Thank you for your reply, Venerable. This may not be a great piece of evidence to convince. What about my first reply, did you find anything in that, or the links provided, that is helpful and convincing?
1 Like
I think it’s too much effort to teach those who doesn’t want to be taught. Anyway thanks. I tried, they were not responsive.
1 Like
Found a gem in MN 60
34.14The view of those ascetics and brahmins who say that 34.15there is no such thing as the total cessation of continued existence is close to greed, yoking, relishing, attachment, and grasping. 34.16The view of those ascetics and brahmins who say that 34.17there is such a thing as the total cessation of continued existence is close to non-greed, non-yoking, non-relishing, non-attachment, and non-grasping.’ 34.18Reflecting like this, they simply practice for disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation regarding future lives.
3 Likes
Well the Visuddhimagga denies that Nibbana is mere cessation. It’s a real existent with characteristics. In Ven. Dhammapala’s commentary he also says it’s filled with light. So, according to Theravada Nibbana isn’t Nothingness. It’s something. The idea that Nibbana is complete cessation, nothing, was the view of the Sautrantika rather than the Abhidhammic traditions of Theravada or Sarvastivada.
1 Like
I wonder how light gets into Nibbana - since it has no rupa?
3 Likes
See also this thread
2 Likes
Mahasi Sayadaw states that light here is just a metaphor and not to be taken literally.
4 Likes
Thanks Sobhana. It would be good to see the actual text that Ceisiwir refers to. 
Obviously there is no light (as in actual light), no darkness too. Nothing material or mental…
3 Likes
I’m not sure where I read this, but the light is from the mind that knows the Nibbāna object. It is probably from Pa-Auk Sayadawgyi which would mean there is a reference somewhere.
2 Likes
nibbana is an experience, not a thing, that does not change, not subject to change. It is an unconditioned experience.
While experienced nibbana does not change., iow, the experiencing of nibbana does not add to or change nibbana. So…
When an arhat is dead there is no residue of any kind that somehow merges with a nibbana, forever suspended in it. Nibbana doesn’t change. When arhat is dead it’s like the flame of a candle blown out. No mind remnant or any other remnant, merged with any kind of experience, or any thing or any idea like a deity or a deity’s abode.
2 Likes
I get what you’re trying to say, but Nibbāna, or rather Parinibbāna, is a thing that exists.
And can it really be said to be an experience when it can’t even be experienced?
At least, there can’t be any sense of experience because of the lack of nāma-rūpa.
Its from Ven. Dhammapāla’s commentary to the Udāna. He says the the sabhāva of Nibbāna is that of light, so its real not metaphorical
1 Like
The commentary states that the light is the sabhāva of nibbāna, so its real not metaphorical.
1 Like
That’s not what the commentary says.
1 Like
Light here doesn’t mean light like we get from the Sun. It has nothing to do with physical light.
It is referring to its utterly beneficial nature as the contacting of it by magga citta and phala citta eradicates defilements.
Nibbana is the antithesis of samsara. It has not a spec of conditioned phenomena (such as physical light).
The Udana Commentary p. 1013
By Dhammapala
Wherein there is neither earth, nor water" and so on so as to indicate its own nature via an elimination of things that are the antithesis thereof. Herein:
Just as nibbana is nowhere ( to be found) amidst conditioned (sankhata) things, since it has as its own nature that which is antithetical to all formations (sankhara), so are all conditioned things (not to be found) therein either for the collocation of things conditioned and unconditioned is ( a thing) not witnessed.
This is the explanation of the meaning in the present case: wherein, in which nibbana, in which unconditioned element, there is neither the earth-element whose characteristic is that of hardness, nor the water element whose characteristic is that of oozing, nor the fire-element whose characteristic is that of heat, nor the wind-element whose characteristic is that of distending. Hence,just as, through this mention of the absence therein of the four great elements, the absence of all derived materiality comes to be mentioned,
1 Like
I never said it was light from the sun, or a phone. I said nibbana is filled with light, according to the commentary here. Where does it say the rest in that commentary? It doesn’t say the light is metaphorical, it’s beneficial nature. It’s quite clear, very explicit, that Ven. Dhammapala thinks that nibbana has its own light. A simpler explanation is that Ven. Dhammapala thinks of Nibbana as something filled with light. Nibbana being something rather than nothing being the CT view.
1 Like
It is a paramattha dhamma, ultimate reality. However it is not a place or anything material. It does not arise and so it does not cease.
And this non-metaphorical light that Nibbāna has that fills it, what is its nature?
To consider another aspect: Masefield translates
in this way he indicates the fact of nibbana having as its own nature solely that of light
which is correct but it would be easier to explain if it were alokasabhāvattā rather than ālokasabhavata…
But that is the pali so it must be metaphorical and pointing to its utterly benefical nature.
1 Like
So it isn’t nothing.
And this non-metaphorical light that Nibbāna has that fills it, what is its nature?
No idea. Its not my exegesis. I’m just stating what Ven. Dhammapāla says.
But that is the pali so it must be metaphorical and pointing to its utterly benefical nature.
Sabhāva means it is actual in CT thought, so the light here being the sabhāva of nibbāna is not metaphorical. Its real. It even has nibbāna in the possessive case. You either have to agree with the commentary here, and so nibbāna is filled with some kind of light, or disagree with it. Saying its metaphorical just isn’t sustainable, because that isn’t what the text says.
1 Like
Not nothing.
VISM. XVI 68. Again, it should not be said that Nibbána does not exist. Why not? Because it then follows that the way would be futile. [508] For if Nibbána were non- existent, then it would follow that the right way, which includes the three aggregates beginning with virtue and is headed by right understanding, would be futile. And it is not futile because it does reach Nibbána.
However it is absolutely different from samsara - there is not even a trace of conditioned phenomena.
It makes a difference .I could only find the phrase once in the texts - and phrases have to be considered in relation to larger contexts.
Sometimes āloko (āloka) and cakkhuṁ mean light(as in the physical light) and seeing (as in literal seeing that arises at the eyebase).
But other times it has a metaphorical (or simile) meaning as in “it was like a light was switched on and I understood”,… “finally he saw the light and agreed”…
- The Dhammacakkappavattana sutta
This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering’: thus, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, there arose in me vision, knowledge, wisdom, true knowledge, and light.
‘Idaṁ dukkhanirodhaṁ ariyasaccan’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṁ udapādi, ñāṇaṁ udapādi, paññā udapādi, vijjā udapādi, āloko udapādi.
Here āloko is the ‘light’ of wisdom.
Or what does āloko mean here?
Ekapuggalavagga
With the appearance of one person, mendicants, there is the appearance of a great eye, a great light, a great radiance, and the six unsurpassable things; the realization of the four kinds of textual analysis; the penetration of many and diverse elements; the realization of the fruit of knowledge and freedom; the realization of the fruits of stream-entry, once-return, non-return, and perfection.
In the phrase by Dhammapala the term has to be referring to something that is not material or mental.
2 Likes
I have asked ven. Maggavihari about this. He agreed to make a recording and for me to post it here, but he is very busy and does not want to get involved in back and forth conversations about it. The answer is complete. In a nutshell. You you must always read in the context of Theravāda Fundamentals because our commentators are write in that context. Recording is 12 minutes long.
Enjoy!
3 Likes