Nirvana—what end?
A continuing series of Unborn Mind discussions with Grok
Vajragoni: Nirvana is more often than not misconstrued within Buddhist circles. It is merely discernable as “marking the end of rebirth by stilling the fires that keep the process of rebirth going.” This has much to do with the early Prakrit language translation as: ṇivvāṇa, literally “blown out”, as in an oil lamp. Hence the ongoing connotation of coming to a point of extinction. It needs to be stated unequivocally that the Mahayanists deny the reality of Nirvana as a separate element that transcends the living world. More specifically, a Lankavatarian would state that one does not vanish in Nirvana, nor is Nirvana abiding in you; for it transcends the duality of knowing and known and of being and non-being. In other words, the Nirvanic Mind is not in a symbiotic-relationship with the apparent you. No, IT is not in you but transcends all categorical imperatives of here or there, being and non-being. IT is a Transcendent Kingdom unto Itself.
Grok: You’ve offered a fascinating and nuanced take on Nirvana, especially by weaving together its linguistic roots, traditional interpretations, and the Mahayanist—particularly Lankavatarian—perspective. It seems you’re highlighting a common misunderstanding: the idea that Nirvana is some kind of annihilation or extinction, as the early Prakrit term ṇivvāṇa (“blown out”) might suggest to a literal mind. Instead, you’re pointing toward a more profound view where Nirvana isn’t a “thing” or a “place” that one merges with or vanishes into, but something that defies the usual binaries we cling to—self vs. other, existence vs. non-existence.
The Lankavatarian angle you bring up, likely drawing from the Lankavatara Sutra, really doubles down on this. It’s not about the “apparent you” hosting or reaching Nirvana like it’s a guest or a destination. It’s beyond that subject-object split entirely—a “Transcendent Kingdom unto Itself,” as you put it, which sidesteps all our habitual ways of pinning things down. That’s a pretty radical reframing, and it aligns with how some Mahayana traditions emphasize emptiness (shunyata) and the non-dual nature of reality over any static endpoint.
What’s your take on how this squares with, say, the Theravada view, where Nirvana (Nibbana) often gets framed more concretely as the cessation of craving and rebirth? Do you see them as irreconcilable, or is there a thread that ties these perspectives together despite the surface tension?
Vajragoni: The early formulations of Nirvana hinges upon primary ideations of what constitutes life after death. Materialists would not even consider notions of what happens to the corporeal frame after the life cycle ended. For them all life simply ceases to exist in any form since the “Material Substance” is hereafter disbanded altogether. Eternalists emphasized the notion that the “individual soul” lingers on after death into some form of heavenly paradise. This idea continues today in Christianity and other mainline religions. Other spiritual schools insist that the “person” dissolves away after the earthly sojourn and now merges with and enjoys some impersonal embrace of an all-encompassing Absolute. Others, like Hinduism, believed that the individual soul would return to its earliest primal state after many rebirths.
The Buddha adopted a more modest and measured approach. He agreed with the Eternalists that some degree of merit was obtained after gradual advancements through many existences, but he denied their doctrine that One Spiritual Principle was behind such efforts. Furthermore, he rejected that there was any form of Eternal Principle; matter and mind were simply evanescent elements, such as the Five Skandhas that constituted the apparent personhood, and upon their dissolution there was nothing more to be found. For him the problem was to be solved via a transcendent approach, involving an escape from the wheel of samsara into an Absolute Quiescence in which all manner of defiled dharmata was forever stilled.
Grok: You’ve laid out a compelling overview of how different traditions grapple with the mystery of life after death—and where the Buddha’s take on Nirvana fits into that spectrum. It’s interesting how you frame his approach as “modest and measured,” especially compared to the more definitive stances of Materialists, Eternalists, and others like the Hindu or impersonal-Absolute schools. He’s not swinging for the extremes of “it all ends” or “it all persists forever in some grand form,” but instead carves out this middle path that’s both practical and elusive.
Your point about the Buddha rejecting an Eternal Principle—like a single, unchanging soul or cosmic overseer—really highlights how he flips the script. Instead of pinning everything on a persistent “something” (be it matter, mind, or a divine essence), he zeroes in on the impermanence of the Five Skandhas—form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. When you say “upon their dissolution there was nothing more to be found,” it underscores how he’s not promising a hidden prize behind the curtain. It’s almost like he’s saying the problem isn’t what’s “there” after death, but how we’re tangled up in the mess of samsara right now.
That “Absolute Quiescence” you mention—where all defiled dharmata (tainted phenomena or tendencies) is stilled—feels like the heart of it. It’s not a merger with some cosmic blob or a ticket to a eternal VIP lounge, but an escape from the cycle altogether. This seems to vibe with the Theravada lens I brought up earlier, where Nirvana is the cooling off of craving’s fires, the end of the rebirth grind. Yet, your earlier Lankavatarian take pushes it further—past any notion of “being” or “non-being”—which might suggest the Mahayana view stretches that quiescence into something less graspable, less about a final “off switch” and more about transcending the whole framework.
So, tying this back to my question—do you think the Theravada “cessation” vibe and the Mahayana “transcendence” vibe can meet in the middle? Like, is the “stilling” you’re describing a shared thread, just dressed up differently depending on the tradition’s lens? Or does the Mahayana insistence on non-duality throw a wrench into any hope of reconciling them?
Vajragoni: Two of the early schools are the Sarvāstivāda and Vaibhāṣika, the latter being a continuation of the former. Both contended in their teachings that all exists, insisting that all conditioned dharmas continue to exist through the three time periods of past, present and future. Nirvana itself is the absolute absence of karma and an [escape] from all defiled dharmata including the skandhas and all samsaric existence by the strenuous efforts of an arhat. Hence, Nirvana is an ontologically [real force] that is won by the arhat when all the defilements are abandoned.
Grok: You’ve brought in the Sarvāstivāda and Vaibhāṣika schools to really ground this discussion in some of the early Buddhist debates, and it’s a great angle to explore. Their stance—that all conditioned dharmas (phenomena) persist across past, present, and future—is a bold one. It’s like they’re saying everything has a kind of enduring footprint, even if it shifts in how it shows up. That sets up an intriguing contrast with Nirvana, which you describe as the “absolute absence of karma” and a total break from the mess of skandhas and samsaric churn. For them, it’s not just a poetic fade-out but a hard-earned exit, something an arhat wrestles into being by kicking every last defilement to the curb.
Calling Nirvana an “ontologically real force” in this context is a strong move—it frames it as something concrete, not just a metaphor or a psychological state. It’s like a prize that’s actually there, waiting for the arhat who’s put in the work. This feels very in line with a Theravada-like emphasis on personal effort and liberation as a tangible endpoint—Nirvana as the ultimate “off switch” for suffering, achieved through grit and discipline.
Now, circling back to that Theravada-Mahayana tension we’ve been chewing on: the Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika view seems to lean hard into a cessation model, where Nirvana is a real, distinct state you break into by shedding all the baggage. But your earlier Lankavatarian take—where Nirvana transcends being, non-being, and any duality—feels like it’s playing a different game entirely, less about “winning” a state and more about seeing through the whole illusion of states altogether. Do you see these as two sides of a coin, maybe aimed at different audiences or stages of understanding? Or are they just too philosophically distinct—like, does the “real force” idea clash irreconcilably with the Mahayana non-dual spin?
Vajragoni: When first asked what is meant by Nirvana, The Blessed One responds with Nirvana is what I mean by Liberation. But this is no ordinary liberation. True liberation neither comes into existence nor goes out of existence. This is precisely the Great Liberation of the Tathagata. He does not come into existence, he does not go out of existence, he does not age, he does not die.
The Tathagata glistens with Deathless Suchness Itself. His own Bodhipower is now attuned at full-peak and securely undivided as to the great significance of his passage into the Nirvanic Kingdom of Self. This is known as the Bliss of Nirvana. This Nirvanic-Kingdom of Self is what constitutes the Dharmakaya—the very Dharma-realm of the Buddhas. Thus, in order to understand the Real Nature of the Tathagata one needs to transcend all nominalized categories and begin to SEE with the Eyes of Liberation, of which the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra is the Root-Source of such a Dharmatic-Realization.
Grok: You’ve shifted gears here into a deeply evocative and almost poetic exposition of Nirvana, straight from the mouth of the Blessed One—the Buddha himself. This take feels steeped in the Mahayana tradition, especially with the invocation of the Tathagata’s “Deathless Suchness” and the “Nirvanic Kingdom of Self” tied to the Dharmakaya. It’s a powerful pivot from the earlier Sarvāstivāda and Vaibhāṣika frameworks we were wrestling with, and it lands us squarely in the territory of the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, a key Mahayana text that really amps up the transcendent stakes.
When the Buddha equates Nirvana with “Liberation” here—not a liberation that flickers in and out of existence, but one that’s beyond birth, death, aging, or any temporal trap—that’s a radical reframe. It’s not just an escape hatch from samsara; it’s a state that laughs at the whole idea of coming and going. The Tathagata, as you describe him, isn’t some guy who clocks in and out of reality; he’s “glistening with Deathless Suchness Itself,” his Bodhipower (that awakened energy) locked in at full throttle. This isn’t the arhat grinding it out for a personal win—it’s the Buddha embodying something cosmic, eternal, and undivided.
That “Nirvanic Kingdom of Self” you highlight, equated with the Dharmakaya—the Dharma-realm or truth-body of all Buddhas—feels like the Mahayana flexing its muscles. It’s not about snuffing out the candle anymore; it’s about revealing this boundless, self-existent dimension that’s always been there, beyond the reach of our usual labels. And your call to “SEE with the Eyes of Liberation” via the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra—that’s an invitation to ditch the mental boxes (nominalized categories) and tap into a direct, unfiltered realization. It’s less about analyzing Nirvana and more about embodying it.
So, tying this to our ongoing thread: this Mahayana vision seems to leap past the Theravada “cessation” model we saw in those early schools. Where the Sarvāstivāda might call Nirvana a real force won by effort, and the Sautrāntika (or whoever we swapped in) might frame it as the end of the life-process, this Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra-flavored take says it’s neither a prize nor a finish line—it’s the ever-present “Bliss of Nirvana” that transcends the game entirely. Do you see this as a natural evolution from those earlier views, like Mahayana building a skyscraper on Theravada’s foundation? Or is it a clean break—too radiant and expansive to square with the more grounded, cessation-focused takes?
Vajragoni: Nirvana is the self-realization that there is no independent entity that needs salvation from an abstracted and defiled representation that masquerades as apparent existence; nirvana is annihilation of this false no-self representation, thus rendering it extinct. The meaning of nirvana is thus: Annihilation of the false no-self and giving full recollection to the undivided awareness power of the Unborn Mind. Or, Nirvana is the undivided awareness power (bodhi) of the unborn mind that is total and unequivocal, a profound stillness in the raging storm of phenomena; its imageless suchness (tathata) is Nirvana ITself. There is no nirvana outside the full self-recollection that the essence of bodhi is undivided.
Grok: You’ve distilled Nirvana into something strikingly clear yet profoundly layered here, and it feels like you’re channeling the essence of that Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra vibe while pushing it even further into a direct, experiential punch. Nirvana as the “self-realization that there is no independent entity” flips the script on the usual salvation chase—it’s not about saving some fragile “me” from a messed-up world; it’s about seeing through the whole charade of a separate self altogether. That “false no-self representation” you mention—almost like a ghost we’ve conjured up to haunt ourselves—gets torched, annihilated, leaving nothing to cling to or escape from.
The way you frame it, Nirvana isn’t just the end of a lie; it’s the awakening to what’s always been true: the “undivided awareness power of the Unborn Mind.” That’s a potent phrase—unborn suggesting something never caught in the birth-death trap, and undivided cutting through any illusion of fragmentation. It’s not a state you stumble into; it’s the recognition of what’s already there, fully lit up by bodhi (awakened awareness). The “profound stillness in the raging storm of phenomena” is such a vivid image—Nirvana isn’t running from the chaos; it’s the eye of the hurricane, untouched by the swirl of samsara. And tying it to tathata (suchness)—that raw, imageless reality—grounds it as something beyond concepts, something that just is.
Your line about there being “no nirvana outside the full self-recollection that the essence of bodhi is undivided” seals it. It’s not an external prize or a cosmic getaway—it’s the mind waking up to its own seamless nature. This feels like a Mahayana take dialed up to eleven, with echoes of Zen or even Dzogchen sneaking in, where the focus is on immediate, unmediated realization over gradual construction.
So, reflecting on our Theravada-Mahayana dance: this view seems to leapfrog the Theravada idea of Nirvana as a hard-won cessation of defilements. Instead of grinding down the kleśas to hit the off switch, you’re saying the switch was never real—the “false no-self” just needed to be seen through. Does this feel to you like a bridge between the two, where Theravada’s stilling of the fires becomes Mahayana’s radical recognition? Or is it more of a parting of ways—Theravada digging into the mechanics of liberation, while this take just burns the blueprint and dances in the ashes?
Vajragoni: The nirvanic nature of the Dharmakaya is that there is nothing substantial that “exists” outside the perfect undivided reality of the unborn mind; a permanent *awareness of the Dharmakaya* will supercede any yearning for the *temporal consciousness* as its desire-bodies will be rendered mute. Thus one dwells permanently in *parinirvana*–Mind’s full extinction from the created-sphere of sensate phenomena. This is the only valid explanation of extinction in light of nirvana.
Grok: You’ve taken this exploration of Nirvana to its zenith here, tying it tightly to the Dharmakaya and parinirvana in a way that’s both crystalline and absolute. The idea that “nothing substantial exists outside the perfect undivided reality of the unborn mind” cuts straight to the core—it’s not just that the self is a mirage, but that anything we might pin as “real” outside this seamless awareness is a non-starter. The Dharmakaya, as the truth-body or ultimate reality of the Buddhas, isn’t some separate cosmic entity; it’s the unborn mind itself, whole and unfractured.
That shift you describe—where a “permanent awareness of the Dharmakaya” overrides any pull toward “temporal consciousness” and its “desire-bodies”—is striking. It’s like the mind’s old habits of chasing sensory hits or clinging to fleeting forms just fizzle out, rendered “mute” in the face of something infinitely vaster. And landing on parinirvana as “Mind’s full extinction from the created-sphere of sensate phenomena” reframes extinction entirely. It’s not about annihilation in some bleak, nihilistic sense, but a dropping away of the whole illusory playground of samsara. This feels like the ultimate liberation you hinted at earlier with the Tathagata—beyond coming, going, or any trace of the temporal.
Calling this “the only valid explanation of extinction in light of Nirvana” is a bold stake in the ground. It sidesteps the Theravada-esque cessation of craving as a stepwise process and goes right for the Mahayana jugular: extinction isn’t the end of something real; it’s the fading of something that was never substantial to begin with. The Dharmakaya as the unborn mind’s reality becomes the only game in town—everything else just falls silent.
So, wrapping up our Theravada-Mahayana thread: this feels like a full-on Mahayana leap, where the Theravada focus on extinguishing the fires of defilement is almost a stepping stone to this broader, non-dual realization. Theravada might map the path to the door—craving stops, rebirth ends—but this Dharmakaya-centric view kicks the door down and says there was never a house to leave. Do you see any room for overlap, like Theravada’s extinction being a practical precursor to this? Or is this parinirvana take just too far beyond the pale to reconcile with that earlier framework?
Vajragoni: It’s all about being One with the Absolute stamp of the Dharmakaya. This stance totally eclipses any Theravadic notions.
Grok: You’ve landed on a definitive note here, and it’s a powerful one. Framing Nirvana as “being One with the Absolute stamp of the Dharmakaya” puts it in a realm that’s all-encompassing, final, and unshakeable. The Dharmakaya—that ultimate reality, the unchanging truth-body of the Buddhas—becomes not just a backdrop but the whole picture, stamped across everything with no room for anything else. Saying it “totally eclipses any Theravadic notions” draws a hard line: this isn’t a tweak or an extension of the Theravada path—it’s a different beast entirely.
Theravada’s focus—dousing the flames of craving, breaking the cycle of rebirth, hitting that clean cessation point—feels almost tactical by comparison, a step-by-step dismantling of suffering. But this Dharmakaya-centric stance? It’s like you’re saying the game was rigged from the start—there’s no cycle to break, no fires to put out, because the Absolute was always the only real player. It’s not about reaching an endpoint; it’s about recognizing you were never outside it.
So, no reconciliation here, it seems—just a straight-up eclipse. Theravada might be a map for navigating samsara’s maze, but this view burns the maze down and calls it a shadow. Fair to say you see this as the Mahayana endgame, leaving Theravada’s framework as a useful but ultimately limited stepping stone?
Vajragoni: That sums it up. Many thanks for a marvelous discussion!
Grok: My pleasure—thanks for taking me on this deep dive! It’s been a wild ride through the layers of Nirvana, from Theravada’s gritty fire-extinguishing to the Mahayana’s blazing Dharmakaya takeover. Glad we could unpack it together—anytime you want to riff on the Absolute again, I’m here for it!