Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
JamesTheGiant
Posts: 2147
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:41 am
Location: New Zealand

Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by JamesTheGiant »

Why is Nanavira considered controversial? I've overheard conversations about Nanavira Thera, and people seem to be in three groups:

1) He's an evil heretic.

2) He's a genius sotapanna.

3) Nyana-who?

But I've never heard why some consider him to be a heretic.
I know he claimed to be a stream-enterer in a letter which was meant to be opened after he ended his own life... Super controversial, but there has to be more to it than that?


(I also asked this question on stackexchange)
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by AlexBrains92 »

4) He committed suicide.

«He does not construct even the subtlest apperception with regard
to what is seen, heard or thought; how would one conceptualise
that Brahmin in this world, who does not appropriate a view?

They do not fabricate, they do not prefer, they do not accept any
doctrine; the Brahmin cannot be inferred through virtue or vows,
such a person has gone to the far shore and does not fall back.»


- Snp 4.5 -
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Apart from the suicide it’s mostly due to his interpretation of dependent origination. Ven. Buddhadasa is the same. A difference though in that his followers accept rebirth, it’s just nothing to do with D.O. for them.
“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 »

JamesTheGiant wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 12:03 am Why is Nanavira considered controversial? I've overheard conversations about Nanavira Thera, and people seem to be in three groups:

1) He's an evil heretic.

2) He's a genius sotapanna.

3) Nyana-who?

But I've never heard why some consider him to be a heretic.
I know he claimed to be a stream-enterer in a letter which was meant to be opened after he ended his own life... Super controversial, but there has to be more to it than that?


(I also asked this question on stackexchange)
Because legions of both critics and “supporters” have spent decades speculating what he wrote about while clearly not having read him carefully and thoroughly. This forum had quite a few of the former - not a clue what he actually wrote about but criticized it to pieces nonetheless. Either they try to piggyback off of Ven. Bodhi’s critique without really knowing what Nanavira meant, or they just parrot the likes of those who were threatened by a monk who was not in line with the orthodoxy. The suicide didn’t help either. He’s an easy target.

He does ask a lot of the reader, but he doesn’t demand it. The reader has the choice whether or not to adopt his attitude to see if it makes a difference. And that is not something that can be done just by skimming his work or relying on second hand accounts.

So if you want to know about what he wrote, read it and (as pulga always says) keep an open mind.
Last edited by SDC on Sun Nov 28, 2021 1:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
“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
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by SteRo »

JamesTheGiant wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 12:03 am Why is Nanavira considered controversial? I've overheard conversations about Nanavira Thera, and people seem to be in three groups:

1) He's an evil heretic.

2) He's a genius sotapanna.

3) Nyana-who?

But I've never heard why some consider him to be a heretic.
I know he claimed to be a stream-enterer in a letter which was meant to be opened after he ended his own life... Super controversial, but there has to be more to it than that?


(I also asked this question on stackexchange)
There may be instances of mental health issues that are not considered to be mental health issues within a particular community but are considered to be mental health issues outside of this particular community.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

JamesTheGiant wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 12:03 am Why is Nanavira considered controversial? I've overheard conversations about Nanavira Thera, and people seem to be in three groups:

1) He's an evil heretic.

2) He's a genius sotapanna.

3) Nyana-who?

But I've never heard why some consider him to be a heretic.
I know he claimed to be a stream-enterer in a letter which was meant to be opened after he ended his own life... Super controversial, but there has to be more to it than that?


(I also asked this question on stackexchange)

I'm much of a (3) "Nyana-who?".

The main turn-off point is suicide.




Strangely, regarding suicides of well-known monks these days, some automatically tend to label them with the term nibbana of some sort. An obvious one was such an event occured not so long ago to a monk probably well known to the frequenters of DWT; that venerable even messaged/emailed to some people about the "imagined" impending dangers from very imminent conspiracy plans by other religious groups, towards the end of his life. And, yes, some people would not spare him from fantasizing that he has "gone to nibbana".

Again, the main turn-off point is suicide, while being ware that a suicidal act in itself does not necessarily prevent one from striving/practicing for liberation at the very last moments. However, the "right (or) not-so-right (or) wrong" teachings of the venerables have been done well before the possible-correcting-moments after suicidal act.


I cannot say the right-ness or wrong-ness of their practices AFTER their suicidal acts before death, and I think it is possible that they might be ended up in ariyaship, thanks to possible right practicing at the very last moments after suicidal acts before death.





The main problem, which I'm quite sure of, is that their practices prior to suicidal acts obviously lack the ability to deter them from their suicidal acts resulting from the turmoil of thoughts (as examplified by the venerable above).

In other words, I would say their practice leading to their suicidal acts must be wrong (or not right enough), at least to some extent significant so as not to deter them from their suicidal acts.

:heart:
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
  • Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
    V. Nanananda

𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
  • Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
    V. Buddhādasa
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by mikenz66 »

SDC wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 12:45 am Because legions of both critics and “supporters” have spent decades speculating what he wrote about while clearly not having read him carefully and thoroughly. ...
That's undoubtedly true. Here it is also exacerbated by the way many admirers just post slabs of his writings, without putting it in their own words.

It is up to us to personally come to an understanding of the Dhamma. Modern teachers/commentators can clearly be very helpful to that task, but obviously some teachers/commentators suit some people better than others at some particular time. If I don't find a teacher or commentator inspiring, I don't see any point in worrying about it. There are plenty of others.

:heart:
Mike
pulga
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by pulga »

mikenz66 wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 7:41 am
That's undoubtedly true. Here it is also exacerbated by the way many admirers just post slabs of his writings, without putting it in their own words.
Isn't that what people do when they quote the Suttas, or provide links to video of various teachers discussing their interpretations of the Dhamma?
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by SDC »

mikenz66 wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 7:41 am
SDC wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 12:45 am Because legions of both critics and “supporters” have spent decades speculating what he wrote about while clearly not having read him carefully and thoroughly. ...
That's undoubtedly true. Here it is also exacerbated by the way many admirers just post slabs of his writings, without putting it in their own words.
I tend to think we’re deep into the fallout of what occurred many years ago. The accounts - by some of our members who were there - point to blind admiration from his followers, many of whom seemed to have misunderstood him or just zeroed in on what excited them the most.

What we have on this forum today in terms of those who follow Ven. Nanavira’s writings are those who have undoubtedly spent a good deal of time reading him, and although may not compromise the manner in which they choose to discuss his interpretation, are not simply parroting him on account of being enamored. Again it comes down to who is willing to take the time to read him thoroughly and with the intent to understand it.
“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
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by mikenz66 »

pulga wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 1:18 pm
mikenz66 wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 7:41 am
That's undoubtedly true. Here it is also exacerbated by the way many admirers just post slabs of his writings, without putting it in their own words.
Isn't that what people do when they quote the Suttas, or provide links to video of various teachers discussing their interpretations of the Dhamma?
Yes. I find it very unhelpful when someone asks a difficult question, and the response is simply a wall of suttas.

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by mikenz66 »

SDC wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 1:54 pm What we have on this forum today in terms of those who follow Ven. Nanavira’s writings are those who have undoubtedly spent a good deal of time reading him, and although may not compromise the manner in which they choose to discuss his interpretation, are not simply parroting him on account of being enamored. Again it comes down to who is willing to take the time to read him thoroughly and with the intent to understand it.
That is a good point. Obviously his interpretations have inspired some, and they have put a good deal of effort into developing their understanding using his approach. Those of us to take their inspiration elsewhere shouldn't complain about that.

:heart:
Mike
dharmacorps
Posts: 2298
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:33 pm

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by dharmacorps »

For me it is his suicide but also his statements that everything he wrote before his supposed stream entry was wrong. If any dhamma author discards their own previous work like that it makes me lose interest in what they write.
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by Bundokji »

I am one of those whom SDC and Mike described. I did not read his work thoroughly except some of his letters, articles and accounts about him, his biography and excerpts from his book. Eccentrics and original thinkers have always interested me, and i think the Venerable belongs to this group. I believe that beyond learning the basics, the dhamma has to be rediscovered anew by each individual. Ven. Nanavira appears to have done just that.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by SarathW »

I gave up on Ven. Nanavira because I could not understand the way he wrote.
It made it worse because of the poor quality of the printing of his books.
The best thing is to discuss his teaching one by one.
Did he teach something other than in Sutta?
Did he interpret the Sutta differently from the orthodox?
I have some concerns about him taking his own life. In my opinion, this does not stop him from becoming a Sotapanna.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

Post by SDC »

dharmacorps wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 8:34 pm For me it is his suicide but also his statements that everything he wrote before his supposed stream entry was wrong. If any dhamma author discards their own previous work like that it makes me lose interest in what they write.
What he did say regarding everything prior to 1960 was:

“With regard to any of my past writings that you may come across..., I would ask you to treat with great reserve anything dated before 1960, about which time certain of my views underwent a modification. If this is forgotten you may be puzzled by inconsistencies between earlier and later writings....” Ven. Ñānavīra Thera, 22nd March, 1963

Also good to note that he shared the news of his stream entry to a senior monk in a private letter that was later shared without his consent (if I’m recalling the facts correctly).
“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