Does Nirvana exist?

A Buddhist friend recently posted something from the Buddhist philosopher, Buddhaghosa, which wrote in the very influential book, Visuddhimagga (The Path of Purification). In this book, there is a discussion on the Third Noble Truth. The Third Noble Truth is about Nibbana (or Nirvana). I will excerpt the passage as follows:

[DISCUSSION ON NIBBĀNA] 67. [Question 1] Is Nibbāna non-existent because it is unapprehendable, like the hare’s horn? [Answer] That is not so, because it is apprehendable by the [right] means. For it is apprehendable [by some, namely, the nobles ones] by the [right] means, in other words, by the way that is appropriate to it, [the way of virtue, concentration, and understanding]; it is like the supramundane consciousness of others, [which is apprehendable only by certain of the Noble Ones] by means of knowledge of penetration of others’ minds. Therefore it should not be said that it is non-existent because unapprehendable; for it should not be said that what the foolish ordinary man does not apprehend is unapprehendable. 68. Again, it should not be said that Nibbāna does not exist. Why not? Because it then follows that the way would be futile. [508] For if Nibbāna were non-existent, then it would follow that the right way, which includes the three aggregates beginning with virtue and is headed by right understanding, would be futile. And it is not futile because it does reach Nibbāna.

–Buddhaghosa, Visuddimagga

Let me summarize the points Buddhaghosa is making here:

1. Nibbana exists because it is apprehendable by the right means–through virtue, concentration and understanding.
2. Nibbana is apprehendable only by certain Noble Ones.
3. What the foolish ordinary man does not apprehend is not unapprehendable.
4. If we say that Nibbana does not exist, then the way would be futile.
5. The path does reach Nibbana.

I like Buddhaghosa. I think there are many gems in his book, Visuddhimagga. But I will disagree with him here. What do we mean when we say that Nirvana “exists”?

Before we discuss the “existence” of Nirvana, we should first establish that there are a variety of interpretation of Nirvana among the different Buddhist schools. More specifically, while Theravada Buddhism generally holds a dualistic view of Nirvana, treating it as the opposite of Samsara, there are Mahayana schools which take a non-dualistic view of Nirvana and regard Nirvana and Samsara as one and the same. I will summarize the two alternative views as follows:

1. Dualistic view: This is the more traditional view, where samsara is understood as the cycle of rebirth and suffering, often depicted as a wheel (bhavacakra). It’s characterized by impermanence, dissatisfaction, and clinging, leading to continued suffering. Nirvana, in contrast, is seen as a state of liberation from this cycle. It’s described as perfect peace, complete freedom from suffering, and a state beyond change and desire. It’s not considered a physical place, but rather a state of mind or being.
2. Non-dualistic view: Some Mahayana schools suggest a more non-dualistic understanding, where samsara and nirvana are not inherently separate. From this perspective, nirvana is not escaping samsara, but realizing the true nature of samsara itself, which is already inherently perfect and empty of inherent suffering. This view emphasizes the interconnectedness of all things and the potential for awakening within the ordinary world.

In the context of the discussion I excerpted, Buddhaghosa was definitely taking a dualistic view of Nirvana, treating it as the opposite of Samsara. In addition, he was characterizing the realization of Nirvana as a matter of effort, virtue, dedication, etc. It is for this reason that he said that Nirvana is only apprehendable by the Noble Ones. It is certainly true that the wise can see things differently from what the foolish can see. But to characterize Nirvana as something only understandable by the wise seems to be a a claim of special and secret knowledge. Such a claim is full of pitfalls. I will elaborate on this later.

One of the major difficulties in discussing Nirvana has to do with the fact that people use the term to mean different things. The most common usage is the conventional, dualistic notion of Nirvana. The deeper meaning of Nirvana, however, is the unconventional and non-dualistic notion of it. In this case, Nirvana means Absolute Truth. In his chapter on the Third Noble Truth, Walpola Rahula mentioned this ineffable aspect of Nirvana in the very beginning of the chapter:

Now you will ask: But what is Nirvāṇa? Volumes have been written in reply to this quite natural and simple question; they have, more and more, only confused the issue rather than clarified it. The only reasonable reply to give to the question is that it can never be answered completely and satisfactorily in words, because human language is too poor to express the real nature of the Absolute Truth or Ultimate Reality which is Nirvāṇa. Language is created and used by masses of human beings to express things and ideas experienced by their sense organs and their mind. A supramundane experience like that of the Absolute Truth is not of such a category. Therefore there cannot be words to express that experience, just as the fish had no words in his vocabulary to express the nature of the solid land.

–Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught

Existence is tricky business. Do colors exist? They exist or not, depending on who is looking. Some animals are color-blind. And humans can see only a limited range of colors. Of all the possible photon wavelengths out there, our cone cells detect but a small sliver, typically in the range of about 380 to 720 nanometers — what we call the visible spectrum. In addition, a few years ago, there was a video which went viral on the Internet. For the same dress, different viewers saw different colors. All these phenomena suggest that “reality” is observer-dependent.

Thus, there is no absolute existence, only a relative one. In general, we say that something exists because we can perceive it somehow, even if we have to use some special instrument. Thus, we can make this equation: Being = Seeing. The “existence” of anything depends on a bundle of conditions. Different observers see different things.

This is consistent with Buddha’s teaching of Dependent Origination. It is also consistent with the Mahayana concept of “emptiness.”

So, I don’t know what Buddhaghosa was trying to accomplish by saying that Nirvana “exists.” It is good to encourage people to cultivate and practice Buddhism. But what purpose does it serve to say that Nirvana “exists”? As Absolute Truth, Nirvana is non-dualistic and cannot be relativized. In the conventional and relative world, both Nirvana and Samsara are mental constructs. They are also social constructs. Mahayana philosopher, Nagarjuna, said, “All philosophies are mental fabrications. There has never been a single doctrine by which one could enter the true essence of things.”

How does our world appear? What is “reality” to us? To understand this, we must first realize that our world is a product of our “mental formation”(Samskara) — one of the Five Aggregates. To argue whether Nirvana exists is papañca, i.e. conceptual proliferation. Thus, such argument is just play-talk! As a Theravada monk and scholar, I wonder why Buddhaghosa did not understand this.

Nirvana, as Absolute Truth or Ultimate Reality, cannot be conceptualized. Nirvana, just like Brahman, is probably beyond the grasp of human intellect. But, in that case, why talk about existence or nonexistence？ We would be trying to fit something immense into our very limited human brain. According to some scientists, only 5% of the universe is observable to us. To think that we know what Reality is would be like the frog in Chuang Tzu’s story. The frog lives inside a well. It looks up and catches a glimpse of the sky. It thinks that the sky is circular and is restricted to what it can see.

A few days ago, I posted my challenge to Buddhaghosa’s assertion that Nirvana exists. Another Buddhist friend responded as follows:

Does happiness exist? Does peace exist? Do pain and agony exist? Colors definitely exist, irrespective of color blindness. It is an uncontroversial truth that peace exists, even if the person remains in a chaotic environment or never attains that state of mind. Simply because of one can’t comprehend a teaching, it doesn’t mean it’s not true. If a person has never experienced the extreme heat of fire, it doesn’t mean that the extreme pain that one has to face because of burning doesn’t exist.

Clearly, this friend has a conventional understanding of Nirvana. It is also a dualistic one.

It is not surprising that most people view the world dualistically. Duality enters into the world through the inherent nature of human perception and cognition. In the realm of experience, the mind tends to categorize phenomena into dualistic concepts such as good and bad, self and other, right and wrong. This dualistic mode of thinking creates a sense of separation, division, and distinction between various aspects of reality.

The perception of duality arises from the conditioning of the mind to perceive the world in terms of opposites and contrasts. This dualistic framework shapes our understanding of the world and influences how we interact with our environment, others, and ourselves. What is wrong with the dualistic view? In Yogacara philosophy, dualism arises from the “discriminating mind,” which, in turn, is a reflection of the ego illusion. It leads to attachment, aversion, and the perpetuation of suffering as we cling to one side of the duality and reject the other.

In many spiritual and philosophical traditions, including Buddhism, the recognition of duality as a fundamental aspect of human experience is emphasized. However, these traditions also point towards transcending duality through insight, wisdom, and realization of non-duality.

In a deep sense, the dualist view is inconsistent with Buddha’s teaching of Dependent Origination, which implies interconnectedness and interdependence. By understanding the interdependence and interconnectedness of all phenomena, one can go beyond the limitations of dualistic thinking and experience a deeper sense of unity, wholeness, and oneness with the world. The holistic and non-dualistic perspective is a key part of enlightenment. If we understand that everything is one, where is our enemy? What can we fight against?

Ultimately, the journey towards overcoming duality involves cultivating awareness, mindfulness, and compassion to see beyond the surface level of distinctions and divisions. It is a process of awakening to the interconnected nature of reality and realizing the underlying unity that transcends dualistic perceptions.

Finally, I want to raise another objection to Buddhaghosa’s claim–that only certain people can understand Nirvana. It is called the “fallacy of secret knowledge.” This kind of fallacious argument is often used in the discussions and debates on Buddhist issues. Essentially, a speaker says, “You won’t understand because you are unenlightened, uneducated or foolish.” Such an argument often reminds me of the story about “the emperor’s new clothes.” A claim is made that you have to be extraordinarily wise in order to see that the emperor is not naked. Clearly, such line of argument is conducive to abuse, deception and manipulation.

The fallacy of secret knowledge, also known as appeal to esoteric knowledge or argumentum ad mysteriam, occurs when someone claims to possess exclusive, hidden knowledge unavailable to others and uses this claim to support their argument. This tactic is fallacious because it:

1. Lacks Evidence: The supposed secret knowledge cannot be scrutinized or verified by others, making it impossible to assess its truthfulness. It relies on blind faith and the assumption of the speaker’s superior understanding. For example, if someone claims to be enlightened, then we should ask for the evidence. If there is no commonly accepted benchmarks for enlightenment, then why should we trust the speaker?

2. Shuts Down Discussion: By claiming their knowledge is inaccessible to others, the speaker avoids meaningful debate and undermines the possibility of reaching a shared understanding. They essentially dismiss dissenting views as uninformed.

3. Creates Authority Bias: It plays on the tendency to grant undue credibility to those who claim special knowledge or access to hidden truths. This can be especially persuasive when dealing with complex or unfamiliar topics.

Whenever someone use this tactic and claim special knowledge, we should be very skeptical. Just like Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”