Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon c17.s5.6

c17.s5.6

In the Kathāvatthu we meet the Andhaka conception of Nirvāṇa as morally good, but this view is rejected, since morally good means positively that which will produce a good rebirth, and this is inappropriate to Nirvāṇa. An interesting discussion arises on the dictum in the Majjhima Nikāya that the enlightened man does not think about Nirvāṇa. This leads to the Pubbaseliya doctrine that Nirvāṇa as an object of thought is really a hindrance, a view very imperfectly refuted by the Theravādin, while Buddhaghosa is so perplexed by the issue—the Pubbaseliya being accorded the last word in the discussion—that he falls back on the quite impossible solution that Nirvāṇa here is simply temporal well being, a matter connected with the satisfaction of natural desires only.²