My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
chownah
Posts: 8984
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"

Post by chownah »

Twilight wrote:If you die, in your opinion, will your parents continue to exist ?
In the chownah phenomoondolical view the answer is NO, when you die the flame goes out and phenomena no longer arise..
chownah
User avatar
Twilight
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:43 pm

Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"

Post by Twilight »

But will phenomena arise for other people than Cownah ? Are there other beings existing in the world, with their own phenomenological world, for witch phenomena will continue to appear even if cownah dies ?
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link
chownah
Posts: 8984
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"

Post by chownah »

Twilight wrote:But will phenomena arise for other people than Cownah ? Are there other beings existing in the world, with their own phenomenological world, for witch phenomena will continue to appear even if cownah dies ?
The arising of the phenomena which I recognize as my parents will no longer arise when the flame goes out. Other people may have phenomena arising which they recognize as chownah's parents but those phenomena are not the same phenomena which I recognize as my parents. The phenomena which I recognize as my parents is unique to me and will no longer arise when I die and the flame goes out.

My siblings have phenomena which arise which they recognize as their parents but those phenomena are unique to them and not the same as the phenomena which arise in me which I recognize as my parents. It is quite obvious to me because my siblings and I each have different views and ideas about our parents and not only because we experienced different things with them but also because we have fabricated different beliefs about them. It could just as well be different people.....which is exactly what it is from my own phenomenalocical perspective.....don't know what any of the phenomenolocial dhamma writers would say.
chownah
User avatar
Twilight
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:43 pm

Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"

Post by Twilight »

That is not at all a phenomenological/existentialist/postmodernist perspective that you are explaining over there. It is a normal human perspective. Using the cool word "phenomenon" instead of the buddhist word "perception" does not make it "phenomenological perspective".

And yes, perceptions differ from human to human. Two people perceive the same thing slightly different. For example you perceive Beijing different than a person who lived there all his life. You perceive the Thai King different than how his close friends perceive him. People also have different hobbies. One might perceive some sexual practices as pleasant if he is a bdsm fan while another might hate them etc.

The problem with postmodernist is that they claim only these perceptions exist. And that you assume this diversity of perceptions to be dependent on a diversity of elements. They say the diversity of elements does not exist, but only the diversity of perceptions. They say that because of this diversity of perceptions, the person is deluded into thinking a diversity of elements exist - deluded through the process of assumption.
The Teaching tells him that ‘existence’ cannot be conceived anywhere apart from ‘appearance’, but also that it is not ‘appearance’ as such; furthermore, and even more importantly, it also tells him that ‘existence’ does not depend on ‘appearance’ directly, it depends on the ‘assumption’ (upādāna)[22] in regard to that which appears,[23] and this means nothing else then that the appearance, for its appearing, does not require existence at all—it is actually better without it.
https://pathpress.wordpress.com/2014/02 ... existence/

But Buddha did not agree with this postmodernism. He said the diversity of perception depends on a diversity of elements, not on a process of assumption or other postmodernist ideas:
(External Pentad) (7) Diversity of Perceptions
At Savatthı. “Bhikkhus, it is in dependence on the diversity of elements that there arises the diversity of perceptions; in dependence on the diversity of perceptions that there arises the diversity of intentions; in dependence on the diversity of intentions that there arises the diversity of desires; in dependence on the diversity of desires that there arises the diversity of passions; in dependence on the diversity of passions that there arises the diversity of quests. “And what, bhikkhus, is the diversity of elements? The form element … the mental-phenomena element. This, bhikkhus, is called the diversity of elements. [144]
“And how is it, bhikkhus, that in dependence on the diversity of elements there arises the diversity of perceptions … that in dependence on the diversity of passions there arises the diversity of quests? “In dependence on the form element there arises perception of form; in dependence on perception of form there arises intention regarding form; in dependence on intention regarding formthere arises desire for form; in dependence on desire for form there arises passion for form; in dependence on passion for form there arises the quest for form….227
There are numerous suttas like this in the "Elements" subchapter of SN, Book of causation. Note this is even called the "external pentad".
And this is why existentialist buddhist in this topic were so confused and did not know if their family will continue to exist after they die. In the postmodernist view, only your own internal phenomenologial world exists. And this internal world is not dependent on external elements, it is dependent on the internal process of assumption. Because of this diversity of perceptions you assume there exists a diversity of elements witch in reality does not exist but is just an illusion created through the process of assumption. It's like you're alone in the universe and everything else is just an illusion internally constructed by you through the process of assumption. So nothing else except your internal phenomenological world exists. Other beings with their own phenomenological world do not exist, that is just an illusion internally constructed by you through the process of assumption. (asumption that diversity of perception depend on diversity of elements). They claim only the diversity of perceptions actually exist, not the diversity of elements.

And this is a terrible wrong view according to Buddha. It is even the first wrong view listed in the wrong view section. "The winds do not blow. The rivers do not flow" etc.
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link
User avatar
Twilight
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:43 pm

Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"

Post by Twilight »

And maybe you are curious why people perceive things differently. Why people can get to have different hobbies. Well, it is because every element has characteristics. And by moving the attention on a certain caracteristic, by constantly giving attention to that characteristic - certain feelings will arise in the future when encountering that element. For example if one pays attention to the pleasant side of an activity and not to the unpleasant charachteristics - then in the future, pleasant feelings will arise when encountering that element.

Also this depends on tendencies developed in the past in regards to other similar elements. For example people who like chess also likes poker and also like strategy games (warcraft, starcraft etc.) because it is a similar charachteristic that they like in regard to that activity. And many of these tendencies were developed already in past lives and that is why for example sexuality is such a strong attachment.

This is what suttas tell us to do in order to develop positive qualities or change our natural reactions. For example when angry at a person, we are told to contemplate it in terms of aggregates, to see it like a machine so we don't hate it anymore. Seen things in terms of aggregates, perceiving a thing as a selfless machine is associated with non-hatred. We never get mad at a car or a computer for not working. But when trying to build compassion we can not contemplate in terms of aggregates cause seen things that way is not associated with compassion. We don't have compassion for cars or computers. We perceive the as neutral. In this way we develop the factors of enlightenment witch are also conditioned, they are just a tool. Like a raft you build and drop when you achieve enlightenment (not before as many want to do. Also, the raft will continue to exist until parrinibanna just like the 5 aggregates will continue to exist)

Here is a sutta describing that while also contradicting postmodernist. If there would be no log of wood, then we would not be able to pay attention to particular characteristics of it:
[1][ati][bd]Thus have I heard:
Once, when the venerable Sāriputta
dwelt on Mount vulture Peak near Rājagaha,
he robed early and, taking bowl and cloak,
descended the hill
with many monks in company.
Now at a certain spot
the venerable Sāriputta saw a large log of wood;
and there he addressed the monks and said:
'See you, reverend sirs,
that large log of wood?'
'Yes, sir,' they replied.
[2][ati][bd] 'An adept[1] monk, reverend sirs,
won to mind-control,
can, if he wish,
view[2] it as earth.
Wherefore?
There is, sirs,
[241] in that log of wood
the earth element;
hence an adept can view it as earth.
[3][ati][bd]An adept monk, reverend sirs,
won to mind-control,
can, if he wish, view it as water.
Wherefore?
There is, sirs,
in that log of wood
the water element;
hence an adept can view it as water.
[4][ati][bd]An adept monk, reverend sirs,
won to mind-control,
can, if he wish, view it as fire
Wherefore?
There is, sirs,
in that log of wood
the fire element;
hence an adept can view it as fire.
[5][ati][bd]An adept monk, reverend sirs,
won to mind-control,
can, if he wish, view it as air.
Wherefore?
There is, sirs,
in that log of wood
the air element;
hence an adept can view it as airr.
[6][ati][bd]An adept monk, reverend sirs,
won to mind-control,
can, if he wish, view it as beautiful.
Wherefore?
There is, sirs,
in that log of wood
the element of beauty;
hence an adept can view it as beautiful.
[7][ati][bd]An adept monk, reverend sirs,
won to mind-control,
can, if he wish, view it as ugly.
Wherefore?
There is, sirs,
in that log of wood
the element of beauty;
hence an adept can view it as beautiful.
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts ... re.pts.htm
Last edited by Twilight on Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link
chownah
Posts: 8984
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"

Post by chownah »

Twilight wrote:That is not at all a phenomenological/existentialist/postmodernist perspective that you are explaining over there. It is a normal human perspective. Using the cool word "phenomenon" instead of the buddhist word "perception" does not make it "phenomenological perspective".
INdeed it is in fact a normal human perspective. The normal human perspective is phenomemoligcal. The world we construe is based almost exclusively on the cumulative conditioning of the phenomena which arises throughout our life. That is the phenomena which our ignorance construes into the world and into a self.
My views here. I'm not trying to make you accept my views....are you trying to make me accept yours?
chownah
User avatar
Twilight
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:43 pm

Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"

Post by Twilight »

I have already explained you that you're perspective is NOT "phenomenological" at all and is just a normal human/normal buddhist perspective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomeno ... hilosophy)
To be phenomenologycal, you should have responded that your family will not exist after you die and only your phenomenological world exist while everything else except your experience is an illusion created through the process of assumption. That only your phenomenological world exists, not phenomenological worlds of other beings. Such as existentialist have responded to the question in this topic. Being confused weather their family will continue to exist after they die.
My views here. I'm not trying to make you accept my views....are you trying to make me accept yours?
Why should I do that when we already agree. It is only that you don't understand what phenomenological/existentialist/postmodernist means and call yourself like that because "phenomenological" sound so cool and smart.
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link
User avatar
Jojola
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:22 pm

Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"

Post by Jojola »

:anjali:
I wish someone would look into Nanaviras actual work and bring it to the table forthright so that way it could be properly discussed, because I am in awe studying him now, and I don't see his work discussed in this topic - just presuppositions that must've came from reading other inadequate studies about his work, not his work itself. I saw at least one other member offer a link to some to be considered but it seems no one wanted to. I'll comb through this topic again in case I missed something.

I'd be surprised to find someone who really understands him in the first place (for there even to be realistic grounds of critique), I'm barely scratching the surface and I can already tell views on him are way off base because they are way too general and simplistic. I can tell you right now reckoning with this guy is not easy. I would love to discuss him for all of our benefit, but first he needs to be brought to the table, not representations.

So if anyone's truly interested to critique him, pick something that is actually his to critique here: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/ctp_s ... iew_v1.pdf
Regards,

- :heart:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Only in a vertical view, straight down into the abyss of his own personal existence, is a man capable of apprehending the perilous insecurity of his situation; and only a man who does apprehend this is prepared to listen to the Buddha’s Teaching." - Nanavira Thera (1920-1965) :candle:
chownah
Posts: 8984
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"

Post by chownah »

Twilight wrote:I have already explained you that you're perspective is NOT "phenomenological" at all and is just a normal human/normal buddhist perspective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomeno ... hilosophy)
To be phenomenologycal, you should have.......
I think you are confusing "phenomonenolocial perspective (or view)" with "Phenomonenology (the philosophy)". They are not the same thing I guess if I take your word for it....I don't really know because I have not read up about the philosophy called phenomeonolgy. You say "To be phenomenologycal, you should have.....". I think what you are saying is if I was following some kind of plhenonoeogy (some kind of established philosophy) as you understand it then I would have done the things you mention......but I am just telling you my views and perspective as I have discovered them through my experience. Phenomena play a central role in my explanation of my views which is why I call it a phenomenalogical perspective. I am not trying to present it as an example of the philosophy called phenomoneolgy.
To further our discussion (if you chose to further it) I think you should try to address the issues I bring up and not try to stick a bunch of things onto what I say as if you know what it is I am saying. If you do I will just keep on rejecting those things....it will be boring.
What I present is my own views and perspectives on a phenomenologically based dhamma. Don't mix my ideas up with ideas which are not mine. If you think I hold some other ideas other than the ones I have mentioned then the polite thing to do is to ask me rather than to accuse and condemn me.
chownah
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 23295
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Jojola,
Jojola wrote:I would love to discuss him for all of our benefit, but first he needs to be brought to the table, not representations.
If you'd like to do this, you're probably better off starting a whole new topic, framed as an "exploration", not a "rebuttal" of his teaching.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

"Overcome the liar by truth." (Dhp 223)
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 17917
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote:
Jojola wrote:I would love to discuss him for all of our benefit, but first he needs to be brought to the table, not representations.
If you'd like to do this, you're probably better off starting a whole new topic, framed as an "exploration", not a "rebuttal" of his teaching.
And check out this topic that Retro mentioned above:
retrofuturist wrote:. If you're genuinely interested in these matters, I suggest you read some older topics on Nanavira et.al, where genuine conversation was at least attempted by some participants. At one point SDC curated A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma" - it's worth checking out.
And here are some other threads:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=11016
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=25215
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=26072

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
Jojola
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:22 pm

Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"

Post by Jojola »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Jojola,
Jojola wrote:I would love to discuss him for all of our benefit, but first he needs to be brought to the table, not representations.
If you'd like to do this, you're probably better off starting a whole new topic, framed as an "exploration", not a "rebuttal" of his teaching.

Metta,
Paul. :)
:thumbsup:
Good advice, thank you. Also someone has since posted a few links to other topics concerning the subject I'll look into those first.
Regards,

- :heart:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Only in a vertical view, straight down into the abyss of his own personal existence, is a man capable of apprehending the perilous insecurity of his situation; and only a man who does apprehend this is prepared to listen to the Buddha’s Teaching." - Nanavira Thera (1920-1965) :candle:
User avatar
Twilight
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:43 pm

Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"

Post by Twilight »

Jojola wrote: I'd be surprised to find someone who really understands him in the first place (for there even to be realistic grounds of critique), I'm barely scratching the surface and I can already tell views on him are way off base because they are way too general and simplistic. I can tell you right now reckoning with this guy is not easy. I would love to discuss him for all of our benefit, but first he needs to be brought to the table, not representations..
You have claimed that I do not properly understand Nanavira and that my criticism or B.Bodhi criticism is therefore unfounded. Therefore, I have 2 questions for you to better clarify if I had understood him or not:

1) Why does the arahant 5 aggregates do not disappear into thin air in the 1-life interpretation of patticca ? If pattica happens in a single moment, then with the cessation of ignorance comes cesation of volitional formations, then cessation of consciousness and name&form, then cessation of feeling, perception, volition. Therefore, in that very moment when ignorance disappears, all the 5 aggregates disappear on the spot.

2) If you die, will your family continue to exist or it never really existed in the first place, but you were deluded into thinking it exist through the process of assumption ? Will your family continue to exist or not ?

So far, in 9 pages of topic, nobody was able to answer the first question, nobody even attempted. As for the second question, SDC and Retrofuturist have admitted that they are confused and don't know if their family will continue to exist or not. Maybe they had not properly understood nanavira either. So I am curious to see what you have to say about these 2 questions since you have claimed that people here have not understood Nanavira view properly. What is your response to these 2 questions ?
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link
pulga
Posts: 1344
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"

Post by pulga »

Twilight wrote: 2) If you die, will your family continue to exist or it never really existed in the first place, but you were deluded into thinking it exist through the process of assumption ? Will your family continue to exist or not ?
In and of itself rūpa doesn't exist -- it requires nāma in order to "be". From Ven. Ñanavira's Notes on Dhamma:
Manasikāra is included in nāma since, whereas rūpa precedes manasikāra (logically, not temporally: behaviour takes place whether it is attended to or not—the clock, for example, does not stop when I leave the room), nāma involves manasikāra: experience is always particular or selective, one thing to the fore at once and the rest receding in the background. Rūpa, in other words, in order to appear—i.e. in order to be phenomenal as nāmarūpa—, must be oriented: a phenomenon cannot present all aspects at once with equal emphasis, but only in a perspective involving manasikāra. (Manasikāra is involved as an intentional modification of the perspective or direction of emphasis that is given at the most immediate level.. SN Nāma

Behaviour, then, in itself does not involve consciousness (as perception does), and the rūpakkhandha is not phassapaccayā (as the saññākkhandha is)—see Majjhima xi,9 <M.iii,17>. In itself, purely as inertia or behaviour, matter cannot be said to exist. (Cf. Heidegger, op. cit., p. 212.) SN Rūpa
Of course only as long as Dasein is (that is, only as long as an understanding of Being is ontically possible), ‘is there’ Being.(1) When Dasein does not exist, ‘independence’ ‘is’ not either, nor ‘is’ the ‘in-itself’. In such a case this sort of thing can be neither understood nor not understood. In such a case even entities within-the-world can neither be discovered nor lie hidden. In such a case it cannot be said that entities are, nor can it be said that they are not. But now, as long as there is an understanding of Being and therefore an understanding of presence-at-hand, it can indeed be said that in this case entities will still continue to be. -- Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time (pg. 212)
Cf. as well Husserl's idea that the copula is derived through categorial intuition.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 6410
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"

Post by SDC »

Twilight wrote:As for the second question, SDC and Retrofuturist have admitted that they are confused and don't know if their family will continue to exist or not.
I also said that I didn't care...
Locked