NDM: Can you please tell me how you became interested in Samadhi?

Richard Shankman: I was interested in meditation and began my practice in a yoga ashram. The main practice was breath meditation, what Buddhists call Mindfulness of Breathing (though the yogis did not use this terminology). That has remained the core of my meditation practice for 41 years. Through the breath, samadhi deepens all the way to the jhanas. In addition, awareness naturally opened to include awareness of my body, mind, and states of the heart, to include the entire range of experience. So for me, meditation naturally unfolded to include concentration, mindfulness and insight into a single path of practice.

Meditation does not develop that way for everyone, so a big part of teaching is knowing what is happening for each individual and how to tailor the practice instructions for each unique case.

NDM: Before one begins to practice the jhanas, would you suggest that one begins with other forms of simpler meditation first?

Richard Shankman: In order to answer your question properly I first have to give you some background information on how I teach meditation. I do not teach samadhi and jhana as a type of meditation separate from mindfulness and insight.  It's all unified into a single practice.

Here is a very simplified, basic overview:

I teach breath meditation such that mindfulness, insight, concentration and jhana are all integrated into a single practice. You do not have to separate concentration and insight into separate kinds of practice.

Through breath meditation (you can do this through other types of practice, too) concentration can be guided to deepen all the way to jhana. And right along with that, at each step along the way, the mindfulness is guided to open so you are naturally more and more aware of the body, states of the heart and the mind - the entire four foundations of mindfulness. The mindfulness comes up to meet whatever level of samadhi you have, so that insight meditation is right there along with the concentration practice.

I use mindfulness of breathing as the foundational practice. For those for whom the breath is not a good object, I am open to anything they wish to do or will give suggestions.

I encourage a pretty strong preference for the breath and letting all other experiences stay in the background of our awareness. Through mindfulness of breathing the samadhi will continue to strengthen as far as you want to take it. The complexity comes in because there is huge variation among individuals in how meditation unfolds and what experiences arise. So in most cases it is important to work with an experienced and skilled teacher.

Because I encourage people not to let go of the breath too easily, the times when the mind is settled and clear and it is easy to let other experiences stay in the background will increase. In this way the concentration keeps strengthening and I give a lot of instructions on skillful ways to work as samadhi deepens.

We don't have to turn to some other practice called 'insight' meditation. On its own, there will be lots of times when other things are happening and need tending to and for those times I emphasize not clinging to the breath, but knowing when to let it go. Our experience will tell us what is needed and will let us know those times when it is not about the breath. We switch from mindfulness OF breathing to mindfulness WITH breathing, allowing the breath to come into whatever other experiences we are dealing with. That keeps a continuity of breath in service of samadhi, and also uses the breath as a stabilizing factor to aid us in working with the other foundations of mindfulness. And there may be some times when it is skillful to let go of any awareness of the breath and turn wholeheartedly to work with something else.

Everyone will naturally have lots of opportunities for the insight side since through mindfulness of breathing you are naturally more and more aware of other body experiences and states of the mind and heart. Samadhi can strengthen as far as people can take it, including all the way to jhana, and we also bring in all the insights when working with our suffering.

So, to answer your question, Jhana meditation is simple meditation. I cannot think of another type of meditation simpler that I could start someone with.

NDM: Do you have to take the 5 precepts, or start out on the Buddhist eightfold path to even do this meditation the right way?

Richard Shankman: I cannot state categorically that no one could make good and wholesome progress without having taken the precepts, but it is hard to imagine. I am not sure what you mean by "do you have to . . . start out on the Buddhist eighfold path" to do this meditation. This mediation is part of the eightfold path. Right Samadhi of the Eightfold Path is the Four Jhanas.

NDM: To practice the jhanas, samadhi meditation, what would you say is the appropriate sitting posture one should use? Should it be the classic padmasana as the Buddha used, Full lotus, or half lotus with the Dhyana mudra; or can one use other sitting postures such as Burmese, Siddhasana, or Sukhasana?

Richard Shankman: Sitting posture should be whatever allows you to sit upright without straining, with as much comfort as possible. Jhana is not about making kundalini rise up the spine (which can be worked with if it happens but is generally a distraction) and I very much recommend not trying to hold any mudras (also a distraction).

NDM: Should the tongue touch the roof of the mouth?

Richard Shankman: Don't think about the tongue and let it rest in the mouth however it naturally does.

NDM: The question on the eightfold path as a requisite for practicing samadhi was in reference to yoga and nirvikalpa samadhi.  Being that these two Indian yogis, Alara Kalama and Udaka_Ramaputta, taught Siddhartha these samadhi techniques.

What would you say is the difference with nirvikapla samadhi and the eight jhana for example? Or Yoga and Vedanta, vis a vis Buddhism; concerning a "right" concentration versus a "wrong" concentration?

For example.  Paramahansa Yogananda describes this degree of samadhi as follows:

In the most advanced state [of samadhi], nirvikalpa samadhi, the soul realizes itself and Spirit as one. The ego consciousness, the soul consciousness, and the ocean of Spirit are seen all existing together. It is the state of simultaneously watching the ocean of Spirit and the waves of creation. The individual no longer sees himself as a "John Smith" related to a particular environment; he realizes that the ocean of Spirit has become not only the wave of John Smith but also the waves of all ofter lives. In nirvikalpa the soul is simultaneously conscious of Spirit within and creation without. The divine man in the nirvikalpa state may even engage in performance of his material duties with no loss of inner God-union.

Richard Shankman: Mapping and comparing meditative states from one tradition onto those of another is tricky and we must be very careful. From a practice perspective, one will be speaking from within one's own tradition and from outside of the other, which cannot help but influence one's view.

The description of nirvakalpa samadhi you gave me from Yogananda sounds like the Theravada Buddhist formless attainment known as The Base of Boundless Consciousness, which is the second formless attainment, and the sixth in the eight-jhana progression.

Though Theravada Buddhism has mapped these meditative states very well, from a Buddhist perspective they are not of interest in and of themselves, but are ultimately only of interest in service of liberation (and only the four jhanas, not the formless attainments, are considered important in service of liberation).

Jhana is considered part of the path to enlightenment, whereas the Buddha turned away from the meditative states he attained with Alara Kalama and UddakaRamaputta as not leading to enlightenment, but merely conducing to deep experiences of peace and tranquility. I am not criticizing or judging other meditative traditions, but am just responding to what you said about these two teachers and how that relates to jhana.

Also, keep in mind that, by definition, in order to be called 'jhana' the state has to comprise the characteristics found in the standard definition, the jhana similes and descriptions found in a few other supporting suttas. There are probably many meditative states of deep and profound samadhi that are of value, that are not necessarily jhana, because they don't have the specific qualities in the jhana definition.

Here is a little more general background information from the Buddhist perspective, which I hope will clarify what I'm saying:

We do not use terms such as 'oneness', True Self, Higher Self, Soul, God Consciousness, etc. Realizing the truth for us means deeply realizing impermanence and the selfless nature (emptiness) of all conditioned things, and freeing ourselves from clinging or identification from conditioned, changing phenomena.

 

NDM: You say that Yogananda's description sounds like the Theravada Buddhist formless attainment known as The Base of Boundless Consciousness, which is the second formless attainment, and the sixth in the eight-jhana progression.

 

Yogananda used the word "seen" in his description. So the 6th jhana is when you see as in seen, this infinite boundless consciousness, empty space as a subtle immaterial object. As well as when you feel "one" with it. Indicating that there is still a subject and an object. There is a seer and what is seen. Then this is often mistaken by some people in deep states of samadhi meditation, (6th jhana) to believe that this is what or who one is?

 

For example, sometimes people in these subtle immaterial states see themselves as energy, or flashing bright lights, then believe they are just some kind of conscious energy or light waves, particles, subatomic quarks and so on.  The same way that others may see visions, hallucinations in meditation (makyo in Japanese).
 

Richard Shankman: This is getting into very tricky territory, because these meditative states are subtle and hard to describe accurately. Verbal descriptions can more or less point to the experience, but they are necessarily inadequate. Also, there could be many different experiences that match the verbal descriptions but are quite different. Since you have read my book, I refer you to the opening comments in the interview with Ajaan Thanissaro where he talks about this very articulately.

Since this is subtle terrain in the map of consciousness, I think we have to be very careful about making categorical statements. We can, however, make some general statements.

I don't know how useful it is to try and figure all this out. In the Pali texts, the range of experiences possible in the jhanas is one of the Four Imponderables. From a Buddhist perspective we can have these experiences, which are talked about quite often in the texts, but in the end they are just something else not to cling to.

From the Pali suttas:

". . . a bhikkhu enters upon and remains in the first jhana . . . He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with the body, feeling, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness as impermanent, unsatisfactory . . . void, not self." This same wording is then repeated in reference to the other three jhanas and the formless attainments, including boundless consciousness.

I think there is a range of experiences that could fall under the category of meditative experience you are asking about. To name just two, there is an experience of boundless or universal consciousness in which a sense of the experiencer is retained. It is subtle. There is also an experience which I would describe as pure boundless consciousness, but I'm not sure I would use the terms 'subject' and 'object' at this point. Perhaps there is still a subtle sense of 'I' - I can't say for sure - but mainly there is just consciousness. The experience is not so much that 'you' experience this expanded consciousness. There is just the experience.

 

NDM:  I was just talking to someone who studied and teaches in the Zen tradition.  He was told not to pay any attention to these deeper samadhi states, that they were considered "dead states" and in fact more or less useless and a waste of time. He said the counter sign, (nimitta) was Makyo.  What are your thoughts on this?

 

Also that Zen teaches one way and Theravada another? Which one is the "right concentration" that Buddha spoke of in the Noble Eightfold path? Zazen or samadhi?

 

Richard Shankman: Jhana and samadhi might well be useless within the Zen tradition of the person you talked with. But even if true, you cannot make a categorical statement that they are useless as some kind of universal truth, but only as useless within that person’s understanding and approach to meditation. The Buddha of early Buddhism certainly emphasized those meditative states (which are conditioned, impermanent, etc.) as important in realizing the unconditioned.

You may be aware that there are many types of Zen. In Rinzai, for example, deep states of samadhi are quite important. In Japanese Sotozen (which I'm guessing is the tradition in which the person you talked practices), the idea is that everything is Buddha Nature. The practice is not to realize Buddha Nature, or realize or gain anything at all, but just to express the Buddha Nature that is already here. Therefore, any realization, any gaining, any meditative states are considered purely incidental and of no consequence.

The world of Buddhism, and as far as I can see every other spiritual tradition, has always been full of people criticizing and judging each other. I find it amusing that people seem to have so many opinions about others while not having any direct experience upon which to base it. Unless that person has practiced deeply in the traditions he is criticizing, he is not qualified to have an opinion about them in and of themselves, but only as applied within his own practice.

Samadhi and jhana are simply meditative states - states of consciousness one can experience and which can be used like everything else. They can be sought after, identified with and clung to, or they can simply be useful tools in service of liberation. I wonder if there is anything for your zen friend in this world he would not consider useless. Compassion?Wisdom?  Wholesome and skillful action? Samadhi should be viewed in exactly the same way.

From the Buddha (Pali suttas): "Having released knots, a sage here in the world does not follow any faction when disputes arise. Calmed among those who are not calm, equanimous, he does not take up opinions, saying 'Let others take them up'”.

I don't try to critique one tradition from the perspective of another. As far as I can see, there are people who have come to deep states of enlightenment and liberation having practiced in all the many forms of practice. Theravada Buddhism is quite different in its practice and goals from Sotozen, and each tradition can realize its own ends. Those ends may or may not be the same thing.

In case you are interested, or perhaps you know this: The Pali word 'jhana' is 'dhyana' in sanskrit, 'chan' in Chinese and 'zen' in Japanese. So zen is the 'meditation' or 'jhana' school of Buddhism.

 

Regarding 'nimitta': The counter sign (I don't practice or teach in that tradition, but can talk about it and guide people who do want to practice that way) is certainly a conditioned arising, so is impermanent, inherently unsatisfactory and empty. It is not considered to be anything more than a tool. In the Visuddhimagga it has a specific purpose, but is not identified with or considered to be more than it is. The term nimitta appears in the Pali suttas, but means 'theme' or 'basis' or 'sign' of something. It never means a mental image that appears in meditation. That is from the Visuddhimagga, not the suttas.

 

NDM:  Would you say that stage seven is when one realizes that what is "seen/experienced" in the seventh jhana is also just a much more subtle immaterial version of what is seen/experienced in stage six.?

 

This is how David N. Snyder, Ph.D described it here for example: The Seventh Jhana, No-thingness The seventh jhana is entered by realizing that the content of the infinite consciousness is basically empty of any permanent nature. We also realize that there is no thing either. There is nothing in the universe that has any permanent essence to it. We realize that everything is in constant flux."
 

Richard Shankman: No I would not say that stage seven is when one realizes that what is "seen/experienced" in the seventh jhana is also just a much more subtle immaterial version of what is seen/experienced in stage six. It is a distinct meditative state of nothingness, in which the experience of boundless consciousness is gone.

Regarding your second question: the formless attainment of nothingness is not a state of insight in which the empty or 'no-thing' nature of experience is realized. It is not a stage of insight into the nature of conditioned phenomena, but simply an experience of nothingness. I have never heard of it described as David Snyder does. Perhaps Snyder has either had the experiences he is talking about or is interpreting the descriptions he has studied. In any case, he is labeling a certain meditative experience as the seventh attainment, whereas I would not put that label on that experience. It may be a deep or profound experience but I don't call it an aruppa.

 

NDM: When you say that stage 7 is simply an experience of no-thingness, how do you mean this?

Richard Shankman: I am not calling it 'no-thingness', I am calling it 'nothingness'.

NDM: Ok, in which the experience of boundless consciousness has gone, by boundless "consciousness" and nothingness.

Richard Shankman: Boundless consciousness and nothingness are two different states.

NDM: Are you referring to a state/stage/condition of no things, no noumena, internal objects, such as no thoughts, no feelings, no sensations, no emotions, no mental images of any kind arising? A blank slate consciousness without any attributes?

Richard Shankman: I would not use the word 'blank', because boundless consciousness is not blankness.

NDM: Meaning it is more like an infinite, empty screen that these images, sensations, feelings would be projected onto. Like an empty substratum of some kind? Like a blank piece of paper, a void, Sunya as they say in Sanskrit? Shunyata in Japanese?

Or do you mean by a realization of "impermanence" annica or "selflessness" anatta")? That in reality one is empty, impermanent.  That in reality there is no self.

Richard Shankman: No. I call the realization of impermanence, selflessness, emptiness, etc. insights. We are not talking about insights. We are talking about experiences of boundless consciousness and nothingness. That is why I do not use the term 'no-thingness', which has the connotation of insight, of perceiving the empty nature of phenomena. In these formless attainments, there is no phenomena experienced other than the state of boundless consciousness or nothingness itself.

NDM: Would you say that this 7th jhana was closer to being, A. Realization or B. Experience or C. Both?

Richard Shankman: It depends on what you mean by 'realization'. Again, the jhanas are important tools allowing insights/realizations to arise, but in and of themselves they are just conditioned mental states.

 

NDM: Can you tell me about the 8th jhana.  Specifically what you mean by cessation and that there is no perception or non perception. Do you mean this as with being unconscious or in deep sleep?

 

Richard Shankman: They should not be confused with being unconscious or in deep sleep. They are among the most subtle of conditioned experiences, beyond the limitations of verbal and conceptual categories. I recommend leaving them described simply as states of 'neither-perception-nor-non-perception', to be experienced for those interested (not necessary for liberation) but not prone to useful descriptions.

 

NDM: What about yoga-nidra, Conscious deep sleep?  What are your thoughts on this? Do you see any similarity with yoga-nidra and the way Buddha spoke of this?

 

Richard Shankman: In general, Yoga traditions have their own practices and goals, and it is hard to map them onto the landscape of Buddhist meditative states. Some of the meditative states they cultivate may be similar to certain meditative states in various Buddhist systems of practice.

I'm not qualified to comment on yoga nidra since I don't practice in that tradition. From the verbal descriptions I would not equate it to any of the jhana states.

Jhana is not a state of deep sleep.
 

NDM: So if Stage 8 is not being unconscious or in deep sleep, and as you put it "the most subtle of conditioned experience", then  who or what is it that is having this experience if the mind/body is not there?

Richard Shankman:  I did not say the mind is not there. The term 'mind' has so many meanings and connotations that I don't like to use the term. I don't know what the mind is.

NDM: To have an experience would imply that there is an experience and an experiencer?

Richard Shankman: There can be an experience without the duality of an experience and an experiencer. That is actually  what is happening all the time, whether you are in some deep, subtle meditative state or regular, daily life consciousness. That is the great illusion, that there is someone having the experience or a duality between subject and object. You do not have to be in some meditative state for this illusion to be broken. The subject/object dichotomy can be seen through even in ordinary consciousness.

NDM: Yes, but if this is the case then who or what is the experiencer?

Richard Shankman:  An illusion of 'one' who is the experiencer. There is a flow of conscious experience, which arises moment by moment due to causes and conditions and which gives rise to a sense of 'one who is having the experience'.

NDM: And what is the experience of, if this is beyond conceptual thought? For example, in Advaita Vedanta, nirvikalpa samadhi is not considered an experience. It is an ineffable non-dual experience-less experience.

 

Richard Shankman: It is understandable that you want to get a conceptual handle on this, but I think we are going round and round a bit. I appreciate that you want to understand these experiences and to have the right words that convey accurately and precisely what this is.

I'm afraid you will not get much help here from anyone. The advaita Vedanta quote you gave is not any more help - "an ineffable non-dual experience-less experience". What does it mean to be "an ineffable non-dual experience-less experience"? Since 'ineffable' means incapable of being expressed in words, as I said, the problem is that these states are beyond concepts. All we can do is feebly try to use words the best we can to merely point towards the thing itself. They are meant to be realized, not conceptually grasped. So I'm afraid you, along with everyone else, must be satisfied to have vaguely worded descriptions. Then, hopefully you have access to very precise and clearly understood practices leading you to direct knowledge of whatever path you seek.

 

It sounds like the nirvakalpa samadhi of advaita may be the same as these highest stages of formless jhana. The difference appears to be that Buddhism sees these as conditioned states often mistaken for nirvana, but not ultimate reality, whereas advaita considers these to be enlightenment. Forgive me if I mis-characterize advaita. I am not arguing one against the other, and in fact, have no opinion about advaita.

NDM:  Yes, but traditional Advaita Vedanta, (not "neo Vedanta" or "neo advaita") does not consider these fleeting meditative non-conceptual experiences to be "enlightenment" or nirvana either.  See article by Dennis Waite.

Can you please tell me about your book, The Experience of Samadhi: An In-depth Exploration of Buddhist Meditation. What inspired you to write this book? Richard Shankman: There was and still is a lot of confusion in the Buddhist community about samadhi and how it relates to insight meditation. This is because there is more than one system in the Pali tradition, one based on the Visuddhimagga and another that does not interpret the Pali suttas through the lens of the Visuddhimagga. These two systems share some things in common, but are very different. The relationship between concentration and insight meditation and the jhana states themselves are quite different in these two systems.   My book was written to help end the confusion. It examines the range of teachings in the source texts, exploring the Pali suttas and the Visuddhimagga each on their own terms without reference to the other, and then compares them. It then addresses the main controversies surrounding samadhi. Finally, I interview eight well-known teachers - four monastic and four lay teachers - so we can see the range of ways meditation is actually taught. It is clear that there are two distinct systems and paths of meditation even with Theravada Buddhism. We cannot judge either system from the perspective of the other, but only from within its own framework.

The Experience of Samadhi: An In-depth Exploration of Buddhist Meditation.

NDM: How do you interpret this passage from the Potthapada Sutta below about how to attain cessation? What do you think Buddha means by perception?  What is it that perceives if there are no thoughts there to perceive?

 17. ‘Pohapāda, from the moment when a monk has gained this controlled perception, he proceeds from stage to stage till he reaches the limit of perception. When he has reached the limit of perception it occurs to him: "Mental activity is worse for me, lack of mental activity is better. If I were to think and imagine, these perceptions [that I have attained] would cease, and coarser perceptions would arise in me. Sup-pose I were not to think or imagine?" So he neither thinks nor imagines. And then, in him, just these perceptions arise, but other, coarser perceptions do not arise. He attains cessation. And that, Pohapāda, is the way in which the cessation of perception is brought about by successive steps.

Richard Shankman: The passage your quoted occurs in the beginning sections of the sutta. Potthapada asks the Buddha about a controversial issue of the time on the cessation of perception and the Buddha answers. But that is just the starting point. The Buddha then proceeds to steer the discussion away from the cessation of perception, which is not the goal of Buddhist teaching and practice, and towards ending the acquisition of, or we could say creating, a self. The Buddha is starting from where the questioner is and moving them towards the liberating realizations he teaches.

NDM:  I came across this quote, "There is no Vasana in Brahman. Complete annihilation of the Vasanas takes place only in Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Only Nirvikalpa Samadhi can completely fry up the seeds of impure Vasanas. Through the knowledge of Brahman, there will be an extinction of all Vasanas, which form the medium of enjoyments. With the extinction of all Vasanas, the undaunted mind will get quiescence like a gheeless lamp."

 

What are your thoughts on this? Do you believe that the 8th jhana will wipe out the vasanas like 10 fetters outlined in Theravada Buddhism for example?

Richard Shankman: There is disagreement about whether jhana is a necessary condition for the utter destruction of the kilesas and asavas. Jhana may or may not be a necessary condition, but jhana (any of the jhanas) is certainly not a sufficient condition. There are many people who have attained the various jhana states but whose minds are not freed from greed, hatred and delusion.

NDM: So then in order to utterly destroy these kilesas and asavas, one would have to follow the other 7 factors of the eightfold path as well as right concentration/meditation?  Such as outlined in the Path of Purification, the Visuddhimagga.

Richard Shankman: Yes.  But not necessarily as outlined in the Visuddhimagga.  As I discussed above, the Visuddhimagga presents one interpretation of the path outlined in the Pali suttas, but one that is not universally accepted in Theravada Buddhism as being the ‘correct’ approach to the path of practice.

 NDM: Concerning the kilesas and asavas, or samskaras/vasanas, is it possible to awaken to the “Buddha nature” so to speak while still having these afflictions? 

Richard Shankman:  You would have to clarify what you mean by ‘Buddha Nature’ in order for me to answer.

NDM: Ok. In Zen teachings, the Mahayana school and in some of the Tathagatagarbha scriptures, the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra for example, the Buddha-nature is defined as Self which is permanent, blissful and pure. There is also a reference in the Anguttara Nikaya to a "luminous mind", present within all people. The  Lankavatara Sutra also describes the Arahant womb (tathagatagarbha) as  "by nature brightly shining and pure," and "originally pure". This Buddha-nature is described in the Mahaparinirvaa Sutra to be incorruptible, uncreated and indestructible. It is eternal awakeness.

Richard Shankman: The suttas you quote are all from Mahayana Buddhism. Notice that the language you quote, of 'incorruptible, uncreated, and indestructible. It is eternal awakeness', is similar to yogic and Advaita descriptions. Pali Buddhism does not use this language or paradigm. Nibbana is pointed toward but retained as undefined. It is meant to be realized through utterly eliminating any clinging or identification with conditioned phenomena. Then, the ultimate reveals itself.

NDM: Is this the ineffable nature, Self, infinite boundless mind, immaterial essence, the ultimate; what is sometimes experienced/known, glimpsed, recognized, realized for a lack of a better term(s) as a result of experiencing the 8th jhana?

Richard Shankman: The problem with mapping these subtle jhana states with the Mahayana system and view of the ultimate is that some of the jhana states match these verbal descriptions, and these conditioned states can easily be confused for the unconditioned. This is why we don't talk in these terms in our system, and why I would not try to map the jhana system onto this Mahayana system.

Here is a quote from "Serenity and Insight" by Amadeo Sole-Leris, which I hope will be helpful (I think this book is out of print):

"The Ultimate achievement taught by the Buddha is inexplicable, in the literal sense of the word, because it does not fall within the verbal-conceptual categories that we are bound to use for intellectual communication and understanding. Consequently, every effort to explain nibbana within the framework of these categories, every attempt to apprehend it conceptually, is, by definition, pointless. It is also inevitably misleading since, in trying to fit the inexplicable into some kind of intellectually understandable mold - i.e. into some kind of, literally, 'conceivable' category - all that happens (and it has happened time and again in the history of Buddhist thought) is that it is 'explained' by being subjected to all sorts of philosophical, religious and linguistic deformations, all of them conditioned by the cultural environment or tradition from which they spring.

"Thus one finds, at the more superficial level, the facile identifications of 'nirvana' as simply a paradise, as a mystic union with the godhead, as the realization of Atman/Brahman identity, or as a total annihilation. A variety of more or less sophisticated 'interpretations' along such lines has been propounded . . . So, nibbana 'with elements of existence has been variously interpreted as a metaphysical experience, as a mystic experience, as a hypnotic state, as a temporary annihilation, as a state of superconsciousness (of an absolute All, or of an absolute Nothing), and nibbana 'without elements of existence'. i.e. upon the dissolution of the body, as a state of conscious bliss, as a paradisaical eternity, as eternal sleep, as annihilation pure and simple, as a merging back into an absolute Ground, as a definitive union with a Supreme Consciousness, as the annihilation of the 'self' in the realization of the 'Self', etc.

"All this is in striking contrast to the Buddha's own attitude . . . [but] since words have to be used for purposes of communication, even the Buddha himself sometimes could not avoid having to say something about nibbana .

. . When compelled to do so, the Buddha would resort only to the simplest, soberest terms: nibbana, and this is the crux of the matter, is the end of suffering. No other positive statement can usefully be made about it."

For more info visit

 www.richardshankman.org