For Buddhaghosa - according to these quotes and inferences - and again you can dispute them, but then quote or give evidence where he says otherwise - the third noble truth is the cessation of suffering. This is called Nibbana. It is caused by the cessation of craving. It is realized in this very life under the Bodhi tree. Nibbana is of one meaning and not a plurality.
You are trying to say there is a plurality:
Nibbana in this very life is the cessation of craving (and some suffering).
Nibbana at the ending of life is the cessation of (all) suffering.
That is two different cessations: a plurality. As I read the quotes of Buddhaghosa above, this is not what he thought nor what he endorsed.
You are arguing this is wrong - which is fine - Buddhaghosa may have been wrong. Or I may be wrong in what I take from Buddhaghosaâs quotes above and the inferences I derive, but then if Iâm wrong you can offer quotes or show how what I am taking from these quotes is wrong or the inferences Iâm drawing is wrong. Or maybe you just donât want me to quote him at all if he contradicts your view?
Why do buddhist not accept asankhata? Can this be the main topic here?
Ofcourse a Buddha would never describe nothing remaining after a last death, as peaceful, as not arising, ceasing and changing, as the Truth, as the not desintegrating, as the refugeâŠsuch is all weird ideas.
But he describes his Path as a Path to Asankhata, which he also adressses thus: A Path to the truth âŠ
the far shore ⊠the subtle ⊠the very hard to see ⊠the freedom from old age ⊠the constant âŠ
the not falling apart âŠthat in which nothing appears âŠthe unproliferated âŠthe peaceful âŠthe freedom from death âŠthe sublime âŠthe state of grace âŠthe sanctuary âŠthe ending of craving âŠ
the incredible âŠthe amazing âŠthe untroubled âŠthe not liable to trouble âŠNibbana âŠ
the unafflicted âŠdispassion âŠpurity âŠfreedom âŠnot clinging âŠthe island âŠthe protection âŠthe shelter âŠthe refuge âŠâ (SN43.14- 43)
Can this really point to nothing remaining after a last death? Ofcourse not. Get real.
People just do not want to accept asankhata as really being an element or aspect of no-change, only because this does not suit their ideas there is only change. That is really all.
It is never about the suttaâs. The suttaâs are not at all vague here. They teach the truth of asankhata!
Fact. A truth that must be known too. Fact. Ones understanding cannot be complete if one only knows arising, ceasing and change. Fact (MN115)
Actually, it seems this thread is about similar things to the dukkha thread, namely the four noble truths.
âFriends, just as the footprint of any living being that walks can be placed within an elephantâs footprint, and so the elephantâs footprint is declared the chief of them because of its great size; so too, all wholesome states can be included in the Four Noble Truths. In what four? In the noble truth of suffering, in the noble truth of the origin of suffering, in the noble truth of the cessation of suffering, and in the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering.â
Really, I havenât read him, so itâs hard to understand what he would mean. But what I said is logical right?
The physical suffering left in nibbÄna with remainder is not due to nibbÄna, it is due to the remainder. So nibbÄna as totally without suffering still is valid, at least thatâs my poor attempt in understanding this whole thing.
After Shakyamuni arose from the Bodhi tree it wasnât just the physical body that was the remainder. The other aggregates also remained (mind-based), right? You identify the aggregates as suffering. I think this leads to stress. You say that physical suffering remains, but mental suffering does not, but the mental aggregates remain which you say is suffering. And then when the life force is depleted you say the mental aggregates cease immediately with no trace, but the body of the enlightened one remains. It is stressful this view to my mind and very confusing and seemingly full of contradictions.
Maybe the habits and propensity of the interlocutors is at fault or maybe the subjects of this thread - the aspect of no-change aka Nibbana - and what is or is not dukkha are closely related? Either way Iâm neglecting other obligations which is no good. Enough for me for now.
Iâm no pali scholar (perhaps one will chime in), but I think this is a fairly well known aspect of pali where even though it sounds like something has categorically happened, it is yet to happen (but it is inevitable). I have heard it explained like this. A 1920s American mobster has an altercation with someone and the mobster says âYouâre Dead!ââweâve all heard that in the movies right? The person is still very much alive, but the meaning is that they are going to be dead very soonâthe mobster is going to kill them and they are inevitably going to die. I donât know if this applies in this particular case, but it is something that we have to be careful of when reading translations I am given to understand.
Basically, itâs using different way to analyze dukkha.
You will have to decouple the word dukkha with mental suffering only. This includes stress, lamentation, grief, etc.
As explained elsewhere (hard to find the quotation), the lego set is dukkha because it cannot give permanent happiness without any condition for the maintainance of that happiness. This dukkha doesnât depend on mental suffering to be there, but is a value judgement due to valuing permanent happiness without any conditions.
In terms of dukkha due to change, 5 aggregates are impermanent, therefore they doesnât satisfy the criterion above. In terms of dukkha due to conditionality, 5 aggregates are conditioned, therefore they donât satisfy the condition above.
From the point of view of the person who attained parinibbÄna internally, thereâs no more 6 sense bases, thus thereâs also no body for them. And no them because no body, no mind, no soul.
For us, we just see that the corpse has no neuron activity to cause physical pain sensation.
Feelings is also a mental aggregate, so when feeling ceases, thereâs no physical pain even when thereâs physical body. Physical pain is unpleasant feeling due to physical body, but the unpleasant feeling itself is a feeling which is a part of mind.
I believe the remainder is still very substantial. IMO Dukkha is inherent in conditioned reality because of itâs obvious limitations. According to my idea, Nibbana while still alive would be more of an effective mental coping strategy than the cessation of Dukkha on its part. The 3rd noble truth I believe deals mainly with Parinibbana.
Hereâs the apparent conundrum broken down as succinctly as I can:
We all agree that craving is one thing and suffering is another
If we identify Nibbana with remainder as âthe cessation of cravingâ
And identify Nibbana without remainder as âthe cessation of sufferingâ
Then Nibbana is a plurality of two completely different cessations that occur at two different times (one under the Bodhi tree and another when life force is depleted).
If we find this unacceptable and insist that Nibbana is one, then it canât be the case that we can divide Nibbana into two like that. I think Buddhaghosa based on the above quotes found dividing it like this as unacceptable. Based on my reading I think Buddhaghosa defined Nibbana as the cessation of suffering (caused by the cessation of craving) and it occurred under the Bodhi tree.
Since the cessation of the defilements happened later, I think Buddhaghosa concluded that the defilements were not literal suffering, but rather the result of past craving. That past craving had ceased and the suffering that went along with it ended under the Bodhi tree for the Teacher.
Yeshe, do you think itâs possible for someone to quote a few sentences of NÄgÄrjuna to you without having read his whole work, and based on those quotes alone conclude that he didnât believe in karma and rebirth?
Would you find that personâs views of Nagarjuna faulty, lacking expertise? Would you encourage them to read other references and his whole work for more context of what he means by what he says?
@Vaddha, yes, I definitely think that is possible. And I am open to the idea that Iâve done exactly that with Buddhaghosa. However, until I see the fault in my quotes/inferences Iâm left with my current faulty views unfortunately.
I donât see how thatâs true. If someone read Nagarjuna as denying karma and rebirth, donât you think itâs possible for their view not to be âWell, until someone else takes the time to prove me wrong, this must be rightâ? Wouldnât it be reasonable for them to say âIâm not sure what to make of this, so I canât really comment accurately on Nagarjunaâs views until they are given more contextâ? Or âI donât have enough information to hold a view on what he means right now.â
Craving by itself I would argue is not Dhukka. It is an act of greed based upon delusion (=not having reached Nibbana) leading to Dukkha. Once Nibbana is reached, greed and hatred and therefore this kind of Dhukka cease. However Dukkha-dukkha still persists.
Nibbana while alive I believe is the insight into Parinibbana (maybe with according mental changes).
To be clear my inferences based on the quotes are hypothesis. As I said, Iâm open to the idea that they are wrong or faulty or that Iâve missed something. Were I not so open then Iâd be claiming knowledge. I donât actually know the mind of Buddhaghosa and Iâm not claiming that I do.
Yeah sure. All I was pointing out is that it is inevitable that suffering will cease at some point after craving ceases (thereâs no going back), and the pali language (as I understand it) can sometimes be unclear whether it means it happens at the same time or at some time afterwards if it is an inevitability. Itâs just a language thing. Itâs like if I dropped a glass from the top of a sky scraper and said âIâve broken the glassâ, I havenât broken the glass because it is still falling, but it will inevitably break so itâs still true. Itâs just a language construct thing.
While this reveals one potential problem with translation and language assumptions causing incorrect inferences, I do not believe that this problem is evident in the inference I drew above. Is Nibbana the cessation of craving or is it the cessation of suffering or both and is there one Nibbana or two?
BTW, you mentioned a section I should read that is subsequent to the one I quoted, but are there other sections or works by Buddhaghosa you think that are illuminative of the fault in my inferences about the hypothesis of what Buddhaghosa believed?
