I thank Prof. Y. Karunadasa for taking time to write a second installment on 8th February 2012, as an answer to the queries I raised on 5th January 2012. However, I am somewhat disappointed as he has said he would not be able to take time off from his busy schedule at the University of Hong Kong to answer any further questions on the topic. Though it is very unlikely that I would attain Nibbana at the end of the discussion, I would have preferred to carry on with it at least to gain some knowledge not on Nibbana but around or about Nibbana. Perhaps this type of discussion drifts us away from Nibbana and it would have been more helpful to engage in Bhavana rather than writing articles. However, I wish to take up the use of immortality as another term for Nibbana as I do not seek immortality in the ordinary sense at the end of samsara.
Now let us go to the beginning of the discussion. It all began with Professor Karunadasa stating “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” in his article on the 28th of December 2011. Though there was no problem with the statement that Nibbana is unconditioned (asankatha), unless the sense in which “deathless” or “the immortal” is used is clarified, employment of those words as two other terms for Nibbana could give a wrong impression to the reader. As the distinguished Professor had not given the context in which immortality had been used, I queried the statement that “the immortal” is another term for Nibbana. Professor Karunadasa had not stated the particular sutta where it was stated and I was somewhat bewildered by the statement. I had no problem whatsoever with the fact that Buddha had lived for forty five years after attaining Nibbana but it does not imply that the Buddha was immortal in the ordinary sense of the world. I said in my article on 5th January 2012 “An Arhant is not immortal in the ordinary sense of the word. What has to be made clear, if possible, is the difference between Sopadhisesa Nibbana and Anupadhisesa Nibbana and what happens to an Arhant after death.”
In his article on the 18th of January 2012 the learned Professor attempted to clarify what is meant by immortal being another term for Nibbana. I quote at length from this article as it is the most important piece Prof. Karunadasa wrote. “In which sense should we understand ‘the deathless’ or ‘the immortal’ (amata) as another expression for the Nibbanic experience. This will become clear if we examine the position of the Arahant (the one who has attained Nibbana) in relation to the five aggregates, the aggregates into which Buddhism analyses the empiric individuality. When we are in samsara as unenlightened beings we identify our ego-consciousness with the five aggregates in three different ways: ‘This is mine’ (etam mama); ‘this I am’ (eso’ham’asmi); ‘this is my self (eso me atta). The first is due to craving (tanha), the second due to conceit (mana), and the third due to wrong view (ditthi). When we do thus the five aggregates become five aggregates of grasping. There is nothing wrong with the five aggregates. They become a problem only when we grasp them, only when we cling to them. Nibbana can also be described as the giving up of the three-fold grasping of the five aggregates. The Arahant makes use of the five aggregates without imposing on them thoughts of ‘this is mine’, ‘this I am’, and ‘this is my self.’ This means that he/she makes use of the five aggregates without declaring ownership over them… … When one attains Nibbana, the five impermanent aggregates do not become permanent. They continue to be impermanent as they have always been. Impermanence in itself is certainly not a problem. It becomes a problem only when we consider what is impermanent as permanent This the Buddha calls ‘the perception of permanence in impermanence’ (anicce nicca-sanna). In the same way, the absence of a soul is not a problem. It becomes a problem only when we perceive what is not soul as soul. This the Buddha calls ‘the perception of soul where there is no soul (anatte atta-sanna)’. What prevents the attainment of Nibbana is not the nature of actuality but our unwarranted assumptions which do not conform to the nature of actuality. It is in this context, I believe, that we need to understand why the Nibbanic experience is deathless/immortal.”.
Does it mean that the immortal is another term for Nibbana? As the Professor says “Nibbana can also be described as the giving up of the three-fold grasping of the five aggregates”, but it says nothing of immortality in the ordinary sense of the word. It is true that when one attains Nibbana, the five aggregates continue to be impermanent as they have always and that impermanence becomes a problem only when we consider what is impermanent as permanent. An Arhant as long as he continues to live, the five aggregates continue be impermanent though he makes use of them. However, that does not mean that the Arhant will continue to use the five aggregates without grasping them after the death. The “fact” that the Buddha lived for forty five years without clinging to the five aggregates does not mean that the Buddha lives ever even after Parinibbana without clinging to the five aggregates. I must state that Prof. Karunadasa does not make any such statement but when he says after stating that Arhant uses five aggregates without grasping them, “it is in that context we need to understand why the Nibbanic experience is deathless/immortal”, the reader is bewildered. This type of immortality reminds us some Mahayana versions of Buddhism and unless we are careful we would end up with various types of athmavada and pudgalavada while at the same time stating as rhetoric that the problem is the perception of soul where there is no soul (anatte atta-sanna). Does an Arhant live forever either in the same bhava or in different bhavas, without perceiving a soul where there is no soul? If that were so then, I am afraid it cannot be differentiated from uccedavada.
Having said the above Prof. Karunadasa came out with the statement that in Buddhism death meant not only the encounter with death but phobia of death. As I have stated in the article on the 25th of January if by immortality it is meant that Arhant has no phobia of death and nothing more, then it causes no problems. However, in addition to what has been quoted above Prof. Karunadasa makes the following statements as well. “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. In common with many other religions, Buddhism too has as its final goal the gaining of immortality. However, since Buddhism does not recognize a permanent self-entity or an immortal soul, the Buddhist idea of immortality assumes a new dimension. It cannot be the perpetuation of a self/soul into eternity. On the contrary, it turns out to be its very opposite. It is the complete elimination of the ego-consciousness which manifests as ‘this is mine’, ‘this I am’, and ‘this is my self’”. There is no logic in the example on tables as I have already demonstrated in my article on the 25th of January and the categorical statement that Prof. Karunadasa makes to the effect that he does not agree with those who interpret immortality as absence of rebirth makes the reader to believe that there is some kind of rebirth (punabbahava), as he does not contradict the statement using catuskoti logic. If he had said that neither he agreed with those who think that there is a rebirth then that would have made some sense to readers familiar with catuskoti logic. For Prof. Karunadasa, Buddhist idea of immortality is elimination of the ego-consciousness which manifests as ‘this is mine’, ‘this I am’, and ‘this is my self’. However, Arhants have eliminated this ego-consciousness though they are not immortal, unless one assumes that the Arhants even after parinibbana continue to have the five aggregates without using them. It is in order to clarify this I wanted to know what happens after an Arhant dies and the difference between Sopadhisesa Nibbana and Anupadhisesa Nibbana. Unfortunately the second installment of the answer of Prof. Karunadasa published on 8th February 2012 totally ignores the difference between Sopadhisesa Nibbana and Anupadhisesa Nibbana and does not help the reader to understand “the postmortem condition of an Arhant”. In his article on 8th February 2012 he quotes at length from a few suttas without answering the problem. I will deal with the contents of these suttas that addressed Vacchagotta, Anuradha and Kaccayana in a different article. There is another sutta this time by Venerable Arhant Sariputta addressing Yamaka Thera, which could be considered as an extension of Anuradha sutta that is important in the present context. The Buddha had to be careful in dealing with these individuals and had to avoid both uccedavada and shasvathavada and moreover catuskoti logic, as it could have given rise to misinterpretations. I will try to explain these problems hopefully in the article mentioned above.
I shall end this article by mentioning that the above four suttas addressed, let me say, four argumentative individuals and were not for a bigger audience. In Ratana Sutta with which most of us are familiar, we come across the following stanza. "Their past (kamma) is spent, their new (kamma) no more arises, their mind to future becoming is unattached. Their germ (of rebirth-consciousness) has died, they have no more desire for re-living. Those wise men fade out (of existence) as the flame of this lamp (which has just faded away). This precious jewel is the Sangha. By this (asseveration of the) truth may there be happiness” (Ven. Piyadassi Thera’s translation). The simile of fire in the Vacchagotta Sutta is not different from the example of the lamp in the above stanza. Then we also have in the Udana Vakya the following. “Knowledge arose in me, and insight: my freedom is certain, this is my last birth, now there is no rebirth (punabbhava)”. It is clear that Buddha had given a different interpretation to immortality, as people were interested in becoming immortal, as in words such as Brahmin and Arya. If there is no punabbhava then there is no death as well. The problem was to covey this to the argumentative people without getting trapped in uccedavada and shasvathavada.(12/02/15)
Copyright Prof. Nalin De Silva
