On Samsāra And Nirvāna

“There is no distinction whatsoever between samsara and nirvana; and there is no distinction whatsoever between nirvana and samsara.
The limit of nirvana and the limit of samsara: one cannot even find the slightest difference between them”
(Nāgārjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, XXV, 19-20)

According to the Middle Way philosopher Nāgārjuna, there is no distinction between samsāra and nirvāna: they are both in the nature of non-self, empty of inherent existence; this statement makes perfect sense from an ontological point of view. However, it must be pointed out that in epistemological terms, there are important differences. Whereas nirvāna is by definition unconditioned, unborn and uncreated (and therefore eternal), samsāra, being a conditioned phenomenon, is subject to arising and ceasing. By ‘eternal’ (in brackets) I mean that it is a reality not subject to change.

The Mahāsānghika and Sarvāstivāda schools of early Buddhism asserted the existence of two types of nirodha (i.e., nirvāna): pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (realised cessation) and apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (unrealised cessation). The former type of nirodha is achieved by eliminating afflictions; the latter refers to that underlying reality that manifests when the causes of dukkha have been completely eliminated. These schools, unlike Theravāda, recognise three (or more) asamskrtas: the two types of nirodha and space (ākāsa).

According to Patrul Rimpoche, the Madhyamaka school asserted the existence of four types of Nirvāna: 1) Natural nirvāna, that is, the empty nature of phenomena, free from all conceptual elaboration. 2) Aparatiṣṭhita-nirvāṇa: Non-permanent nirvana is the nirvana of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, beyond the extremes of samsaric existence and quiescence. 3) Sopadhiśeṣanirvāṇa: nirvana with remainder, the attainment of an arhat who has transcended suffering but has not yet abandoned psychophysical aggregates and continues to experience the effects of past karma and 4) Nirupadhiśeṣanirvāṇa: nirvana without remainder that is achieved when the arhat abandons aggregates and enters the realm of cessation. However, the Madhyamaka Prasanghika is the only school that affirms the existence of natural Nirvāna.

---

Nirvāna, although experienced subjectively through the mind, is not a mere mental construction or a mere designation (prajñaptisat), as claimed by the idealist schools of indian Buddhism such as the Sautrantika and Yogacara. It is a designation with a referent. Our consciousness perceives a natural state that has always been present, but was not perceived because of the presence of obscurations.

For example, just because a person does not notice the cobra hiding in the darkness behind the curtains in their room, it does not mean that the cobra was not in that room. In fact, it was already there, regardless of whether the householder was aware of its presence, so much so that that cobra could attack and bite that man at any time without him noticing.

Thus, nirvāna is not just a state of mind; it is the subjective experience of a natural reality, so to speak. This natural reality is known as tathātā (Tality). Tathātā is the nature that characterises phenomena as a whole. Surprisingly, for the Theravāda (see the Book of Controversies or Kathāvatthu), tathātā is not a non-compound (asankhata); for the Theravada, there is only one non-compound, namely, nirvāna. This means that for early Theravadins such as Mogallipiutta Tissa, nirvāna and tathātā were two different concepts. In fact, Theravāda Buddhism does not seem to have placed much emphasis on the doctrine of tathātā, despite the fact that one of the best-known epithets with which the Buddha is referred to, Tathāgata, is a clear reference to it. In contrast, for the Uttarāpathaka, tathātā is an asankhata dhamma that cannot be identified with either mind or body, just like nirvāna.

I personally do not regard these things as dogmas or doctrines to be uncritically refuted or accepted, but rather as practical tools for liberation. As Ven. Buddhadāsa said: ‘tathātā is simply the way things are, the truth of all things: When you see tathātā, you see the three characteristics of anicca [impermanence], dukkha [suffering] and anatta [non-self], you see sunnata [emptiness] and you see idappaccayata [specific conditionality]. Tathātā is the synthesis of all: simply thus, only thus, non-alternity’.