My experience is that there are doctrines and practioners that are very involved in self-knowlegde but not really in purifying the heart. I feel this is essential difference with Dhamma. Knowledge in Dhamma is only conducive in as far it purifies the heart and leads also to a real noble person, loving, openhearted, pure hearted, without conceit, hostility. Modest like me Dhamma is not about accumulating knowledge and become a proud possessor of knowledge.
My experience with those on a Path of Self-Knowledge, they are extremely fixed upon this accumulation of knowledge,. They have many teachings on the Self and the Nature of Self etc.
In those circles there are people who are foolish and have no true self-knowledge and then there are the wise with real self-knowledge. I have nothing with this ego theator. All madness. All vanity, vainglory. Has never ever appealed to me. All ego activity. That is how it arrives in my poor heart.
The Buddhas’ goal is one and has no plurality. But this [single goal, Nibbána,] is firstly called with result of past clinging left since it is made known together with the [aggregates resulting from past] clinging still remaining [during the Arahant’s life], being thus made known in terms of the stilling of defilement and the remaining [result of past] clinging that are present in one who has reached it by means of development. But [secondly, it is called without result of past clinging left] since after the last consciousness of the Arahant, who has abandoned arousing [future aggregates] and so prevented kamma from giving result in a future [existence], there is no further arising of aggregates of existence, and those already arisen have disappeared. So the [result of past] clinging that remained is non-existent; and it is in terms of this non-existence, in the sense that “there is no [result of past] clinging here” that that [same goal is called] without result of past clinging left (see It 38).
Because it can be arrived at by distinction of knowledge that succeeds through untiring perseverance, and because it is the word of the Omniscient One, Nibbána is not non-existent as regards individual essence in the ultimate sense; for this is said: “Bhikkhus, there is an unborn, an unbecome, an unmade,
an unformed” (It 37; Ud 80).18
Is seen at the last part of that section in Buddhaghosa’s Visuddhimagga and I suspect that Venerable Paññādhammika will take some comfort in his view from this. There is cessation of the contaminated aggregates born of clinging and there is no further arising of those contaminated aggregates born of clinging according to Buddhaghosa.
However, I will emphasize that Nibbana as described above with no plurality is nothing more than the cessation of the Noble Truth of the cessation of suffering:
That which is the entire dispassionate cessation of, the forsaking of, the discarding of, the freedom from, the non-attachment to that same craving.
This was accomplished in life with the contaminated aggregates remaining; suffering utterly ceased at that moment. This was Buddhaghosa’s view. Suffering and the contaminated aggregates are not the same thing.
The beauty of a Buddha is his lack of possessions. He has left the raft behind after using it.
The Ultimate Poor One does not posses one spark of wisdom, one spark of love, one spark of compassion. That is why he so Rich. That is why wisdom, love, compassion flows in a Buddha as naturally as foolishness from the mouth of Green. The masters voice is a possession-free-voice.
But his poor pupils, like me, they do not see his emptiness, his freedom from possession but want to possess such wisdom, such love, such compassion…they never aim to become more empty and more poor but want to be full and rich, which is the other way around and not the Path.
Once full of possessions they are honoured, respected. That is also the other way around.
Where is one spark or real Dhamma to find?
Yes, becoming open and empty that is real goal of Dhamma. Having trust in this natural openess and emptiness of the heart, this purity, this dispassion, this noble Path is the same as Trust in Three Jewels.
But we people always tend to go the other way around. We do not become more open. Our minds become more limited, restricted. We do not become lighter but heavier. We do never become less possessive, we cherisch our intellectual constructed understanding of Dhamma.
Reading one definition from an Abhidhamma passage is not sufficient to understand his view or what he represented as the view of the commentarial Vibhajjavādin tradition at the Mahāvihāra. If you actually want to understand his view, you’ll need to read and understand empathetically his work. He has extended discussions on what “dukkha” is, and it is not limited to the defilements or craving. That’s the cessation of the cause or origin of dukkha, not dukkha itself. Just as if you cut the roots of a tree, you do not destroy the entire tree; you destroy the roots so that it cannot continue growing.
If it was his view, it doesn’t mean it is correct, and it doesn’t mean it is incorrect. IMHO, I don’t think we should try and leverage the names of great historical figures in order to support certain ideas without accurately understanding them.
BTW, the work you cited @yeshe.tenley is not Buddhaghosa’s. It’s a definition in the canonical Abhidhamma, authored hundreds of years before his time. Here is his actual view on that exact same passage, in his commentary to the Vibhaṅga (bearing in mind that most of the time he is not claiming to be describing his own views, but rather compiling, editing, and presenting the views of elders in his tradition with his own occasional clarifications or comments):
“Nirodhasaccaniddese yo tassāyeva taṇhāyāti ettha ‘yo tasseva dukkhassā’ti vattabbe yasmā samudayanirodheneva dukkhaṃ nirujjhati no aññathā, yathāha –
‘‘Yathāpi mūle anupaddave daḷhe, Chinnopi rukkho punareva rūhati; Evampi taṇhānusaye anūhate, Nibbattati dukkhamidaṃ punappuna’’nti. (dha. pa. 338);
Tasmā taṃ dukkhanirodhaṃ dassento samudayanirodhena dassetuṃ evamāha. Sīhasamānavuttino hi tathāgatā. Te dukkhaṃ nirodhentā dukkhanirodhañca dassentā hetumhi paṭipajjanti, na phale. Suvānavuttino pana aññatitthiyā. Te dukkhaṃ nirodhentā dukkhanirodhañca dassentā attakilamathānuyogena ceva tasseva ca desanāya phale paṭipajjanti, na hetumhīti. Sīhasamānavuttitāya satthā hetumhi paṭipajjanto yo tassāyevātiādimāha.”
-Sammohavinodanī-Aṭṭhakathā 204, by Ven. Buddhaghosa
Notice here he precisely talks of the cessation of the origin and has a poem about removing the roots.
Stop ! Just accept that EBT teach what is not arising, ceasing and changing, and never points to this as nothing. That’s all we have to admit in all honesty to ourselves. The idea that asankhata refers to nothing at all after a last death is farfetched, irrational, unsupported.
Why is it for you all so difficult to accept asankhata? Isn’t much more rational to re-consider the idea of mere cessation as the goal?
Buddhaghosa states (in his own work) that the definition of Nibbana - "which has one meaning only, in the description of cessation" - is the truth of the cessation of suffering and cites Vibhaṅga for this definition. He quotes it in his own work.
If you actually want to understand his view, you’ll need to read and understand empathetically his work.
That’s what I thought I was doing
Of course! I certainly didn’t intend to imply otherwise. The meta discussion here was about Buddhaghosa’s views and it would seem quoting from his work - the Visuddhimagga - would be applicable to figuring them out.
Is the implication here that I have not understood Buddhaghosa’s views? I have quoted him accurately I believe and I do not think the inference I draw from that quote is unempathetic.
The Visuddhimagga is Buddhaghosa’s as far as I’m aware. I did not put forth the Vibhaṅga as Buddhaghosa’s. It is true that Buddhaghosa quotes the Vibhaṅga in his work and does so to define Nibbana.
Let me help a bit on your aversion to other people’s viewpoints.
We are all shaped by causes and conditions, we have different causes and conditions to come to different views about the nature of parinibbāna. And we cherish the views based on feelings. So it’s really a complicated operation to change people’s views and mostly not worth it.
The most we can do here is to debate based on suttas.
So see the dependent origination of people holding views, thereby, you don’t see any agents anymore having agency. Like being in the middle of the lake, hit by an empty boat, so too, even if there’s a person on it, the person is empty of self, conditioned, just like the empty boat. Thus there is no aversion arising due to seeing things as they truly are.
I don’t think it will be of much value or relevance here to go into Budhaghosa’s work, so apologies if I have led the conversation somewhat astray.
I may have understood you. It makes sense he would quote the passage in his work. But to say that his view is that Nibbāna is “only the cessation of craving” is quite strange, don’t you think? Given that in the same post you quoted a discussion in his work where he argues precisely against the idea that Nibbāna refers only to the ending of the defilements. I also quoted you his commentary on that specific passage in his commentary on the Abhidhamma Vibhaṅga. EDIT: found the quote.
It actually seems to have a translation of his commentary to the Vibhaṅga in the Vsm. He specifically says there that the Buddha speaks not of cessation of the fruit (suffering) but of the cause (craving). The way I read it, he specifically says that the fruit is not made to cease immediately with the cessation of craving. You can read it yourself if you are interested, but at this point I’m again getting off track by discussing Buddhaghosa’s work.
If there were any misunderstands, my apologies. All the best.
Nibbána, which has one meaning only, in the description of cessation: “That which is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, giving it up, relinquishing it, letting it go, not relying on it” (Vibh 103); and (iv) the eight things in the description of the path: “What is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering? It is this Noble Eightfold Path, that is to say, right view, right thinking, right speech, right action, right
livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration” (Vibh 104).
Visuddhimagga translated by Nanamoli
The inference I draw from this combined with this description of Nibbana as “one and has no plurality” is that for Buddhaghosa, the Teacher obtained Nibbana under the bodhi tree in Shakyamuni’s very life, and that this was:
“That which is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, giving it up, relinquishing it, letting it go, not relying on it”
Which is also identified by Buddhaghosa as the cessation of suffering. It then follows that the Teacher accomplished the complete and remainderless fading away of suffering underneath the Bodhi tree.
I concede that this leaves a contradiction apparent because while suffering utterly ceased, the contaminated aggregates remained.
I accept this. But why do you not accept asankhata? Because you do not. You just do not accept the stable, the constant, the not-desintegrating…you just do not…
You think a Buddha would describe nothing remaining after a last death as not arising, not ceasing, not desintegrating, the Truth, Hard to see, peaceful…come on, be real…
You quoted this to show a position you don’t like, but as a (mediocre) philospher, I find that this makes a lot of sense. This would be my closest bet if it wasn’t cessation.
Have you ever thought of becoming a freemason? Their system is very close to your views (altough it is apparently only disclosed to higher ranking members). Their square is akin to dependent origination and their compass to the path.
The discussion about Buddhaghosa arose because the discussion had veered by others into what so-called “Orthodox Theravada” has to say about the debate going on between @Green and @NgXinZhao. I don’t know if that discussion or the subsequent diversion into Buddhaghosa is relevant to this thread so I’m happy to drop it so as not to derail another conversation.
The quote is the beginning of his discussion of the four noble truths. If you want to see what he actually means by this, scroll down to the corresponding third section.
I won’t be discussing this topic here for now. If you want to start a separate thread it’s possible I’ll comment. There are also footnotes on the ontology of Nibbana in those pages.
Don’t mix up suffering with the causes of suffering.
Second noble truth says craving is the cause of suffering, (and ignorance, attachments etc). And once those active, generating parts in the dependent origination ceases, the rest of the resultant, from consciousness to feelings will cease at death.
The direct suffering which ceases with the cessation of craving is mental suffering. The physical suffering ceases at parinibbāna.
Venerable, I’m discussing what I believe Buddhaghosa believed based on reading and inferences from his works. Is your command not to quote Buddhaghosa or discuss this or that or is it that I should not believe this myself?
I haven’t analysed his nibbāna with remainder views so much yet, but what is objectionable is his Nibbāna without remainder view.
the quote you presented is that craving ceases is nibbāna (3rd noble truth), that’s from the first sermon on the turning of the wheel of dhamma. There’s nothing controversial there. But craving in 2nd noble truth is the cause of suffering.
Therefore we have to understand Nibbāna by 2 levels. Nibbāna with remainder has physical suffering due to aggregates as the remainder. Whereas Nibbāna without remainder is the cessation of all suffering.
You mixed up the notion that when cause of suffering ceases, all suffering must immediately cease. Likely because you’re using the notion of nibbāna as Nibbāna without remainder, thus freed from all suffering.
I don’t see the value of communicating like this, you’re not presenting information for your case and you’re certainly not going to persuade me to your view like that.
Dhamma is not about accumulating knowledge and become a proud possessor of knowledge.
There is cessation of the contaminated aggregates born of clinging and there is no further arising of those contaminated aggregates born of clinging according to Buddhaghosa.
