Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by cappuccino »

Ontheway wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:35 pm Is that how you engage in discussion?
eternalism is the same identity forever


Buddhism teaches we change


we're not the same person (as in school)
Last edited by cappuccino on Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22390
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:22 pm
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?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:07 pm
Ontheway wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:07 am
Sounds Eternalism to me. :rolleye:
Retro is an eternalist, of sorts.
Eternally bored of misrepresentations and mischaracterisations perhaps? :shrug: :zzz:

All over a TL;DR on the reasoning behind Nanavira's suicide. 🙄

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by Coëmgenu »

Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:00 pm
Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:22 pm
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?
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.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22390
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by Ceisiwr »

retrofuturist wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:06 pm Greetings,
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:07 pm
Ontheway wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:07 am
Sounds Eternalism to me. :rolleye:
Retro is an eternalist, of sorts.
Eternally bored of misrepresentations and mischaracterisations perhaps? :shrug: :zzz:

All over a TL;DR on the reasoning behind Nanavira's suicide. 🙄

Metta,
Paul. :)
To you the 4 elements are eternal substances.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by SDC »

:focus:

If the staff has any free time, this thread could benefit from a split and/or a merge with the ongoing discussion in the ordination section.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:16 pm To you the 4 elements are eternal substances.
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)

Yet as you were advised earlier, this topic is not about me. The topic is Nanavira Thera.

No more off-topic misrepresentations.

:focus:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by SarathW »

Ontheway wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:07 am
retrofuturist wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:49 am Greetings,
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?
If you were to read his Letters, you would know the answer to this.

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. :)
Sounds Eternalism to me. :rolleye:
Agree. This is not very Teravada.
:tongue:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
SarathW wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:54 pm Agree. This is not very Teravada.
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! :lol: ), you're welcome to read the Letters yourself.

Someone has kindly collected his musings on suicide here.

The pertinent tracts from which I drew the summary include:
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.
...
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.
... and of course the Suttas, which Nanavira explicitly trusted as accurate (per the quote provided earlier in this topic) ...
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.
The full Letters are available elsewhere, online.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
nmjojola
Posts: 169
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:29 am

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by nmjojola »

SDC wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 1:54 pm ...and although may not compromise the manner in which they choose to discuss his interpretation...
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.
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.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by SDC »

nmjojola wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:50 am
SDC wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 1:54 pm ...and although may not compromise the manner in which they choose to discuss his interpretation...
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.
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.
:thumbsup:

Good stuff!
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by asahi »

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 .
:shrug:

Ps . His takes on death seems to be at odds also .
No bashing No gossiping
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by SDC »

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 .
:shrug:

Ps . His takes on death seems to be at odds also .
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.
Last edited by retrofuturist on Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited at SDC's request
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
sunnat
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:08 am

Post by sunnat »

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.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by SDC »

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.
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.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Post Reply