eternalism is the same identity forever
Buddhism teaches we change
we're not the same person (as in school)
eternalism is the same identity forever
Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t Madhyamaka teach that to posit something as existing is to side with eternalism whilst to say that something has ceased is to side with annihilationism, this being part of the critique of the Abhidhamma regarding the sabhava-dhammas?
Eternally bored of misrepresentations and mischaracterisations perhaps?
At a very refined level, "something existing" is eternalism and "something destroyed/interrupted" is annihilationism in Madhyamaka as I'm familiar with it, but that is a very refined level of meaning coming from a long process of analysis, getting to the "root cause" as it were and not dealing with the various diverse surface appearances the two views can have. The Buddha in that MN sutta uses a more down-to-earth example. I agree though that, ultimately, the error of the eternalist is to posit the self and/or the things as (eternally) existing, and that the annihilationist believes that the self and/or the things exist for a short while and then are destroyed.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:00 pmCorrect me if I’m wrong but doesn’t Madhyamaka teach that to posit something as existing is to side with eternalism whilst to say that something has ceased is to side with annihilationism, this being part of the critique of the Abhidhamma regarding the sabhava-dhammas?
To you the 4 elements are eternal substances.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:06 pm Greetings,
Eternally bored of misrepresentations and mischaracterisations perhaps?
All over a TL;DR on the reasoning behind Nanavira's suicide.
Metta,
Paul.
To me, the four mahabhuta are anatta and subject to change, so how is that eternalism? (Rhetorical question... I don't want or expect a reply)
Agree. This is not very Teravada.Ontheway wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:07 amSounds Eternalism to me.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:49 am Greetings,
If you were to read his Letters, you would know the answer to this.dharmacorps wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:28 am Additionally, would a sotapanna kill themselves?
...
If you can reach sotapanna why not go for sakadagami?
TL;DR - It takes Samma Samadhi to progress to subsequent levels and his ailments precluded that advancement. His body could not support it, so he went in for a new one.
Metta,
Paul.
Since my brief attempt at a TL;DR to save you from reading his Letters yourselves seems to be causing consternation in itself (... come on everyone, I thought you loved believing in rebirth! ), you're welcome to read the Letters yourself.
...Regarding the question of a bhikkhu's suicide, the view that it is better for him to disrobe rather than kill himself when he finds he can make no further progress is—if you will forgive me for saying so—a layman's view. There was at least one bhikkhu in the Buddha's day—the Ven. Channa Thera—who (in spite of what the Commentary says) killed himself as an arahat owing to incurable sickness; and there are many other examples in the Suttas of bhikkhus who—as ariyapuggalas—took their own life (and some became arahat in doing so—Ven. Godhika Thera, Ven. Vakkali Thera, for example).[2] One (who became arahat), the Ven. Sappadāsa Thera, could not get rid of lustful thoughts for twenty-five years, and took his razor to cut his throat, saying
sattham vā āharissāmi, ko attho jīvitena mekatham hi sikkham paccakkham kālam kubbetha mādiso (Thag. 407)
I shall use the knife—what use is this life to me?
How can one such as I meet his death having put aside the training (i.e. disrobed)?
And the Buddha himself warns (in the Mahāsuññata Sutta—M. 122: iii,109-18) that one who becomes a layman after following a teacher may fall into the hells when he dies. There is no doubt at all that, whatever public opinion may think, a bhikkhu is probably worse advised to disrobe than to end his life—that is, of course, if he is genuinely practising the Buddha's Teaching. It is hard for laymen (and even, these days, for the majority of bhikkhus, I fear) to understand that when a bhikkhu devotes his entire life to one single aim, there may come a time when he can no longer turn back—lay life has become incomprehensible to him. If he cannot reach his goal there is only one thing for him to do—to die (perhaps you are not aware that the Buddha has said that 'death' for a bhikkhu means a return to lay life—Opamma Samy. 11: ii,271).
There is in my present situation (since the nervous disorder that I have had for the past year consists of an abnormal, persistent, sometimes fairly acute, erotic stimulation) a particularly strong temptation to return to the state of a layman; and I have not the slightest intention of giving in to it. This erotic stimulation can be overcome by successful samatha practice (mental concentration), but my chronic amoebiasis makes this particularly difficult for me. So for me it is simply a question of how long I can stand the strain.
... and of course the Suttas, which Nanavira explicitly trusted as accurate (per the quote provided earlier in this topic) ...I shall not stop here to discuss suicide in the light of the Dhamma, except to remark that though it is never encouraged it is not the heinous offense it is sometimes popularly thought to be, and that the consequences of the act will vary according to circumstances—for the puthujjana they can be disastrous, but for the arahat (the Venerable Channa Thera—S. XXXV,87: iv,55-60—for example) they are nil.
The full Letters are available elsewhere, online.AN 3.87 wrote:With the ending of three fetters they have at most seven rebirths. They will transmigrate at most seven times among gods and humans and then make an end of suffering.
I must confess and admit that I have been such a person here on this forum and do regret it, arguing in absolutes and whatnot. I humbly admire the tame example being shown and intend to exemplify that, I mean, even Nanavira himself was quite cool, indifferent, and patient about all the trouble and controversy he and his supporters (the Judge he shared letters with that are published come to mind) faced and didn't argue in such smug manner.
nmjojola wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:50 amI must confess and admit that I have been such a person here on this forum and do regret it, arguing in absolutes and whatnot. I humbly admire the tame example being shown and intend to exemplify that, I mean, even Nanavira himself was quite cool, indifferent, and patient about all the trouble and controversy he and his supporters (the Judge he shared letters with that are published come to mind) faced and didn't argue in such smug manner.
Anywho, with that off my chest, as to the actual topic:
1. As regards his interpretation of DO, the problem is not only people not reading adequately in order to properly debate the matter, but also not knowing how to read it, which The Preface to his notes tries to fairly inoculate but it just goes over readers heads, Bhikkhu Bodhi was a good example, his refutation of Nanavira's notes was an excellent work from the Orthodox Therevadin perspective, but the fact he thought it as a just argument against the Notes shows the essential message of The Preface simply didn't register.
2. As regards his suicide, dismissing him on that alone is not an attitude corroborated in the Suttas, non-Arahant disciples did it and became Arahant in the process. Now, of course that doesn't show Nanavira was what he claimed to be, but it does mean this is far from a simple matter, which he often wrote about in his letters. Which leads again to one of the main problems, one has to be willing to take the time to read his Notes and Letters, which is not a light matter, the Notes are fairly small but they are quite dense and tax about every reserve in the reader to digest, and the Letters are not that much less so, and there are a lot of them.
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.asahi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:27 pm I hope i understand it correctly . According to Nanavira , bhava or being (becoming) , is a belief in 'self' , that the puthujjana takes what appears to be his 'self' at its face value . Following this , puthujjana's taking himself to be a self as the basis for his notions "my self was born" and "my self will die," in which that 'being' (bhava) would be the condition for both 'birth' and 'aging-and-death'.
So , what seems to be missing here is , whatever birth it is , it will need a physical body in place first to give rise to the view of "my self" to arise for each and every new physical body in each new life , if "birth" (of my self) is continuosly occuring in the "present" state of life , there is no need to emphasize on the ever existing self which is already in existence stating that the "birth" repeatedly occurs in this very life . Another thing is , the arising of the notion of self seems to be in the link prior to bhava . This appears to be incompatible or at odds with the suttas .
Ps . His takes on death seems to be at odds also .
Evola was also Ven. Nanamoli’s (Osbert Moore) first inspiration. Are you suggesting people throw away his translation of the Visuddhimagga and Majjhima Nikaya, not to mention everything else he contributed to the Theravada tradition? Too bad you didn’t know that before you posted.sunnat wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:53 am 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.