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
Thank you very much Venerable Subhuti.
It really is so helpful that you have the most excellent venerable Maggavihari to help with knotty points like this. It was a great honor for me to meet him and to listen to his talk on the lakkhana rupa last December in Sri lanka.
I have made a transcript.
ālokasabhava
Mar 19, 2024, 4:27 PM
ālokasabhava
(0:01) Okay Bhante, so Bhante Subuti has asked me a question, (0:09) some sentence, one sentence in the Udana commentary written by Most Venerable Dhammapala. (0:16) According to this, he was referring to the first Nibbana Sutta in the Udana Pali, (0:22) Buddha has stated that there is no Candima Suriya in Nibbana, no Sun and Moon. (0:30) And explaining this statement, Venerable Dhammapala has said, (0:37) there is no Sun and Moon in the Nibbana.
And why the Buddha has said so is because (0:48) first we need to understand what is darkness. As what the commentators say, darkness is (0:58) Yasmā rūpagate sati, tamo nāma syā. Only when there is some Rupa, we have darkness.
(1:07) We have darkness. So in terms of Abhidhamma, we have two opinions, what is darkness? There are (1:14) opinions of two teachers, two groups of teachers. Some thinks darkness is another type of Rupa, (1:19) but some sees things in darkness in the absence of light.
Anyway, so here he is saying darkness (1:25) is found only when there is Rupa. It must be because then you need light, for example, (1:34) you need light to dispel darkness and that is done by Sun and Moon. So you need Sun and Moon (1:41) to dispel the darkness.
So then only then you can see the Rupas. So if there is no Rupa, (1:47) there is no necessity or you cannot say there is darkness because there is nothing to be seen. (1:53) And there is no necessity of Candima and Suriya because you don’t need Candima and Suriya to (2:00) dispel darkness to see the light, see the Rupas.
So then, because in most of the places, for (2:12) example, Visuddhimagga in some other commentaries, when the functions of Suriya is explained, (2:19) according to Buddhist Theravada tradition, one of the functions of Suriya, that is the Sun, (2:26) is to help the Rupas to manifest. So one of the functions is Rupas, the Sun makes the Rupas to (2:37) be seen. So that is one of the fundamentals in Theravada.
It’s not that according to science, (2:45) the light rays come and hit our eye, right? But here what the light does, it gives us the (2:52) opportunity, it manifests or it causes the Rupas to be visible. So now we have to bring this (2:58) fundamental while we are explaining this text. So what the Venerable Dhammapala is saying, (3:07) if I just quote the Pali, what he’s saying is, (3:15) only when there is Rupa, there is darkness.
(3:23) So the Candima Suriya is there to dispel the darkness and that is for people to see the (3:32) objects. So the Candima Suriya will cause the objects to be visible, they make the objects (3:40) visible by dispelling the darkness. And that is one of the functions of Sun and Moon, according (3:47) to Theravada teachings.
So his teachings are based on the Theravada fundamentals. So then, (3:53) if there is no Rupa in Nibbana, obviously it is mentioned in the previous lines, when Buddha (4:00) said there is no Pattavi, Apo, Teja, Vayu in Nibbana. So it’s devoid of Rupa and devoid of (4:05) consciousness as well.
So according to the teachings, darkness is covering the Rupa, (4:23) it doesn’t let us to see the Rupa and the function of Candima Suriya is to dispel the darkness. (4:48) So what he’s saying is, if there is no Rupa at all in a certain state or element, (4:55) where there is darkness and what is the necessity of Candima and Suriya to be present there. (5:02) So there is no darkness, no Candima Suriya.
So both Sun and Moon are not present in the Nibbana. (5:12) By this statement, Venerable Dhammapala is saying, (5:17) imina ālokasabhāvataṃyeva nibbānassa dasseti This is the controversial statement.
So ālokasabhāvataṃ, (5:28) it has the nature of brightness or we can, if I directly translate lightness, (5:35) the nature of having the light, nature of being a light. So according to the (5:43) entire sentence, so then one can argue, is there, is darkness, is darkness, (5:50) does darkness requires light? No. According to, if you think in a different way, yes, (5:57) you can argue on it.
But we have to define this statement based on the Theravada fundamentals. (6:02) According to the Theravada, darkness is described as something that covers or hinders (6:12) rupas from seeing. So light is to dispel the darkness and make the rupas visible.
(6:18) So we have to keep this fundamental. Whether, whether it matches science or not is a different (6:22) case. According to Theravada fundamentals, so darkness is found only when there is rupa (6:28) and the function of Candima Suriya is to dispel this darkness and to manifest this rupa to the (6:33) eye.
So that is also, you can find it in Visuddhimagga, book number 2, page number 332. (6:43) If you go to the functions of Candima Suriya, (6:49) it makes the rupa visible. It dispels the darkness.
So you can, you have to bring this (6:57) fundamental here when we explain this commentary. Then what happens? So the final sentence says, (7:05) this shows that the Nibbana has a nature of being a light. So this light is against (7:15) the darkness.
What does it mean? Since there is no darkness, Nibbana can be said as something like (7:24) a light. So we can see a similar analogy in the word sabbato pabham. Sabbato pabhaṃ, for example, (7:33) Buddha has defined Nibbana in various ways.
One of the famous attributes of Nibbana is sabbato pabhaṃ. (7:45) It’s completely bright from all around. Entirely bright.
So the commentators are saying, (7:56) there is no other dhamma, no other reality which is brighter, which is purer than Nibbana. (8:05) So then what is this brightness? You can see this, for example, this is found in many places in the (8:12) commentaries. 310 page, Majjhimanikaya, commentary number 2, 310.
Sabato pabhanti, what is sabbato pabhaṃ? (8:22) It’s bright from all around. Then it’s sub commentary of this sutta. It says, sabbato pabhaṃ, (8:34) what does it mean? What does it mean? (8:45) Sabbato pabhaṃ doesn’t mean Nibbana is bright in the sense of being a light.
It’s called bright (8:56) because it doesn’t have the qualities that doesn’t make it (9:09) means it is devoid of all the defilements. Is it devoid of delusions, devoid of all the suffering (9:18) that doesn’t make it a bright, glorious reality. So when we are explaining this (9:26) the brightness in Theravada, it’s not necessary that always the element of light is present.
(9:34) Mind sometimes becomes bright. That is because it’s free from defilements. So what are the things (9:42) that diminish the brightness of the mind, defilements? It doesn’t mean there is a physical (9:48) light in the mind.
So therefore Nibbana is devoid of all the defilements and suffering (9:56) that diminishes its glory, its brightness. Brightness not in the sense of a physical light, (10:03) brightness of being free from all the unwholesome and negative attributes. (10:11) So therefore Nibbana has a similar term called sabbato pabhaṃ, bright from all around.
> Even this (10:18) has to be understood not as a physical light but as some as an attribute of Nibbana which is opposite (10:24) of all the defilements and suffering. In the same way when you bring this fundamental into the (10:31) context which is found in Majjhima Nikaya commentary and some commentary what Dhammapada has said is (10:40) means it’s opposite of darkness. Opposite of darkness means there is no darkness at all (10:48) and there’s no sun and moon to dispel the darkness.
So it has to be considered something which is (10:55) non-dark, something opposite of darkness. That is the lightness or the brightness of Nibbana. (11:04) So this statement is not a indicator that the Dhammapada believed that the Nibbana is a light.
(11:12) It’s light is one kind of a matter according to Theravada. When Buddha said there is no (11:19) it’s impossible to have light in Nibbana. It violates the fundamental the Buddha himself (11:26) has said because if there is light it has to be one kind of a material element.
So Nibbana is (11:34) lacking any material, it doesn’t have any material element. So when we define, when we explain a (11:39) certain commentary or statement we have to be very careful that we have we should be well aware (11:44) of all almost all the fundamentals at least the basic fundamentals in Theravada before we come (11:52) into a conclusion of the commentator’s idea because they are the ones who are very much (11:59) learned about the fundamentals. So whenever it’s one can argue which is correct whether (12:05) the Theravada is correct or not it’s a different case.
But if we are going to define a commentator’s (12:12) idea we have to understand based on the fundamental theory. So this ālokasabhava based on some other (12:20) information that we find in the commentary literature is not saying that Nibbana is a (12:26) Nibbana is a light. It is a nature opposite of darkness.
5 Likes
Venerable Maggavihari refers to sabbato pabhaṃ several times.
*>Kevaḍḍhasutta, Dīgha Nikāya.
Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ,
anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ,
ettha āpo ca paṭhavī,
tejo vāyo na gādhati,
ettha dīghañca rassañca,
aṇuṃ thūlaṃ subhāsubhaṃ,
ettha nāmañca rūpañca,
asesaṃ uparujjhati,
viññāṇassa nirodhena,
etth’etaṃ uparujjhati.Walshe
“Where consciousness is signless, boundless, all-luminous
That’s where earth, water, fire and air find no footing,
There both long and short, small and great, fair and foul,
There ‘name-and-form’ are wholly destroyed.
With the cessation of consciousness this is all destroyed.
Of course those of an eternalist view seize on this sutta. See this thread Anidassana-vinnana meaning
2 Likes