Phenomenology and Nanavira thread

[un8-]

I'm not sure if this is the right subforum, please move the thread as you see fit.

I'm going to use this thread to dump useful resources that I found help me lead to an understanding of Nanavira's work.

Here's two videos I found today that were helpful





I will continue posting in this thread new resources and ideas as I discover them. Please feel free to contribute.

[un8-]

Here is a link to Ven Bodhesako's essay collection, and the essay "Change" (esp ch 3) is important for understanding Nanavira's fundamental structure, according to Pugla

https://www.scribd.com/document/1116397 ... -Bodhesako

If anyone finda another link to the pdf, that would be good.

edit: here's a better link http://www.bps.lk/olib/bp/bp425s_Bodhes ... nnings.pdf

[SDC]

…

Here’s Samanera Bodhesako’s page from Path Press: https://pathpress.org/bodhesako/

[un8-]

…

Here’s Samanera Bodhesako’s page from Path Press: https://pathpress.org/bodhesako/

Ah great, I found the Changes essay in HTML form here https://pathpress.org/bodhesako/change/

Not sure if it has all the chapters that the pdf has though, going to start reading it soon. Hopefully by the end of next week I'll have a basic understanding.

[pulga]

Here is a link to Ven Bodhesako's essay collection, and the essay "Change" (esp ch 3) is important for understanding Nanavira's fundamental structure, according to Pugla

Duration is a combination of both change and unchange. From ¶ 6 of Fundamental Structure II:

Now we see that three levels of the hierarchy are involved: on top, at the most general level of the three, we have a thing enduring eternally unchanged; below this, we have a thing changing at regular intervals of one unit of duration, one moment; and below this again, in each of these regular intervals, in each of these moments, we have an infinite series of moments of lesser order accelerating and coming to an end. We have only to take into account an eternal thing of still higher order of generality to see that our former eternal thing will now be changing at regular intervals, that the thing formerly changing at regular intervals will be accelerating its changes (and the series of changes repeatedly coming to an end at regular intervals), and that the formerly accelerating series will be a doubly accelerating series of series. There is no difficulty in extending the scheme infinitely in both directions of the hierarchy; and when we have done so we see that there is no place for anything absolutely enduring for ever, and that there is no place for anything absolutely without duration.[k]

[k] It would be a mistake to attempt to take up a position outside the whole system in order to visualize it as passing from the future into the past through a 'present moment' in a kind of universal time. At any given level of generality, the 'present moment' lasts for one whole eternity relative to the next lower level, and there is thus no such thing as a 'present moment' for the system as a whole; nor has the system any outside (even imaginary) from which it may be viewed 'as a whole'.

This is what Ven. Bodhesako is explaining in Chapter 3 of his essay Change.

[un8-]

..

Just finished reading the essay Change, great essay!

It had many great parts, but this is relevant to my first thread I made on sensual desires

Certainly we can deliberately conceal things from ourselves. This is ignorance, self-deception. But all that is concealed is, ultimately, more of the same. It is concealed because we desire it to be other than more of the same. And it is as something other that we seek to make it manifest. This is why it remains concealed. Once it is understood that even if there is something hidden it is not something different, then there will no longer be an irresistible drive to discover such a secret essence, the impossible exception to the rule. If we scratch the itch what we invariably find is more itch. If we scratch the surface what we invariably find is more surface

As always, it is the failure to see the recursive structure of craving, the ever-abiding quest to find freedom from the ever-abiding quest, which founds a further and costly failure: failure to recognize the holistic approach of the Suttas

I.e. seeing the drawbacks of sensual desires is no different than seeing the drawbacks of anything else, everything is the same, there is no novelty to be found, nothing new to discover, no magical experience to wait or hope for.

...

Every arc of a circle, however minute, displays precisely the same quality of curvature as is shown by the circle as a whole. Thus an understanding of the structure of the arc is not different from an understanding of the structure of the circle. So to even the smallest fragment of existence is not free from the characteristics of impermanence, suffering, and not-self. And thus an understanding of the structure of the fragment is not different from an understanding of the structure of existence.

It is because they fail to understand this that so many people also fail to understand what is meant by the expression “practising the Buddha’s Teaching.” Their concept of such a practice is akin to searching for an invaluable golden needle in a haystack of worthless straw (see footnote 2). They seem to believe that if only they are diligent enough, sufficiently keen-eyed and nimble-fingered, they will somehow or other find this golden needle. And so they set to work, carefully sifting through the haystack, picking up each bit of straw, examining it, deciding “That’s not a needle,” discarding it, and reaching for the next bit. And so they discard straw after straw: “That’s not a needle, that’s not a needle, nor that, nor that, nor….” They believe that if they are persistent enough, and perhaps very lucky, then some day they will be able to cry out joyously, “It’s a needle! It’s a needle!” Whereupon all their troubles will be over.

[dicsoncandra]

..

Just finished reading the essay Change, great essay!

It had many great parts, but this is relevant to my first thread I made on sensual desires

Certainly we can deliberately conceal things from ourselves. This is ignorance, self-deception. But all that is concealed is, ultimately, more of the same. It is concealed because we desire it to be other than more of the same. And it is as something other that we seek to make it manifest. This is why it remains concealed. Once it is understood that even if there is something hidden it is not something different, then there will no longer be an irresistible drive to discover such a secret essence, the impossible exception to the rule. If we scratch the itch what we invariably find is more itch. If we scratch the surface what we invariably find is more surface

As always, it is the failure to see the recursive structure of craving, the ever-abiding quest to find freedom from the ever-abiding quest, which founds a further and costly failure: failure to recognize the holistic approach of the Suttas

I.e. seeing the drawbacks of sensual desires is no different than seeing the drawbacks of anything else, everything is the same, there is no novelty to be found, nothing new to discover, no magical experience to wait or hope for.

...

Every arc of a circle, however minute, displays precisely the same quality of curvature as is shown by the circle as a whole. Thus an understanding of the structure of the arc is not different from an understanding of the structure of the circle. So to even the smallest fragment of existence is not free from the characteristics of impermanence, suffering, and not-self. And thus an understanding of the structure of the fragment is not different from an understanding of the structure of existence.

It is because they fail to understand this that so many people also fail to understand what is meant by the expression “practising the Buddha’s Teaching.” Their concept of such a practice is akin to searching for an invaluable golden needle in a haystack of worthless straw (see footnote 2). They seem to believe that if only they are diligent enough, sufficiently keen-eyed and nimble-fingered, they will somehow or other find this golden needle. And so they set to work, carefully sifting through the haystack, picking up each bit of straw, examining it, deciding “That’s not a needle,” discarding it, and reaching for the next bit. And so they discard straw after straw: “That’s not a needle, that’s not a needle, nor that, nor that, nor….” They believe that if they are persistent enough, and perhaps very lucky, then some day they will be able to cry out joyously, “It’s a needle! It’s a needle!” Whereupon all their troubles will be over.

Wow, magnificent

[pulga]

In the Suttas the Buddha repeatedly exhorts initiates (sekhā) to continue to reach for the ultimate goal, i.e. the stilling of all determinations. I think once the attainment of right view is achieved there’s a tendency to become complacent about dukkha owing to the insight that things don’t matter. Regarding Sister Vajira the Ven. Ñanavira writes:

For my part I am satisfied (judging solely from the letters) that, however strange her behaviour may have seemed to her well-wishers in Colombo, there was nothing in it to contradict my opinion. What you speak of as the 'breaking point' was (as I see it) no more than the entry into a particularly strong (and pleasurable) emotional state consequent upon the realization (which, at the beginning especially, can be breath-taking) that 'nothing matters any more'. I don't suppose she was within a hundred miles of telling the people who were caring for her what the reason was for her condition. Certainly, her last letter,[4] for all its emotional colouring, gives no suggestion that she is in any way unhappy or distressed, or even that she has any doubts about her new state. And you will observe that I am quietly but firmly dismissed at the end of the letter. Whatever else happened, one thing is certain -- she no longer finds herself in any way dependent upon me. A psycho-analyst, at least, would be gratified with that result! (emphasis added)-- [L. 100 | 107] 24 August 1964

Also note this passage from his marginalia to Being and Time:

p. 332/19-27
[Not only can entities whose Being is care load themselves with factical guilt, but they are guilty in the very basis of their Being; and this Being-guilty is what provides, above all, the ontological condition for Dasein's ability to come to owe anything in factically existing. This essential Being-guilty is, equiprimordially, the existential condition for the possibility of the 'morally' good and for that of the 'morally' evil—that is, for morality in general and for the possible forms which this may take factically. The primordial “Being-guilty” cannot be defined by morality, since morality already presupposes it for itself.] noted: If we allow (against H.) that Being is not merely 'I am' but the conceit (māna) or desire (chanda) 'I am', then this § is absolutely correct. (There are entities 'whose Being is care', and they are the puthujjanas; and there are entities whose Being is cessation of care, and these are the arahats. Taṇhāpaccayā... bhavo, and taṇhānirodhā... bhavanirodho.)

Being and Craving is another excellent essay by Ven. Bodhesako. Footnote b to Shorter Note on Nāma is helpful in understanding what he means by the "actual" and the "possible".

[un8-]

Being and Craving is another excellent essay by Ven. Bodhesako.

Great essay thanks, loved the radio analogy at the end. So is Ekaggata then sticking to one station (as to block other potential stations)?

I still don't understand what "Reflexion" is exactly, and how to do it. Can you explain it and how it's done?

[SDC]

I still don't understand what "Reflexion" is exactly, and how to do it. Can you explain it and how it's done?

Why do you want to know what reflexion is? Why are you practicing the Dhamma? Why are you responding to these posts? What theme is present for you while you ask these questions, while you seek freedom from suffering? That’s how close the reflexive attitude is; it’s found in the reasons why you take action because those reasons endure even as various actions are done on behalf of those reasons.

[un8-]

I still don't understand what "Reflexion" is exactly, and how to do it. Can you explain it and how it's done?

Why do you want to know what reflexion is? Why are you practicing the Dhamma? Why are you responding to these posts? What theme is present for you while you ask these questions, while you seek freedom from suffering? That’s how close the reflexive attitude is; it’s found in the reasons why you take action because those reasons endure even as various actions are done on behalf of those reasons.

Ah ok thanks, that's kind of the idea I had in mind. When I do nothing I call that the "default state", what makes me leave my default state is boredom 90% of the time.

If it wasn't for boredom I wouldn't indulge in sensual desires, or even study the suttas, or write this post. So you could say boredom (or discontent with the present moment) is my root subtle dukkha that I have to fight and contend with.


Which reminds me of this sutta https://suttacentral.net/sn2.18/en/sujato

In the essay Pulga linked, ven Bodhesako says that applying reflexion lowers the intensity (kamatanha) of the present state. How can I use reflexion to stop boredom? Bodhesako hints at meditation but doesn't give any direct instruction.

[SDC]

In the essay Pulga linked, ven Bodhesako says that applying reflexion lowers the intensity (kamatanha) of the present state. How can I use reflexion to stop boredom? Bodhesako hints at meditation but doesn't give any direct instruction.

Ask yourself why is “this boredom” a problem. The idea is to look towards the motivation or the root. It’s about establishing that direction; it’s not about being skilled at finding it when you need to escape the pressure (which is what sensuality is, i.e. gratification). That pressure is the nature of restraint and must endure if the six senses are to be tamed. Gaining the context/direction takes training, effort and repetition. Ajahn Nyanamoli talks at great length about this if you are interested in getting a much clearer idea of it.

The reason it doesn’t get described as a meditation object or a technique is because it isn’t something you focus on, it is something to discern as the reason why you would opt to do anything, let alone focus on an object. Check out AN 11.9. The difference between the thoroughbred horse and the wild colt is that the thoroughbred understands - to quote Ajahn Nyanamoli - that there is something implied in being fed, while the wild colt just thinks about what is right in front of him.

My posts aren’t meant to be instructions. I’m trying to give you an idea of that direction, which can only be found by dropping attention through your being, as opposed to assuming attention is coming from you and out towards things in the world. After these many years of reading these Venerables, I do not think a static/solid explanation is possible, nor is it necessary. It has to be discerned on account of the things that indicate its presence instead of struggling to see it directly. That is the difference between direct knowledge and conceiving on account of perception.

[pulga]

I still don't understand what "Reflexion" is exactly, and how to do it. Can you explain it and how it's done?

Here are a few excerpts from the letters of Ven. Ñanavira that might be helpful for you:

Now all conceptual thinking is abstract; that is to say, the thought or concept is entirely divorced from reality, it is removed from existence and is (in Kierkegaard's phrase) sub specie aeterni. Concrete thinking, on the other hand, thinks the object while the object is present, and this, in the strict sense of the words, is reflexion or mindfulness. One is mindful of what one is doing, of what one is seeing, while one is actually doing (or seeing) it. This, naturally, is very much more difficult than abstract thinking; but it has a very obvious advantage: if one is thinking (or being mindful) of something while it is actually present, no mistake is possible, and one is directly in touch with reality; but in abstract thinking there is every chance of a mistake, since, as I pointed out above, the concepts with which we think are composite affairs, built up of an arbitrary lot of individual experiences (books, conversations, past observations, and so on). -- [L. 81 | 88] 1 January 1964

The infinite hierarchy of consciousnesses, one on top of the other, is always there, whether we are engaging in reflexion or not. The evidence for this is our consciousness of motion or movement, which does not require reflexion—we are immediately conscious of movement (of a falling leaf, for example)—, but which does require a hierarchy of consciousness. Why? Because a movement takes place in time (past, present and future), and yet we are conscious of the movement of the falling leaf as a present movement. This is perhaps too short an explanation, but it is not very important that you should grasp it.[1] When we wish to reflect (we often do it almost automatically when faced with difficult situations) we make use of this hierarchy of consciousness by withdrawing our attention from the immediate level to the level above.

[86.1] Apparently the author was not acquainted with Edmund Husserl's Vorlesungen zur Phänomenologie des inneren Zeitbewusstseins, originally written as lectures from 1904 to 1920 and compiled and published by Martin Heidegger in 1928. An English translation by James S. Churchill, The Phenomenology of Internal Time-Consciousness, was published in 1963 (the year of this letter) by Indiana University Press. Husserl had developed a similar idea concerning the present movement of time. -- [L. 86 | 93] 25 January 1964

And how does one practice this awareness for the purpose of release? It is really very simple. Since (as I have said) all action is conscious, we do not have to undertake any elaborate investigation (such as asking other people) to find out what it is that we are doing so that we can become aware of it. All that is necessary is a slight change of attitude, a slight effort of attention. Instead of being fully absorbed by, or identified with, our action, we must continue, without ceasing to act, to observe ourselves in action. This is done quite simply by asking ourselves the question 'What am I doing?' It will be found that, since the action was always conscious anyway, we already, in a certain sense, know the answer without having to think about it; and simply by asking ourselves the question we become aware of the answer, i.e. of what we are doing. Thus, if I now ask myself 'What am I doing?' I can immediately answer that I am 'writing to Mr. Dias', that I am 'sitting in my bed', that I am 'scratching my leg', that I am 'wondering whether I shall have a motion', that I am 'living in Bundala', and so on almost endlessly.

If I wish to practice awareness I must go on asking myself this question and answering it, until such time as I find that I am automatically (or habitually) answering the question without having to ask it. When this happens, the practice of awareness is being successful, and it only remains to develop this state and not to fall away from it through neglect. (Similar considerations will of course apply to awareness of feelings, perceptions, and thoughts—see passage (b). Here I have to ask myself 'What am I feeling, or perceiving, or thinking?', and the answer, once again, will immediately present itself.) -- [L. 2 | 2] 27 March 1962

The whole of Letter 2 to Mr. Dias is worth reading. So much so in fact that the Buddhist Publication Society printed it as a Bodhi Leaf.

There’s also a fascinating exchange of letters between Ven. Ñanavira and Ven. Ñanamoli (letters 85 and 86) regarding the subject. Unfortunately the online edition of Seeking the Path doesn’t allow cutting and pasting, but I typed this passage from letter 86 for my own reference:

My view of being is this: the present single directly perceived phenomenon (whatever it may be) appears against a background of other phenomena that it is not, and these other phenomena are peripherally perceived, not directly perceived. They are absent not present; possible, not certain. But this background itself appears as directly perceived relative to a further background, which further background is thus doubly peripheral, doubly absent; with regard to the original single phenomenon. And this further background has itself got another, still further, background against which it appears, and so on ad infinitum. This is the hierarchy (or one aspect of it). To illustrate this, the picture of squares within squares will serve, and you may now regard it, as you suggest, as an advancing pyramid with diminishing sections. Each section is standing out as a single phenomenon against the background of the next larger section, which represents, all the (limited) immediate possibilities of, or alternatives to, the smaller section within it. The relation is essentially part-to-whole, repeated indefinitely. Now, Berkeley's esse est percipi, takes account of the single immediately present phenomenon that you happen to have started with (i.e. by ignoring the fact that this given phenomenon is itself a background to a still more present phenomenon). (Seeking the Path, Letter 86)

Note that the tetrad Ven. Ñanavira refers to in Fundamental Structure is a square in which one of the quadrants is “real” (i.e. positive) and the other three are "imaginary" (i.e. negative).

[pulga]

Note that the tetrad Ven. Ñanavira refers to in Fundamental Structure is a square in which one of the quadrants is “real” (i.e. positive) and the other three are "imaginary" (i.e. negative).

Quadrant isn't the right word. I'm referring to the four triangles resulting from the intersecting of the diagonals of a square.

[un8-]

Thanks SDC and Pulga, it's all starting to make sense.

Nanavira references other philosophers that have an idea similar to reflexion, so then how do we know which reflexion is unique to supermundane right view (the Buddha's teaching). I remember reading from either Nanavira or Bodhesako why other methods are not sufficient in leading to attainig right view.

I believe Bodhesako says in his essay Changes that seeing the essential structure in all experience in terms of dependent origination, leads to Supermundane right view.

So I am trying to see how that would look like, maybe something like

1. Become aware of the present experience and abandon possible/absent experiences (i.e. the radio station metaphor)
2. Notice your attention constantly jumping between different 6fold sense media (thoughts, sights, etc.) and getting pulled in different directions of possible/absent experiences
3. Train yourself to always be aware of what is happening, stay at the meta level instead of getting sucked/absorbed into different experiences
4. This results in calming down/samatha and abandoning (possibly the 5 hindrances)
5. See the wild monkey mind and attachment to constantly changing experiences (jumping to different possible/absent experiences i.e. craving variety) as impermanence, dukkha, no-self.

What do you think?