Nanavira.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

You might want to try to be a bit more clear in your writing, given my stupidity in all of this. You said: I certainly didn't bother reading his texts for the purpose of rebutting them. You brought up "rebutting," so what does "rebutting" have to do with this?

It indicates I read them sincerely, for the benefit that might be derived from reading them.

I just stupidly took it as a reference to Ven Bodhi rebutting Nanavira's ghost, to use an expression from a link you very recently provided.

No connection intended.

I hope we're all clear now and can get...



Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

You might want to try to be a bit more clear in your writing, given my stupidity in all of this. You said: I certainly didn't bother reading his texts for the purpose of rebutting them. You brought up "rebutting," so what does "rebutting" have to do with this?

It indicates I read them sincerely, for the benefit that might be derived from reading them.

I just stupidly took it as a reference to Ven Bodhi rebutting Nanavira's ghost, to use an expression from a link you very recently provided.

No connection intended.

If you say so.

[jcsuperstar]

Just to add, it is a bit annoying to have people say that Buddhadasa, Nanavira, or whomever else really has it in hand and poop on Vens Bodhi, Nyanaponika and whomever else who does not toe the particular line imagined of whatever particular teacher.

this is true. i love LP Buddhadasa but I'm not rabid about it. i think i got that aspect of my life out of the way by being one of those annoying Morrissey fan boys back when i was a teenager, then one day realizing how annoying i must have been to pretty much everyone in my life. I've never idolized anyone ever again... my take on teachers is if they say something helpful I'll take it on-board, if they say something odd I'll look at it and if it's really weird or just plain stupid I'm not afraid to throw the baby out with the bathwater. there are so many teachers out there i feel no reason to hitch my understanding to anyone else's. this is a good reason for understanding your audience on here as well, we should know that there are some teachers that if quoted will not be taken as the be-all-end-all of the discussion.

[retrofuturist]

[tiltbillings]

Just to add, it is a bit annoying to have people say that Buddhadasa, Nanavira, or whomever else really has it in hand and poop on Vens Bodhi, Nyanaponika and whomever else who does not toe the particular line imagined of whatever particular teacher.

this is true. i love LP Buddhadasa but I'm not rabid about it. i think i got that aspect of my life out of the way by being one of those annoying Morrissey fan boys back when i was a teenager, then one day realizing how annoying i must have been to pretty much everyone in my life. I've never idolized anyone ever again... my take on teachers is if they say something helpful I'll take it on-board, if they say something odd I'll look at it and if it's really weird or just plain stupid I'm not afraid to throw the baby out with the bathwater. there are so many teachers out there i feel no reason to hitch my understanding to anyone else's. this is a good reason for understanding your audience on here as well, we should know that there are some teachers that if quoted will not be taken as the be-all-end-all of the discussion.

Thanks. To put it simply: there no problem with working with a particular teacher or techinque, but just don't become annoying in the process.

[alan]

Just ordered "Notes" from amazon. In anticipation of reading it, I'd like to understand why it generates so much emotional turmoil. He was not a scholar, but so what? If his thoughts are useful and compelling, motivating the reader to pursue a more noble path, what is wrong?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Alan,

I believe one of the first people to have a response of the type you describe was Mrs. Irene Quittner...

The Notes seem to have struck Mrs. Quittner[1] with considerable impact, and her immediate reaction is all that could be desired. What disturbs her is the fact that statements are made throughout the Notes 'without any reasons' being given for them, on the 'take it or leave it' principle. What the self-respecting reader wants is to have his opinion consulted by the author, who is expected to allow him to make up his own mind about the points at issue, and thus either to agree or to disagree with what is said in the book. If the author does not do this (by failing to give his reasons) he insults the reader (and particularly the feminine reader) by seeming to assume that he (or she) has no opinion worth consulting.

But the one thing I want to avoid is to have readers make up their own mind about the book; for once they have objectively decided whether they agree or disagree with the author's arguments they will shut the book, forget it, and pass on to the next one. No, the Notes are designed to be an invitation, a provocation, a challenge, to the reader to come and share the author's point of view; and if the book starts off by democratically assuming that the reader's opinion is as good as the author's, it will simply defeat its own purpose. At all costs the reader must be prevented from fraternizing with the author.

Consider, for example, Mrs. Quittner's complaint that with a few strokes of the author's pen 'we are reduced from three to two baskets and this without giving any reasons for his statement'. (The reference is evidently to note (a) of the Preface.) If I had provided a discussion of my reasons for doubting the authenticity of the Abhidhamma Pitaka (on the lines, perhaps, of what I said in my last letter to you), at once people would have had something positive to seize hold of, and learned controversy might have started up leading more and more passionately away from the point at issue. As Kierkegaard says, "In general, all that is needed to make the question simple and easy is the exercise of a certain dietetic circumspection, the renunciation of every learned interpolation or subordinate consideration, which in a trice might degenerate into a century-long parenthesis." (CUP, pp. 29-30)

As things are, the reader is informed bluntly (condescendingly?) at the beginning of the Notes which canonical books the author proposes to regard as unquestionably correct, so that there will be no room for confusion in the matter. Then, if the reader wants to know the reason for the author's rejection of certain books (the Abhidhamma Pitaka, for example), he must make the effort to understand the Notes and see things as the author sees them. When he has done this, the reason for the rejection of these books will be self-evident.

Mrs. Quittner's 'arrogant, scathing, and condescending' is a clear indication that she has been provoked by the Notes, and the fact that she has already read the NOTE ON PATICCASAMUPPĀDA no less than five times seems to confirm it. If people are going to take this much interest in the Notes they are welcome to use whatever strong language about them as they please. I shall only start worrying when people begin calling them 'insipid, flatulent, and platitudinous'.

Source: http://nanavira.xtreemhost.com/index.ph ... &Itemid=50" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro.

[alan]

I have a new hero.

[tiltbillings]

'insipid, flatulent, and platitudinous'.

Tempting.

[kc2dpt]

Just ordered "Notes" from amazon. In anticipation of reading it, I'd like to understand why it generates so much emotional turmoil.

He dismisses, contradicts, and reinterprets traditional Theravada Buddhist teachings.

He was not a scholar, but so what?

Without any such foundation, it's hard to understand why he says what he says, if what he says has any merit.

If his thoughts are useful and compelling, motivating the reader to pursue a more noble path, what is wrong?

More noble? I don't know whether it is or not. What I do know is he motivates the reader to follow a different path. That is only wrong if a] the reader wishes to pursue Buddhism and b] if his teachings turn out to not be Buddhism.

[mikenz66]

Hi Alan,

Just ordered "Notes" from amazon. In anticipation of reading it, I'd like to understand why it generates so much emotional turmoil. He was not a scholar, but so what? If his thoughts are useful and compelling, motivating the reader to pursue a more noble path, what is wrong?

Personally, I do not like speaking harshly of anyone's opinions, especially when I have not studied their work extensively. However, I very much agree with Tilt here:

Just to add, it is a bit annoying to have people say that Buddhadasa, Nanavira, or whomever else really has it in hand and poop on Vens Bodhi, Nyanaponika and whomever else who does not toe the particular line imagined of whatever particular teacher.

As I have said many times, I am interested in different views and opinions about the Dhamma. But I find it very difficult to take seriously claims that imply that Ven. Nanavira (or whoever) has figured out where just about everyone else has gone wrong, and anyone who doesn't agree is a dull, closed-minded traditionalist.

Surely it's more constructive to say something like: "I prefer Ven. X's version over ... because ...." and leave it at that.

Mike

[alan]

Hi Peter
Well you seem to be one of those who have an extreme emotional reaction to Nanavira!
Do you think his thoughts are without merit? Are they not really Buddhist?
I'm not asking this as a challenge--just trying to gather some opinions before studying the book itself.
Thanks Mike for your input too.

[tiltbillings]

Moderator note: It is really inappropriate to attribute to someone you cannot see or hear what their emotional reactions are, especially "extreme." Do NOT assume what a person's emotional reaction are or are not - if it is important to you: ask, preferably in private.

[alan]

Moderator, note:
At the top of this page the question was asked "I'd like to understand why it generates so much emotional turmoil".

[tiltbillings]

Moderator, note:
At the top of this page the question was asked "I'd like to understand why it generates so much emotional turmoil".

Then you might have asked Peter if the subject was generating such emtional response rather than suggesting that it does. You cannot see his face or hear his voice, and going by the written word alone is not always a safe basis for determining an emotional response. If you have any further comments or questions, PM them to me. There will be no further meta-discussions of this.