Talk:Buddhaghosa

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving the following sentence from the lede of the article page to this talk page,

His name means "Voice of the Buddha" in the Pāli language.

because

• It does not fit with the flow of the paragraph, and,
• More importantly, it does not refer to the import of the article which follows it.

Perhaps somebody will know a better place within the article for the sentence other than the lede. makeswell (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Critics - Shravasti Dhammika

(Copied from [1]) [The section of text from the Visuddhimagga mentioned above exists only in the Sinhalese texts, not in the original Pali.] This is a fact that can be verified by viewing page 743 of the Visuddhimagga where the translator states that the section in question does not exist in the original Pali text and is only found in subsequent Sinhalese versions. Therefore it is not "original research" the research was done by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and is published in the following reliable source (or one could simply look at the online version: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf, the original text by Buddhaghosa was written in Pali and so the Sinhalese edition(s) are later translated versions of the original text. The fact that it was written in Pali is stated in the introduction to this same book): Visuddhimagga The Path of Purification by Bhadantacariya Buddhaghosa. translated by Bhikkhu Nanamoli copyright 1975, 1991 Buddhist Publication Society. User:Blaskdfaks 09:08, 11 June 2013

I wonder if Shravasti Dhammika is a reliable source; he seems to be selfpublished. It looks to me like you've got a point here. I've edited the section, and used your comment as a reference. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Buddhaghosa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120925190451/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Heim

@Javierfv1212: you paraphrase/quote Heim as saying

He also notes that another important principle is that the teachings are immediately visible in one's experience by putting them into practice, thus the words of the Buddha are seen by Buddhaghosa as having the power to alter one's way of looking at the world. According to Heim, the transformative impact of scripture and the immediacy of the Dhamma is "vital to Buddhaghosa's interpretative practice."

References

Source: Heim, Maria (2018), Voice of the Buddha: Buddhaghosa on the Immeasurable Words, Oxford University Press

Those are interesting statements, given the scholastic nature of Buddhaghosa's work. Did he really practice? Shaft (1995), The Rhetorics of Meditative Practice notices that meditative experience does not play the role in BUddhist practice and experience that we, westerners, perceive in it. And Polak (2011), Reexaming jhana, argues that Buddhoghosa probably did not meditate!

NB: how about using the sfn-format for citations? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, the first line actually refers to Buddhagoasa's explanations of the phrase "visible here and now"; it does not support the above quoted line, except that practicing the Buddhist dhamma changes a person. Duh. I'm goin to remove it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I've changed these lines into

According to Heim, Buddhaghosa considered the dhamma to be "well-spoken [...] visible here and now, timeless," visible meaning that the fruits of the path can be seen in the behavior of the noble ones, and that comprhending the dhamma is a transformative way if seeing, which has immediate impact. According to Heim, this idea of the transformative and immediate impact of the scriptures is "vital to Buddhaghosa's interpretative practice," concerned as he is with the immediate and transformative impact of the Buddha's words on his audiences, as attested in the suttas

References

I think that this is more in accord with the source. Note that Buddhaghosa's stance reflects an intellectual understanding, not necessailiy a meditative understanding. Which, of course, is reflectd in his (mis)understanding of Buddhist meditation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Shaw and Shankman on meditation

This is also interesting:

According to Sarah Shaw "his detailed lists and exhaustive guidance" contributed to the survival of the Theravada meditation tradition throughout the ages. Richard Shankman notes that the Vism contains many detailed, specific explanations and clear instructions regarding meditative theory and practice which the early Pali suttas (discourses) lack. However these explanations are controversial, as some modern Theravada teachers have different interpretations.

References

"The" Theravada meditation tradition did not survive throughout the ages; they abandoned it somewhere in the 10th century... Meditation was re-invented in the 19th and 20th century. And Buddhaghosa's, and the whole Theravada's acoount of meditation is doubtful; their systematization of meditation into samatha-vipassana is a later systematization, which deviate from the dhyana-scheme. Dhyana is not samatha. Shaw was taught by Gombrich and Griffits, and she cites Bronkhorst, so she must be familiair with this line of research. Yet, no comment on this in her introduction.

This is also rich:

...in some cases, such as in the methods for the kasija practice (1–10), breathing mindfulness (29) and the formless realms (35–8), supplies us with information that is unavailable elsewhere. Many helpful lists and guides to practice are given, such as the lists of impediments to meditation and ways of guarding the mental image (nimitta), the basis of samatha practice. Though not canonical, they appear to have emerged within the tradition as the product of years of practical experimentation and experience in dealing with meditators and their problems

That's a nice escape; Polak bluntly says that Theravada altered Buddhist meditation, turning dhyana into concentration-meditation, a non-Buddhist practice.

Ah, and this is what Shaw writes regarding the survival of the (Theravada) meditation tradition:

...it is unlikely that the meditative tradition could have survived in such a healthy way, if at all, without his detailed lists and exhaustive guidance.

Some things are missing from here account, which are provided by Shankman, especially Gunaratana:

What the suttas say is not the same as what the Visuddhimagga says [...] They’re actually different. (p.136)

Dry insight, without the support of mental calm, is a commentarial idea. You can never find any reference to dry insight in the Sutta Pitaka. Even the word is not there. The Venerable Buddhaghosa (who wrote the Visuddhimagga) invented these terms. Parikamma samadhi (preparatory concentration), upacara samadhi (access concentration), appanasamadhi (absorption concentration)—even these are his own words. You don’t find these terms in the suttas, either. So therefore we don’t see any evidence for supporting dry insight in the suttas. If you read the suttas, anybody can see this. (p.136-137)

The Visuddhimagga does not emphasize the practice of mindfulness in order to practice samatha. The Buddha was always citing mindfulness, emphasizing its relationship with concentration. (p.137)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of citation error fix

Hi Serols. Posting this here, as your talk page is protected. You've revert my fix for the cite error that is currently being displayed on the article.

The error was caused by this edit [2] on the 29th of Sept. If you look the refname "brokenbuddha1" was changed to "brokenbuddha2" but the actual reference didn't change, just the refname. This caused an error as they was already a <ref name="brokenbuddha1"/> in use.

My fix was to simply rename the missed instance to "brokenbuddha2" as well. I'm going to revert back to my fix, as I can only assume this was a mistake (as it was such a noncontroversial fix). Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello 89.241.33.89, thank you for this information. --Serols (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

buddhagosha king

buddhagosha rajaathuma 175.157.66.154 (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)