Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
So what did the Buddha mean when he said "There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned." To shorten the phrase: "There is a not-born." Further, given the other Nibanna Sutta talks about "There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air [...] Not fixed, not movable, it has no support.", it seems like this "not-born" that Buddha stated exists (via him having said "There is a not-born") has nothing to do with material existence and further is neither created nor destroyed.
You and Richard have completely mixed up the Hindu moksha with Buddhist nirvana.
As I explained, Buddhist nirvana (extinguishment) is not "The Unborn" but not-born. It is not "The Deathless" but death-free. It is not an immortal entity existing without beginning into forever and a day. It is rather the freedom from, the cessation of, the relinquishment of, suffering.
Birth, death, afflictions are all part of the 12 links of dependent origination. With the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of all the links leading to any planes of rebirth, whether it be this world or another world.
There is a freedom from smoke, a not-hot, an absence from light. And what is that freedom? It is precisely this: the extinguishing of the flame on the candle. It is not the case that there is an eternally existing something that is not hot, etc. It is that the extinguishing of flame - precisely that - is freedom from heat, precisely that is the not hot, not bright, etc. being spoken about. If there were no freedom from heat, then we would be stuck with heat, but instead we discover that all we have to do is to put out the candle flame and there we have it - the freedom from heat, or light, or smoke.
There is a not-born, not-conditioned, death-free. And what is that? Precisely this: the extinguishing of craving, aggression, delusion, identity, grasping. It is not the case that there is immortally existing entity that is deathless. Rather it is that there is a base which can be attained or achieved conventionally speaking, and the attaining of this base IS freedom from birth and death, from the samsaric cycles of rebirth and suffering. And what is that base that entails freedom from samsara? Not the base of infinite consciousness, nor the base of nothingness or neither-perception-nor-non-perception, nor is it even the temporary base of the cessation of feelings and perceptions. Rather, that base is precisely and only this: the extinguishing of craving, aggression and delusion. If there were no such base, where there is complete cessation of the twelve afflictive links or the nidas, then we will surely be stuck in birth, ageing, sickness and death forever and ever. But fortunately there is this freedom from ageing, birth, sickness and so on. And yes, it may be called a "base" or "element" (but actually as later explained it should be translated as 'principle' rather than 'element') but it simply means this: the cessation of defilements driving afflictive births.
If nirvana could be some immortal entity, then it could not have been defined time and time again, in plain and simple words, to be: the elimination of craving, aversion and delusion. Time and time again the Buddha has reiterated that he has only ever taught about suffering and the end of suffering, which he clearly explained is the elimination of craving. This statement by Buddha couldn't have been clearer:
And what, monks, is the death-free (amata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the death-free.In addition, the Buddha described two elements of Nibbana. The Nibbana element with residue remaining is the destruction of lust, hatred, and delusion attained by a Noble One (arahant), with the residue itself being a reference to "his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and plain". The Nibbana element without residue remaining is that which “all that is felt, not being delighted, will become cool right here” (Iti 44). The common interpretation is that the first Nibbana element is attained when the Arahant/Noble One is still alive, and the latter comes in the passing away of the Noble One. However, as Geoff mentions, there is an alternative interpretation:
To paraphrase Ven. Ñāṇananda, it's not that an arahant gets half of nibbāna upon awakening, and the other half when s/he dies. Upon awakening they have already "gone out," they are "cool," and they have reached "the end." Even parinibbāna can be used to refer to a living arahant.
The dhamma isn't about some sort of thanatos desire to attain completion in the grave. It's about realizing "the end" here and now. It's clear that before an Arahant becomes enlightened, he does not experience the end of dukkha. So obviously, the experience of enlightenment is born - has a beginning - namely, it comes when the Arahant becomes enlightened.
The knowledge and insight that led to disenchantment and dispassion was born, dispassion being born, that led to the knowledge of the destruction of all defilements. The knowledge of the destruction of defilements was born, however the destruction of defilements was not born - the extinguishing/cessation of craving is not conditioned, not born, etc. Upon the extinguishing of craving, there is a knowledge 'the craving is extinguished'. Just like a person will definitely have the knowledge when the pain in your left foot has suddenly subsided. This knowledge is being born, the extinguishing of craving however is not born, not conditioned, etc, for it is the cessation of affliction, and not the birth of anything. Again, the not-born is not 'the unborn', the death-free is not 'the deathless' - the not-born is akin to the no-smoke of extinguishing a fire. In extinguishing the craving i.e. nirvana, there is an absence of conditions or afflictive manifestations. It is a negation, not a positive something.
It could be said that the cognition of nirvana has a beginning, as Geoff puts it: "the object-basis of supramundane consciousness isn't some sort of "Unconditioned Realm" existing somewhere outside of time and space. Rather, it is a cognition which perceives the absence of specific fetters."
End of dukkha/Nirvana itself is not an experience since nirvana is 'cessation' and not a 'thing', however, that fact of cessation can be known, and that knowledge is an experience. And that supramundane consciousness or knowledge is not something ultimately existing like some sort of Brahman, for that supramundane consciousness/knowledge having arisen, also do fall away and are impermanent.
Clearly then the Buddha was not talking about the experience of being enlightened, but something else.
Being enlightened is not a word in the Buddha's dictionary. He never said 'I'm enlightened'. He said 'I'm awake'. Awakening, or knowledge and vision of things as they are, is being born, and that knowledge results in the cessation of ignorance and the whole chain/links of afflictive dependent origination. Awakening and nirvana go hand in hand - there is no awakening without some form of termination [the number of fetters terminated depends on which path you achieved], there is no termination of fetters without knowledge and vision.
Thus right besides awakening is nirvana, which is just this: the elimination of craving, aggression and delusion. But it is not the nirvana you had in mind. There is no such nirvana in the suttas as being some immortal metaphysical existent.
And it sounds like he is saying it would be impossible to become enlightened - to end dukkha - without there existing this not-born that he goes into great detail to describe.
Again, not 'the unborn' but 'not born'. And what is 'not born' 'death free' etc? The Buddha defined it very clearly and precisely: the extinguishing of the three poisons.
Obviously, this is something you cannot grasp to to become enlightened - I think if you cling to Nibanna you become merely an Anagami - but now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever seen a sutta that denies the existence of this not-born not-conditioned, etc, it's always only been commentaries or people expounding on how they understand the suttas.
Neither suttas nor commentaries nor I deny not-born, not-conditioned, or nirvana. However, the assertion of Nirvana as some ultimate metaphysical existence has no place at all in Buddha's teachings. Not-born is not 'the unborn'. Death-free is not 'the deathless'. Freedom, release, liberation, is what is being taught. That is what Buddhists aim to achieve. Of course, if there were no such freedom, then our whole spiritual path would be for nothing. The Buddha assures us that there is indeed such a freedom.
Okay, and in the sutta I quoted, nibanna is very clearly, very precisely, defined as "that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air", etc. It's not uncommon for one sutta to not include all different ways of describing the same thing. For example, the
Ariyapariyesana Sutta does not refer to the four noble truths, yet Thanissaro Bhikku takes an opportunity in the introduction to say "the lack of reference to the four noble truths does not indicate that they were not actually involved in the Awakening or the first sermon."
Nibbana is a synonym for extinguishment. It is about cessation. The "base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air" is simply the extinction of the defilements that led to the twelve links of dependent origination. The Buddha said this: "I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling in space to reach the end of the world where there is no birth, aging and death. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering without reaching the end of the world. The world, the beginning of the world, the end of the world, and the way leading to the end of the world is all within this fathom-long body, with its perception & conception." -AN 4.45
Imo, there can be no 'end of the world' without actualizing the realization of twofold emptiness into real-time liberation. As for what exactly the 'end of the world' is like, please refer to Geoff's (Ñāṇa) post - 2nd post in this page: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6382&start=320
I understand that words like "a base" can sound like there is an immortal something but as I shall explain it does not mean anything like that. Words like "a base" used to describe nirvana does not imply an ultimately existing entity that is immortal etc any more than the base of infinite space, the base of infinite consciousness are "ultimately existing entity, etc" - as we know those formless jhanic bases are all impermanent and conditioned. The base of nirvana is not impermanent or conditioned but not because it is "The Unconditioned Deathless Thing" but precisely because nirvana/extinguishment is not conditioned, it is freedom from conditions. Therefore, describing it as a "base" or "principle" that is free or absent of the twelve afflictive links does not imply there is an ultimately existing immortal something. Whenever you think of nirvana, just think of extinguishing of a flame. Its a great analogy given by Buddha himself.
You should read this:
http://community.dhammaloka.org.au/showthread.php/432-Nibbana?s=1a638d713a5f8115199abbc50cf3d736
Dear Dania,
I feel a bit awkward criticizing Ven. Bodhi. I consider him as one of my main teachers of the Dhamma. For a long time I have been reading his writings and much of my comprehension of the Dhamma is due to his excellent translations and commentaries. I have a great sense of gratitude towards him and much respect. At the same time, I suppose there comes a time when a student has gained enough understanding to stand on his own two legs. So perhaps in this case it would not be wrong to present my own understanding of this issue.
It seems to me that the main mistake Ven. Bodhi makes here is to give a direct answer to a question that is based on a misunderstanding. There is an exchange between Ven. Sāriputta and Ven. Mahākotthita in the Anguttara Nikaya (AN4:173) which makes this very point:
(1) "Friend, with the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases for contact [that is, the death of an arahant], is there anything else?"
"Do not say so, friend."
(2) "With the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases for contact, is there nothing else?"
"Do not say so, friend."
…
(1) "Friend, if one says: ‘With the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases for contact, there is something else,' one proliferates about that which is without proliferation [i.e. final Nibbāna]. (2) If one says: 'Friend, with the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases for contact, there is nothing else,' one proliferates about that which is without proliferation.
So these very questions are just proliferations; they are misconceived. The Dhamma is not about attaining or not attaining an existing reality. It’s about ending suffering. The reason why anyone is concerned about what happens when the arahant dies is because of their sense of self. The sense of self makes us perceive the death of an arahant either as annihilation or some sort of eternal existence. Once the false sense of self is removed, one no longer perceives the death of an arahant in either of these ways, and the concern about what happens to them after death just falls away. I feel Ven. Bodhi should have pointed this out rather than try to answer the question. That would have been much more useful for the inquirer’s understanding of the Dhamma.
Having said this, I also do not find Ven. Bodhi’s arguments persuasive. Before I consider Ven. Bodhi’s individual points, I should point out a general danger in arguing that Nibbāna is “an existing reality”. It is impossible to conceive of a reality beyond the six senses, at least for non-ariyans. For this reason, any idea of Nibbāna as an existing reality will by default be understood in terms of the eternal continuation of one or more of the five khandhas. The result of this will often be attachment to a refined form of the five khandhas, in particular refined states of samādhi, and taking this as Nibbāna. So the best thing to do is to put this question aside and instead practice the path until one penetrates non-self. Only when one sees this will one understand that the very question was misconceived.
Now let me try to reply to some of Ven. Bodhi's points.
The Buddha refers to Nibbana as a 'dhamma'. For example, he says "of all dhammas, conditioned or unconditioned, the most excellent dhamma, the supreme dhamma is, Nibbana". 'Dhamma' signifies actual realities, the existing realities as opposed to conceptual things.
The full quote that Ven. Bodhi is referring to reads: “To whatever extent there are phenomena conditioned or unconditioned, dispassion is declared the foremost among them, that is, the crushing of pride, the removal of thirst, the uprooting of attachment, the termination of the round, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, nibbāna.” (AN4:34) Here, as is common in the suttas, Nibbāna is used synonymously with nirodha. Nirodha means “cessation”, the very opposite of a “reality existing in itself”. To fit in with this, Nibbāna must simply refer to “extinguishment”, which is its literal meaning, rather than to an existing reality.
However, the unconditioned dhamma is not produced by causes and conditions.
“Extinguishment” is unconditioned because it is not dependent on conditions. That is, it is “free from the conditioned”, which is probably a more appropriate translation of asankhata than “unconditiooned”. Once Nibbāna is achieved, it is irreversible, and thus asankhata.
The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as an 'ayatana'. This means realm, plane or sphere.
Āyatana often does refer to a “realm, plane or sphere”, but not always. For example at AN9:46, saññāvedayitanirodha, “the cessation of perception and feeling” (which is the cessation of the mind), is called an āyatana. Here the word āyatana simply seems to point to the fact that such cessation is possible. In this context āyatana cannot refer to a “realm”; rather it refers to the ending of all realms. Again, when Nibbāna is called an āyatana (which actually is very rare; the most celebrated occurrence being Ud 8:1), it is probably used in the same way as nirodhāyatana, and it is perhaps best translated as “the principle of extinguishment“.
The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as a 'dhatu,' an element, the 'deathless element' (amata-dhatu).
The word dhātu, too, is used in a variety of contexts, and the translation “element” is often not suitable. These contexts include saññāvedayitanirodhadhātu (“the dhātu of the cessation of perception and feeling”), avijjādhātu (“the dhātu of ignorance”), nirodhadhātu (“the dhātu of cessation”) and then there is the passage jātipaccayā bhikkhave jarāmaranaṃ uppādā vā Tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā Tathāgatānaṃ ṭhitā va sā dhātu (“monks, from the condition of birth, there is old age and death; whether Tathāgatas arise or not, that dhātu persists”) (SN12:20). In all these cases “principle” might be the most suitable translation of dhātu. Given this wide usage of the word dhātu, it is not given that nibbānadhātu must refer to something existing. Rather, “the principle of extinguishment” might again be a suitable translation.
He also speaks of Nibbana as something that can be experienced by the body, an experience that is so vivid, so powerful, that it can be described as "touching the deathless element with one's own body”.
In my understanding of the sutta idiom, this expression (“experienced with the body”; kāyena phusati) means “direct experience”, i.e. in contrast to inferential understanding. Even the attainment of full cessation (saññāvedayitanirodha) is said to be experienced “with the body”, that is, “directly” (AN4:87). In this case, presumably, the meaning is that you experience the process of entering and emerging from cessation. The meaning of directly experiencing the amatadhātu, “the death-free principle”, should probably be understood in the same way.
The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as a 'state' (pada), as 'amatapada' - the deathless state - or ‘accutapada’, the imperishable state.
In the main Nikāyas, this expression only occurs in verse, once in the Dhammapada and once in the Theragāthā. It is very difficult to draw any conclusion on the basis of such rare usage, but I would suggest that pada here is used like dhātu is used above, and that it therefore should be understood in the same way.
Another word used by the Buddha to refer to Nibbana is 'sacca', which means 'truth', an existing reality.
Again, there is also nirodha-sacca, which is the third noble truth, which is Nibbāna.
In sum, Nibbāna is very closely related to nirodha, and they are frequently used as synonyms. There is little indication that they should be understood as referring to different realities. On the contrary, when they are respectively translated as “extinguishment” and “cessation”, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they must be referring to the same thing.
I think one of the main reasons people tend to see Nibbāna as a “state” is that most translations into English leave Nibbāna untranslated. I believe this is a mistake. The word Nibbāna in itself is meaningless to English speakers, and thus they will tend to read almost anything into it, in particular the idea of an existing “something”. Once you translate Nibbāna with “extinguishment”, it becomes much more difficult to read inappropriate ideas into it. Nobody, as far I know, understands nirodha, “cessation”, as some kind of “state”. In the same way, if we read “extinguishment” rather than Nibbāna in the English translations, I believe we would be much less likely to regard it as a “state”.
With metta.
Obviously the Buddha (the Tathagata) died, in that his physical body died. Why then would he go through all the trouble to say that his existence or non- doesn't apply after death? Maybe he is talking about some sort of non-physical existence? Because physically, the answer is obvious - his body died.
No that is wrong.
The reason that the Buddha negated the four extremes (existence, non-e, both e and non-e, neither e nor non-e) is very very clearly stated and explained by himself:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html
..."What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
"No, lord."...In other words: there has never been a Tathagata to begin with! There has never been a real Tathagata, a real self, anywhere. Tathagata is a mere convention, a linguistic convention, for communication, it does not represent some reality.
If there were no self to begin with, how could there be death or a self that annihilates into non-existence? As Geoff stated earlier,
Simply stated: when ignorance ceases, belief in self simultaneously ceases. And when there is no self to be found, then there is no self to die or take birth.And if there were no existing self to begin with, how could there be an existing self after death?
And as Nagarjuna paraphrases the Buddha:
“The Tathagata is not the aggregates; nor is he other
than the aggregates.
The aggregates are not in him nor is he in them.
The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates.
What Tathagata is there?”
And the answer is clear cut: There isn't! Tathagata is a mere convention, a mere word for an assemblage! There has never been a real self. And this is a crucial insight for attaining to stream entry, once returner, non returner, and arahant. Without such knowledge there can be no liberation. Without such knowledge, one would have grasped onto a self-view.
As the Vajira Sutta states:
Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil One," replied to him in verses: "Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found. Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.' It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases."As Chandrakirti states:
"A chariot is not asserted to be other than its parts,
Nor non-other. It also does not possess them.
It is not in the parts, nor are the parts in it.
It is not the mere collection [of its parts], nor is it their shape.
[The self and the aggregates are] similar."
And Padmasambhava states:
"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.
It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.
This is not the case, so were the second true,
That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.
As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.
The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."
It's more like saying "there is that which is not a flame, otherwise there would be no escape from a flame." Here you could simply move to somewhere where there is not a flame to escape from it. Likewise, Buddha was saying there is that which is not-born, not of the earth, no sun, no moon, etc., so to escape from dukkha, all you have to do is move from where there is birth, earth, sun, moon, etc., to where there is no birth, earth, moon, sun, etc. Clearly this is not a physical movement as they still existed as bodies when they became enlightened.
No, that understanding is without basis in the scriptures. Nirvana is merely the extinguishing of passion, aggression and delusion, and having extinguished this, the result of craving - which is the entire mass of dukkha, ceases as well.
The entire Buddhist path is summed up in the four noble truths.
.............
Edit: more wall of text to make this a record breaking longest DhO post:
http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana01.htm
But nowhere in the suttas do we get this sort of etymology and interpretation. On the other hand it is obvious that the suttas use the word Nibbàna in the sense of `extinguishing' or `extinction'. In fact this is the sense that brings out the true essence of the Dhamma.
For instance the Ratanasutta, which is so often chanted as a paritta, says that the Arahants go out like a lamp: Nibbanti dhãrà yathàyaü padãpo.[16] "Those wise ones get extinguished even like this lamp."
The simile of a lamp getting extinguished is also found in the Dhàtuvibhaïgasutta of the Majjhima Nikàya.[17] Sometimes it is the figure of a torch going out: Pajjotass'eva nibbànaü, vimokho cetaso ahu, "the mind's release was like the extinguishing of a torch."[18]
The simile of the extinction of a fire is very often brought in as an illustration of Nibbàna and in the Aggivacchagottasutta of the Majjhima Nikàya we find the Buddha presenting it as a sustained simile, giving it a deeper philosophical dimension.[19] Now when a fire burns, it does so with the help of firewood. When a fire is burning, if someone were to ask us: "What is burning?" - what shall we say as a reply? Is it the wood that is burning or the fire that is burning? The truth of the matter is that the wood burns because of the fire and the fire burns because of the wood. So it seems we already have here a case of relatedness of this to that, idappaccayatà. This itself shows that there is a very deep significance in the fire simile.
Nibbàna as a term for the ultimate aim of this Dhamma is equally significant because of its allusion to the going out of a fire. In the Asaïkhatasaüyutta of the Saüyutta Nikàya as many as thirty-three terms are listed to denote this ultimate aim.[20] But out of all these epithets, Nibbàna became the most widely used, probably because of its significant allusion to the fire. The fire simile holds the answer to many questions relating to the ultimate goal.
The wandering ascetic Vacchagotta, as well as many others, accused the Buddha of teaching a doctrine of annihilation: Sato sattassa ucchedaü vinàsaü vibhavaü pa¤¤àpeti.[21] Their accusation was that the Buddha proclaims the annihilation, destruction and non-existence of a being that is existent. And the Buddha answered them fairly and squarely with the fire simile.
"Now if a fire is burning in front of you dependent on grass and twigs as fuel, you would know that it is burning dependently and not independently, that there is no fire in the abstract. And when the fire goes out, with the exhaustion of that fuel, you would know that it has gone out because the conditions for its existence are no more."
As a sidelight to the depth of this argument it may be mentioned that the Pàli word upàdàna used in such contexts has the sense of both `fuel' as well as `grasping', and in fact, fuel is something that the fire grasps for its burning. Upàdànapaccayà bhavo, "dependent on grasping is existence".[22] These are two very important links in the doctrine of dependent arising, pañicca samuppàda.
The eternalists, overcome by the craving for existence, thought that there is some permanent essence in existence as a reality. But what had the Buddha to say about existence? He said that what is true for the fire is true for existence as well. That is to say that existence is dependent on grasping. So long as there is a grasping, there is an existence. As we saw above, the firewood is called upàdàna because it catches fire. The fire catches hold of the wood, and the wood catches hold of the fire. And so we call it firewood. This is a case of a relation of this to that, idappaccayatà. Now it is the same with what is called `existence', which is not an absolute reality.
Even in the Vedic period there was the dilemma between `being' and `non-being'. They wondered whether being came out of non-being, or non-being came out of being. Katham asataþ sat jàyeta, "How could being come out of non-being?"[23] In the face of this dilemma regarding the first beginnings, they were sometimes forced to conclude that there was neither non-being nor being at the start, nàsadàsãt no sadàsãt tadànãm.[24] Or else in the confusion they would sometimes leave the matter unsolved, saying that perhaps only the creator knew about it.
All this shows what a lot of confusion these two words sat and asat, being and non-being, had created for the philosophers. It was only the Buddha who presented a perfect solution, after a complete reappraisal of the whole problem of existence. He pointed out that existence is a fire kept up by the fuel of grasping, so much so that, when grasping ceases, existence ceases as well.
In fact the fire simile holds the answer to the tetralemma included among the ten unexplained points very often found mentioned in the suttas. It concerns the state of the Tathàgata after death, whether he exists, does not exist, both or neither. The presumption of the questioner is that one or the other of these four must be and could be answered in the affirmative.
The Buddha solves or dissolves this presumptuous tetralemma by bringing in the fire simile. He points out that when a fire goes out with the exhaustion of the fuel, it is absurd to ask in which direction the fire has gone. All that one can say about it, is that the fire has gone out: Nibbuto tveva saïkhaü gacchati, "it comes to be reckoned as `gone out'."[25]
It is just a reckoning, an idiom, a worldly usage, which is not to be taken too literally. So this illustration through the fire simile drives home to the worldling the absurdity of his presumptuous tetralemma of the Tathàgata.
In the Upasãvasutta of the Pàràyaõavagga of the Sutta Nipàta we find the lines:
Accã yathà vàtavegena khitto,
atthaü paleti na upeti saïkhaü,
"Like the flame thrown out by the force of the wind
Reaches its end, it cannot be reckoned."[26]
Here the reckoning is to be understood in terms of the four propositions of the tetralemma. Such reckonings are based on a total misconception of the phenomenon of fire.
It seems that the deeper connotations of the word Nibbàna in the context of pañicca samuppàda were not fully appreciated by the commentators. And that is why they went in search of a new etymology. They were too shy of the implications of the word `extinction'. Probably to avoid the charge of nihilism they felt compelled to reinterpret certain key passages on Nibbàna. They conceived Nibbàna as something existing out there in its own right. They would not say where, but sometimes they would even say that it is everywhere. With an undue grammatical emphasis they would say that it is on coming to that Nibbàna that lust and other defilements are abandoned: Nibbànaü àgamma ràgàdayo khãõàti ekameva nibbànaü ràgakkhayo dosakkhayo mohakkhayo ti vuccati.[27]
...