Why is Ñānavīra considered controversial?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

Really?

Yes, which is why I said it.

To be fair, perhaps there is an implied "in my opinion" in your post that I didn't pick up on.

I have no idea what you do or do not pick up on, but what I wrote was simply an accurate on-topic account of Nanavira Thera's position. Substantiation has since been provided, so as to counter your disruptive misrepresentations.

As for derailing, I actually thought this thread was actually very helpful and useful, and I thought is was ironic that you made your post around the time SDC was posting this:

Whatever the reason, it’s just nice to see less aggressive attitudes from both supporters and critics. Based just on his body of work, things should’ve never gotten so tense.

Making true statements and correcting falsehoods is not aggressive, and I sympathize if you find it so.

All the best.

Metta,
Paul.

[Jack19990101]

There is no way our experiences of dependent origination would format into the interpretation of traditional commentary.
Nanavira version is simply much closer to actual insight arising when Dhamma is seen.

Hence I think traditional commentary interpreted from a non-experiential aspect. It is more cosmetical & more scholastic.
Nanavira's version appeal to some practitioners as it resembles their personal experience, or it articulated what they saw.

If you are a new practitioner, if you read Commentary, you will definitely dwell more on a timeline.
You would never think you can see d.o. in a short session of meditation. And you would need some sidis to see the whole process.
If you read Nanavira, you have the opposite. Dependent origination is ready to lay bare to you in your practice, all within this lifetime.

Nanavira's version has flaw as well - it is written shortly after his breakthrough. The link avijja-sankhara is purely scholaristic speculation and lack of experiential clarity.

[mikenz66]

Making true statements and correcting falsehoods is not aggressive, and I sympathize if you find it so.

I do agree they are true representations of your and Nanavira's opinions. And I sympathise that you find my posts intrusive.

Be well.

Mike

[Alex123]

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.

So many people cling to their views and avoid admitting being wrong at all costs...
IMHO, that is a big plus if a person discards his/her previous views for the better. The worst, IMHO, if the person dies with the exact same views he was born with. Now that was a wasted life.

[Alex123]

4) He committed suicide.

Not affirming (or condemning) the above, weren't there bhikkhus (Ven. Channa, Ven Vakkali, if my memory serves me correctly) in the Buddha's time who did that and became Arhats in the last moment? There was also a bhikkhu (Citta Hatthirohaputta) who disrobed 6 times, re-ordained and then became an Arhat.

IMHO, it is wrong to judge another person. We weren't in his shoes, we don't know what it is like, we cannot telepathically read his true intentions and states of mind.

It is too easy to be an "arm-chair critic". IMHO.

[dharmacorps]

IMHO, that is a big plus if a person discards his/her previous views for the better. The worst, IMHO, if the person dies with the exact same views he was born with. Now that was a wasted life.

Sure. Holding stubbornly to views is not a good thing. But you don't get points for just changing your views at the drop of a hat, the question is are your new views more skillful that your old ones.

Only a Buddha can know someone's attainments such as if a person became an arahant at the last second. Discernment is a good thing. If someone killed themself because of suffering and depression, that is common in this world. Killing onesself as an arahant because the work is done and one is ill with no hope of getting better is quite rare. Nobody is judging Ven Nanvira, the question is why he is controversial. The reasons given here do explain that.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Sure. Holding stubbornly to views is not a good thing. But you don't get points for just changing your views at the drop of a hat, the question is are your new views more skillful that your old ones.

I think you're trivializing the transition to sotapanna somewhat. From that date, he could see through the Dhamma Eye, and had developed the understanding that would ultimately take him through to nibbana. Prior to that he was a puthujjana, destined for indefinite wanderings in samsara. It's a significant insight, and yes... understanding things better after that transition, should render many old (puthujjana) views redundant, and he should be able to see the error in them. I'd be more concerned if he didn't.

Metta,
Paul.

[Ontheway]

How you know that he is a Sotapanna? Because he said so in Pali?

He also said that Sister Vajira is a Sotapanna. But she later had mental breakdown and disrobed, back to Germany and be a factory worker. If Nanavira was correct that she is a Sotapanna, what can possibly drives her to make such decision? Is that particular sangha imperfect? She can always change monastery, but she didn't do that.

[SarathW]

How you know that he is a Sotapanna? Because he said so in Pali?

He also said that Sister Vajira is a Sotapanna. But she later had mental breakdown and disrobed, back to Germany and be a factory worker. If Nanavira was correct that she is a Sotapanna, what can possibly drives her to make such decision? Is that particular sangha imperfect? She can always change monastery, but she didn't do that.

It does not say that a Sotapanna can't disrobe though. In my opinion, even an Anagami can disrobe except an Arahant.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

How you know that he is a Sotapanna? Because he said so in Pali?

He made this distinction between two periods of his writing, and gave recommendations on how to relate to the earlier period.

Whether I think or know he was sotapanna is utterly irrelevant to that.

Metta,
Paul.

[dharmacorps]

I suppose the question everyone is dancing around is, was Nanavira a Sotapanna? or just overestimating his progress (common among all practitioners) and seriously depressed?-- unanswerable of course.

Additionally, would a sotapanna kill themselves?

If they did, with confirmed confidence in the Buddha and his teachings, they would have to know it is blameworthy in the Buddhasasana to do so short of arahantship. To me, that is trivializing the attainment. If you can reach sotapanna why not go for sakadagami? It doesn't mean they can't kill themselves. Someone can reference the acts a sotapanna is incapable of here as the suttas say.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

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.

[SarathW]

Greetings,

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.

Agree.
I think his sickness was a major roadblock for him to progress.
It appears he has undergone tremendous pain.

[pulga]

If they did, with confirmed confidence in the Buddha and his teachings, they would have to know it is blameworthy in the Buddhasasana to do so short of arahantship.

Suicide is only a minor offense in the Vinaya.

As regards Vinaya and Dhamma I am well aware of the situation and do not need to seek the advice of others. Suicide, though a fault, is not (contrary to a widespread opinion) a grave offence in Vinaya (it is a dukkata);[1] and as regards Dhamma I know better than anyone else how I am placed. Taking all these matters into consideration I do not find, at least as far as my own personal situation is concerned, any very strong reason (though I regret the dukkata) to restrain me from taking my life (naturally, I am speaking only of my own case—for others there may be, and most probably are, very grave objections of one kind or another to suicide). My condition and my state of mind vary from time to time; and whereas on some days I may think weeks or possibly even months ahead, on others it is painful and distasteful to me to think even a few days ahead.~ Ven. Ñanavira, [L. 45 | 52] 28 April 1963

[45.1] dukkata: In the Vinaya, or monastic Code, offences are grouped according to seriousness, the most serious being pārājika, involving expulsion from the Order (cf. L. 56) and sanghādisesa, involving confession and temporary suspension of certain privileges. Dukkata (lit. 'wrongly done') is the least offence except for dubbaca ('wrongly said').

[Ontheway]

Greetings,

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.