elsewhere, here, too, Buddhism avoids dogmatism and absolutism: There is no one absolutist way of presenting the Dhamma, which must be dogmatically adhered to”, and I thought that the context is very important as far as Suttas are concerned. Thus though Nibbana is explained as the cessation of greed, the cessation of aversion, the cessation of delusion on many occasions in the Suttas I was interested in finding out the specific instances from which Prof. Karunadasa had come to the conclusion “this is what is called the deathless or the immortal”.
Prof. Karunadasa has very kindly responded and said “It is in this context, I believe, that we need to understand why the Nibbanic experience is deathless/immortal. When Buddhism refers to death, it means not only the actual encounter with death but also the phobia of death. In the case of the Arahant, the situation is entirely different. It is true that the five aggregates of the Arahant are impermanent, and therefore subject to death/mortality. However, since the Arahant does not identify himself/herself with the five aggregates which are subject to death/mortality, he/she is entirely free from the phobia of death. What is more, since the Arahant does not identify himself/herself with what is subject to death, strictly speaking, he/she does not participate in the death experience, either. The Dhammapada says: "To one who is free from self-centred desire there is no sorrow, to such a one how can there be fear?" This is why the Arahant is described as "one who knows no fear from any quarter (akuto-bhaya).”
Unfortunately the context he has mentioned again is the case where Nibbana has been explained as the cessation of greed, the cessation of aversion, the cessation of delusion and nothing else. However, in his article on 18th January the learned Professor states “when Buddhism refers to death, it means not only the actual encounter with death but also the phobia of death.” Now if by death not only encounter with death but also phobia of death is referred to and if immortal means fearlessness of death then there is no problem in referring to Nibbana as immortal. However, it does not mean that achieving immortality is attaining Nibbana as there may be people or sathva who are fearless of death even without attaining Nibbana, but I would not hold that against the Professor, as though those who have attained Nibbana are fearless of death it does not necessarily mean that those who are fearless of death have attained Nibbana. Similarly there are religions where immortality is referred to without linking it to Nibbana and all that could be said is that Nibbana could be referred to as immortality with respect to no fear of death but immortality is not Nibbana. It is true that Arhant does not feel the experience of death, but it does not mean that he/she experiences the feeling of bhava and jathi after parinibbana, and in that sense I find it difficult to understand what is meant by immortality of an Arhant.
I have no problem whatsoever with the statement that Nibbana can be attained here and now while our mortal frame remains, however that does not imply that after the mortal frame is no more an Arhant continues to be immortal. Prof. Karunadasa says “some modern scholars interpret the Buddhist idea of immortality to mean absence of re-birth. I cannot agree with this. If that were so, even inanimate tables and chairs would be immortal.” I am afraid the example of tables does not give a correct picture as the tables have not been born in this world (bhava) with a consciousness as they are “inanimate” and also since though those who have attained Nibbana may not be reborn or are without a punabbahava, it does not imply that those including inanimate objects who are not reborn, in some sense, have attained Nibbana. If A then B does not imply that if B then A, in the logic we are using in these articles. However, I admit that this particular logic is not applicable to Nibbana, but Prof. Karunadasa does not refer to a different logic either. Before commenting further I would wait for Prof. Karunadas’s response to “the post-mortem status of the Arahant: what happens to the Arahant when he/she "dies", as he has referred to in his article on 18th January 2012.
Mr. Padmaka Silva in his expalnation on 20th January 2012, says “In the ‘Thika Nipatha’ of ‘Anguttara Nikaya’ the word ‘Bhava’ has been described as the formation of ‘Kamma’ for consequences. Also in ‘Gotama Sutta’ in ‘Sanyutta Nikaya’-02, the word ‘Bhava’ has been described as the cause for Birth (‘Bhava Pacchaya Jati’). When the meaning of the word ‘Bhava’ becomes clear, the issue of whether an ‘Arahant’ is deathless or immortal will become clear. In ‘Thera Their Gatha’ of ‘Kuddhaka Nikaya’, Theri Yasodha declares that "Nibbana is devoid of death and attaining ‘Nibbana’ is the root for being immortal."
However, the above statement does not make the meaning of the word “bhava” clear and it does not say in what sense attaining Nibbana becomes the root for being immortal. It is true that Paticcasamuppada says ‘Bhava Pacchaya Jati’ but by that it does not imply that Arhant has another bhava and hence jathi jara marana after an Arhant dies. My understanding of Paticcasamuppada tells me that Avijja paccaya sankara etc., leads to bhava jathi jara marana, and without Avijja there is no sankara and hence no bhava jathi jara marana, if we believe that if A then B, and if not A then not B is the logic of Paticcasamuppada.
Mr. Padmaka Silva states that “ As regards the reason for not answering the question of what happens to an ‘Arahant’ after death, I kindly request Nalin De Silva to read ‘Chula Malunkya Sutta’ in ‘Bhikku Wagga’ in ‘Majjima Nikaya -02’. In it, the Blessed One clearly mentioned the reason for not answering 10 questions, including the above question repeatedly posed to him by one Bhikkhu Malunkyaputta”. I have read this particular sutta and to me it is clear that Malunkayaputta Thera was interested in attaining Nibbana and as far as he was concerned there was no point in answering the “Avyakrtha” Questions. This cannot be considered in an absolute sense and there are instances in Suttas where even questions on “rastra palana” had been answered though there was no relevance of the answers to attaining Nibbana. It has to be mentioned that all suttas are bound by context.
I agree with Mr. Padmaka Silva when he says that “It is important for all of us to be mindful of the fact that ‘Nibbana’ has to be attained by following Noble Eight Fold Path and it is not possible to comprehend what ‘Nibbana’ is through rational argument.” I was only interested in finding out the context in which immortality can be used as another term for Nibbana.
Copyright Prof. Nalin De Silva
