Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

[BVira]

Julius Evola (fascist sympathiser : "After Mussolini was freed from his Italian captors in a daring German raid led by SS-Hauptsturmfuhrer Otto Skorzeny, Evola was among a handful of faithful followers who met him at Hitler's headquarters in Rastenburg, East Prussia, on September 14, 1943.).
Nanaviras first inspiration,

wrote : " …Buddhism, as the Doctrine of Awakening, offers us those very traits of severity and nudity that characterize the monumental, and features of clarity and strength that may be called, in a general sense, ‘classical’; a virile and courageous attitude that would seem Promethean were it not indeed essentially Olympian.”.

If that was what Nanavira was guided by, then his guide to what is and is not the dhamma is suspect.

Unsure he was a streamwinner. If one is and one understands the dhamma fully (which goes hand in hand) then one knows anicca intimately and so pain is constantly changing. It is craving that gives pain the illusion of constance. If he was that deluded, suicide is explained.

Nanavira wrote the following in a letter to The Honorable L. Samaratunga on February 21st 1964, in the 2nd paragraph (the bolding and underlining done by me for emphasis):

"I just received a letter...from a man who...read my translation of Evola's book, The Doctrine of Awakening (which, however I cannot now recommend to you without considerable reserves)."

So we have him on the record essentially waving off Evola's take on the Dhamma, and do you notice he says "I cannot now recommend"? That's because he wrote that over 4 years after his reported attainment of sotapatti (which was itself a further 8 years after the original publication of his work on Evola in 1951), and in regards to such he reported on June 27th 1959 about himself in the 3rd person "Having been a teaching-follower for a month, he became one attained to right view.", the part I underlined there is translated from the pali compound dhammanusari, meaning teaching follower, or dhamma-devotee, or acting in conformity with the law.

Now, you are free to believe none of that is valid as accurate accounts, that he was wrong about himself, about his understanding of the dhamma, and about his attainment, that's fine, but what I'm showing you here means that even if you don't think those accounts are factual, it is nonetheless factual that those are the accounts, which means that regardless of what you believe we have him - A: on the record effectively disavowing Evola's work and B: crediting only The Dhamma as his guide.

So, the reasoning for your position (even with its ideologically charged tone aside) does not hold water in light of the historical record.

[asahi]

As I understand it, bhava is just that Being - the question of whether or not something is taken as self is only possible because that Being (of Self) is already established. It is much broader than a belief. Whether the ordinary person believes in Self or not, Being is always the basis for the question arising, so any answer - even denial - simply affirms it. The belief in self is attavāda, but found in the suttas as attavādupādāna (clinging to the belief in self) - clinging being a supporting condition for Being (bhava), and Ven. Nanavira was careful to differentiate between the two. With Being established so thoroughly, any notion of birth or death, whether it be past, present or future would inevitably apply to Self, apply to “me”, in the case of the ordinary person.

Yes, this still does refer to physical birth and death, but in terms of support of that mass of suffering, not just in terms of this body.

Could you clarify on "being" meaning ? Do you mean the (1) sense of self or (2) the five aggregates ? Pls provide reference if you refers to either one .

[pulga]

So we have him on the record essentially waving off Evola's take on the Dhamma, and do you notice he says "I cannot now recommend"?

I think what Ven. Ñanavira found inspiring about Evola was the virility and conviction he attributed to early Buddhism. Ven. Ñanavira didn't want to pursue the Dhamma as an academic exercise, to become an expert on the Suttas [1], or even worse Buddhism. He wanted to put the teachings to practice, to make a wholehearted commitment to attaining enlightenment. Unfortunately his amoebiasis proved to be a great setback.

I myself have practised fairly continuously for one year, and then (after amoebiasis had crippled my capacity for practice) spasmodically for about fourteen years, and I am quite familiar with the low-level results of this practice. There is a gradual and increasing experience of calm and tranquillity as the object of meditation (in my case, the in- and out-breaths) becomes clearer and more definite, and at the same time distracting thoughts about other matters become less. (If one does turn one's attention to such matters, they are seen much more clearly and steadily than at normal times.) As one proceeds, one's capacity for practice increases, and one may be able to continue (with interruptions for meals, etc.) for many hours; and also one positively dislikes any outside interruption, and necessary breaks are most unwelcome. ~ [L. 126 | 136] 26 May 1964

[1] That's not to imply that he didn't eventually acquire a thorough knowledge of the Suttas in their original Pali.

[SDC]

As I understand it, bhava is just that Being - the question of whether or not something is taken as self is only possible because that Being (of Self) is already established. It is much broader than a belief. Whether the ordinary person believes in Self or not, Being is always the basis for the question arising, so any answer - even denial - simply affirms it. The belief in self is attavāda, but found in the suttas as attavādupādāna (clinging to the belief in self) - clinging being a supporting condition for Being (bhava), and Ven. Nanavira was careful to differentiate between the two. With Being established so thoroughly, any notion of birth or death, whether it be past, present or future would inevitably apply to Self, apply to “me”, in the case of the ordinary person.

Yes, this still does refer to physical birth and death, but in terms of support of that mass of suffering, not just in terms of this body.

Could you clarify on "being" meaning ? Do you mean the (1) sense of self or (2) the five aggregates ? Pls provide reference if you refers to either one .

Being or existence are two very popular renderings of bhava. In my defense there are not many sources that define it. However I did manage to find two that illustrate things somewhat:

How, bhikkhus, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed, and disgusted by this very same being and they rejoice in (the idea of) non-being, asserting: ‘In as much as this self, good sirs, when the body perishes at death, is annihilated and destroyed and does not exist after death—this is peaceful, this is excellent, this is reality!’ Thus, bhikkhus, do some overreach.

Bhikkhus, there are these two views: the view of being and the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmins who rely on the view of being, adopt the view of being, accept the view of being, are opposed to the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmins who rely on the view of non-being, adopt the view of non-being, accept the view of non-being, are opposed to the view of being.

“Any recluses or brahmins who do not understand as they actually are the origin, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of these two views are affected by lust, affected by hate, affected by delusion, affected by craving, affected by clinging, without vision, given to favouring and opposing, and they delight in and enjoy proliferation. They are not freed from birth, ageing, and death; from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair; they are not freed from suffering, I say.
“Any recluses or brahmins who understand as they actually are the origin, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of these two views are without lust, without hate, without delusion, without craving, without clinging, with vision, not given to favouring and opposing, and they do not delight in and enjoy proliferation. They are freed from birth, ageing, and death; from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair; they are freed from suffering, I say.

And I think SN 22.22 shows the space between the five aggregates and existence/being:

At Savatthi…. There the Blessed One said this:

“Bhikkhus, I will teach you the burden, the carrier of the burden, the taking up of the burden, and the laying down of the burden. Listen to that….

“And what, bhikkhus, is the burden? It should be said: the five aggregates subject to clinging. What five? The form aggregate subject to clinging, the feeling aggregate subject to clinging, the perception aggregate subject to clinging, the volitional formations aggregate subject to clinging, the consciousness aggregate subject to clinging. This is called the burden.

“And what, bhikkhus, is the carrier of the burden? It should be said: the person, this venerable one of such a name and clan. This is called the carrier of the burden.

“And what, bhikkhus, is the taking up of the burden? It is this craving that leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination. This is called the taking up of the burden.

“And what, bhikkhus, is the laying down of the burden? It is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, non-reliance on it. This is called the laying down of the burden.”

This is what the Blessed One said. Having said this, the Fortunate One, the Teacher, further said this:

“The five aggregates are truly burdens,
The burden-carrier is the person.
Taking up the burden is suffering in the world,
Laying the burden down is blissful.

Having laid the heavy burden down
Without taking up another burden,
Having drawn out craving with its root,
One is free from hunger, fully quenched.”

I’ll look for more tomorrow.

[asahi]

Being or existence are two very popular renderings of bhava. In my defense there are not many sources that define it. However I did manage to find two that illustrate things somewhat:

Would your understanding on bhava in accords with Ven Nanavira and pls explain the meaning ?

[Bundokji]

I think part of the controversy has to do with labels and the expectations associated with them. In this particular instance, we have a puthujjana who is believed to have became a Sotāpanna. In terms of odds, the most likely candidate puthujannas must be predictable. Ven. Ñāṇavīra was in the army before going forth, which is not the most wholesome livelihood in terms of candidacy. His first encounter with Buddhism was through a book written by a fascist, which is not very reputable ideology that one expects to lead to enlightenment. After taking the rope, he had problems with his meditation practice and did not seem to fit well at the monastery so he chose solitude.

After the claimed attainment, things are not less odd in terms of expectations. He degraded the reliability of his previous views including Evola's book (which were meant to have somehow led him to the attainment). He stopped discussing the dhamma with his previous friend Ven. Nanamoli who was probably less dismissive of orthodoxy and therefore had his statue erected after his death while the memory of Ven. Ñāṇavīra was better to remain hidden especially after committing suicide. The ailment that he suffered from had to do with sex which is not to be expected from a Sotāpanna who has broken the first three fitters and probably weakened the last seven. After teaching the dhamma to sister Vajira she did not appear to be filled with bless but have gone somehow crazy instead.

[Alex123]

I think part of the controversy has to do with labels and the expectations associated with them. In this particular instance, we have a puthujjana who is believed to have became a Sotāpanna. In terms of odds, the most likely candidate puthujannas must be predictable.

Except that humans sometimes ARE unpredictable, and we often cannot predict where a person will end up. Angulimala apparently killed "999" people before meeting the Buddha. Angulimala became an Arhant, something that would be impossible for us to predict.

How many people did person, who later became Ven. Ñāṇavīra, kill? And we are not talking about becoming an Arhant here.

Ven. Ñāṇavīra was in the army before going forth, which is not the most wholesome livelihood in terms of candidacy.

Buddha Gotama belonged to a warrior caste, and as I understand it, He probably had some form of military training.

After the claimed attainment,

From what I've heard, it was in a private letter. He wasn't telling this to everyone around him.

ailment that he suffered from had to do with sex which is not to be expected from a Sotāpanna who has broken the first three fitters and probably weakened the last seven. After teaching the dhamma to sister Vajira she did not appear to be filled with bless but have gone somehow crazy instead.

Sakadagami weaken lust. Anagami completely eliminate it. A Sotapanna isn't expected to weaken it, or for lay person to become celibate (which is good to practice any ways).


Also, the fact that Venerable DIDN'T give up by disrobing, and didn't transgress corresponding precepts are a plus, IMHO.


I am not making any statements about Venerable's attainment, just showing the flaws in some arguments.

[pulga]

He stopped discussing the dhamma with his previous friend Ven. Nanamoli who was probably less dismissive of orthodoxy and therefore had his statue erected after his death while the memory of Ven. Ñāṇavīra was better to remain hidden especially after committing suicide.

Extract from Ven. Ñānamoli's letter to his friend in the UK regarding his newly published The Path of Purification, a translation of the Visuddhimagga:

My famous magnum opus (translation) was published last month. I have asked them to send you a copy. If it hasn't arrived by March, let me know (parcels seem to take 6 to 8 weeks to Europe now). It seems rather alien and odd, like something done by someone else. For amusement I concealed my name in the first letters of each sentence in the preface. I haven't told anyone but you at all. It amuses me to see if anyone will notice it (but of course they won't). I do not really like the book at all, or agree with some of its content, and it really represents partly the getting past an obstacle and partly some rather abstruse literary amusement for myself. I recommend you to put it on a shelf rather than read it. I think the printers, the best in Ceylon, could have done a better job. Had I known, I would have left less in their hands, still... The "18 faults of a monastery" at the beginning of chapter IV might amuse you. [Undated letter, probably in 1956]

It's clear from their correspondence that Ven. Ñanamoli valued Ven. Ñanavira's ideas quite a lot, even to the point of being influenced by them, cf. his manuscript translation of the Majjhima Nikaya.

[Ceisiwr]

My famous magnum opus (translation) was published last month. I have asked them to send you a copy. If it hasn't arrived by March, let me know (parcels seem to take 6 to 8 weeks to Europe now). It seems rather alien and odd, like something done by someone else. For amusement I concealed my name in the first letters of each sentence in the preface. I haven't told anyone but you at all. It amuses me to see if anyone will notice it (but of course they won't). I do not really like the book at all, or agree with some of its content, and it really represents partly the getting past an obstacle and partly some rather abstruse literary amusement for myself. I recommend you to put it on a shelf rather than read it. I think the printers, the best in Ceylon, could have done a better job. Had I known, I would have left less in their hands, still... The "18 faults of a monastery" at the beginning of chapter IV might amuse you. [Undated letter, probably in 1956]

It's clear from their correspondence that Ven. Ñanamoli valued Ven. Ñanavira's ideas quite a lot, even to the point of being influenced by them, cf. his manuscript translation of the Majjhima Nikaya.

Now that is interesting.

For amusement I concealed my name in the first letters of each sentence in the preface.

I couldn't find this in my copy.

[pulga]

For amusement I concealed my name in the first letters of each sentence in the preface.

I couldn't find this in my copy.

It's in mine. Translator's Preface, page vii.

[Ceisiwr]

For amusement I concealed my name in the first letters of each sentence in the preface.

I couldn't find this in my copy.

It's in mine. Translator's Preface, page vii.

So he did

[SDC]

Being or existence are two very popular renderings of bhava. In my defense there are not many sources that define it. However I did manage to find two that illustrate things somewhat:

Would your understanding on bhava in accords with Ven Nanavira and pls explain the meaning ?

I believe I’ve shared a fairly accurate account in my own words, but I’m hesitant to keep trying to explain it further. I’ve spent time in many threads doing that over the years, but I’m not sure how productive it is going to be here in this thread. If his ideas interest you I encourage you to read the book. Once you do, I’d be more than happy to discuss it at length.

[ssasny]

It seems to me that to be in the spirit of the Ven. Ñanavira approach to things, one needs to verify for one's self, personally, whether Ven. Ñanavira's teaching is in accord with the dhamma or not. Simply asking another's opinion will not get you very far.

And I think this is what is attractive to so many about Ven. Ñanavira's approach and writings. He was determined to come to a direct personal understanding of the dhamma, as he found it in the Pāli suttas. At any cost.
So debating about Ven. Ñanavira's attainment and understanding is really of very limited value. If his writings help us personally understand better they are of value. If not, they should be set aside.

[Ceisiwr]

And I think this is what is attractive to so many about Ven. Ñanavira's approach and writings. He was determined to come to a direct personal understanding of the dhamma, as he found it in the Pāli suttas. At any cost.

Others, might I even say some from a classical persuasion, don’t do that?

[ssasny]

I'm not sure what you might mean by 'a classical persuasion', but I certainly did not mean to imply in any way that Ven. Ñanavira was the only person ever to strive to the utmost in understanding dhamma.