Nirvāṇa
A Sanskrit word meaning, literally, “out-blow,” often mistranslated as “extinction.” The P€li equivalent would be nibb€Ša. The term is used to indicate the complete quiescence of one’s often rather acquisitive emotional nature (called KšMA-MANAS in theosophical literature), which is likened in Therav€da Buddhist writings to a fire, such as in Buddha’s “Fire Sermon.” It is not equivalent to the common Christian notion of Heaven or the Northern Buddhist notion of Sukh€vat…, since it is always defined negatively, being beyond ordinary verbal description. It is equivalent rather to the original meaning of “Kingdom of Heaven” as spoken of in the gospels, as well as to the Hindu moka, or liberation. Nirv€Ša as a term is pre-Buddhistic, as it is also found in the Bhagavad-G…t€ and the Mah€bh€rata. In the former it is equated with union with Brahman, and referred to as Brahman-Nirv€Ša.
Nirv€Ša as a negative state has often been erroneously translated as “annihilation.” It is a transcendent state beyond our ordinary mode of existence or experiencing. It represents a state where greed, hate, delusion, attachment or similar qualities have been extinguished, and thus there is no more rebirth, since there is no more thirst for physical existence. This ineffableness is expressed by Edwin Arnold in The Light of Asia thus:
- If any teach Nirvana is to cease,
- Say unto such they lie.
- If any teach Nirvana is to live,
- Say unto such they err.
Nirv€Ša has often been put in opposition to saˆs€ra or the phenomenal universe. But, as the philosopher Nšgšrjuna has pointed out in his analysis of Therav€da categories, since both saˆs€ra and nirv€Ša are dynamic conditions, both are empty (™nya) of permanent, unchanging reality. Put in the form of an equation, saˆs€ra = 0 = nirv€Ša. In that sense, paradoxically, both saˆs€ra and nirv€Ša are similar, even though they are obviously not exactly the same. In other words, when one attains to nirv€Ša, one does not “go” anywhere, it is one’s perception toward and attitude about the world and the things in it that have changed. But the causes of one’s saˆs€ra no longer exist.
Nirv€Ša is classified into two kinds: sop€dhi-ea nirv€Ša and nirup€dhi-ea nirv€Ša. The former is the attainment of nirv€Ša while still retaining a vehicle or body (up€dhi), while the latter is not. Similarly, nirv€Ša is also distinguished from parinirv€Ša (parinibb€Ša [P], or “complete nirv€Ša”), which is the attainment of final nirv€Ša upon the death of an enlightened person such as a Buddha. The term mah€parinirv€Ša (mahaparinibb€Ša [P]) is used in a similar sense.
In theosophical literature, these two terms, Paranirv€Ša and Mah€paranirv€Ša, refer to certain transcendent states of consciousness or attainment not necessarily connected with physical deaths of Arhats or Buddhas. Helena P. Blavatsky speaks of Paranirv€Ša as the state of rest or pralaya after the great Manv€ntara of 311,040 billion years. It is equivalent to the “Day-Be-With-Us.” Thus it is equated with ParaŠishpanna, the Absolute Perfection, or the unmanifested state of the universe (SD I:42). The Mahatma Letters state that Buddhas can pass periodically into Paranirv€Ša. In the writings of Charles W. Leadbeater, the paranirv€Šic consciousness resides in the Anup€daka plane, while the Mah€paranirv€Šic consciousness is in the Adi plane (Man Visible and Invisible, ch. II).
In the Voice of the Silence, Blavatsky spoke of two paths. The Open Path leads to nirv€Ša, while the Secret Path, through renunciation of nirv€Ša, leads to paranirv€Ša bliss at the end of numerous kalpas (VS, Fragment II). This is the bodhisattvic ideal, the path taken by Nirm€Šak€yas, who, though without a physical body, remain in their intermediate bodies in order to help suffering mankind.
See Buddhism; Theravšda Buddhism.
© Copyright by the Theosophical Publishing House, Manila
