It is through not knowing the 4NT that beings take the body as self.
Venerable Nanavira - Sotapanna or Arahant?
Re: Venerable Nanavira - Sotapanna or Arahant?
“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.”
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.”
-
Jack19990101
- Posts: 715
- Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:40 am
Re: Venerable Nanavira - Sotapanna or Arahant?
yes that is true - difference is that
Not knowing truth - its arising is always not here and now. It is in past, a history, a mystery. It is beginningless.
I am the body - its arising is here and now, fresh, instantaneous.
If you hold avijja as 'Not knowing truth', then dependent origination has to start from past life. (traditionally, it is).
If you hold avijja as 'i am the body', you can start from this moment and able to observe it. (Nanavira's view is in this category).
Re: Venerable Nanavira - Sotapanna or Arahant?
Ignorance means a lack of knowledge. Due to that lack of knowledge there is “I am the body”, which is sakkāya-diṭṭhi.Jack19990101 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:16 pm
yes that is true - difference is that
Not knowing truth - its arising is always not here and now. It is in past, a history, a mystery. It is beginningless.
I am the body - its arising is here and now, fresh, instantaneous.
If you hold avijja as 'Not knowing truth', then dependent origination has to start from past life. (traditionally, it is).
If you hold avijja as 'i am the body', you can start from this moment and able to observe it. (Nanavira's view is in this category).
“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.”
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.”
Re: Venerable Nanavira - Sotapanna or Arahant?
So much of Guru worship, creating a false dichotomy between Suttas and Theravada...
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
Re: Venerable Nanavira - Sotapanna or Arahant?
You had so much to say earlier in this thread, but when given the opportunity to solidify your stance, you’re going to hide behind a cliché?
I really hope this isn’t how you choose to end your time in this thread. Still open to hearing a genuine answer to my question if you decide to change your tune.
“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
Re: Venerable Nanavira - Sotapanna or Arahant?
There is nothing extraordinary about a sotāpanna experiencing a great deal of lust. Otherwise there would be no need for the Buddha to separately declare the sakadāgāmi stage.
A good example of this is Ven. Vaṅgīsa, who was a sotāpanna already in all of the following instances:
"https://suttacentral.net/sn8.1/en/sujato"
"https://suttacentral.net/sn8.2/en/sujato"
"https://suttacentral.net/sn8.4/en/sujato"
There might be other examples in the Suttas.
To accurately judge Ven. Ñāṇavīra's case, one should take a moment to recognize (and it is not difficult) how virtually impossible it is for an ordinary person to commit suicide without having been an emotional mess well before they dared to even attempt it (which he wasn't, judging from his letters).
And if he was an emotional mess but was hiding it, presumably to not discredit his claim to sotāpatti, then why would he bother openly discussing (for many years on end) his plans to kill himself And his sexual disorder? Especially if he was trying to deceive others (or even himself) of his attainment, knowing full well that many people would use these things as a way to discredit him. Critics can call him many things, but I don't think 'exceptionally dumb' is one of them.
And let's not forget how a normal person would likely disrobe or at the very least tone down their dedication to solitude and asceticism when having to face only a fraction of all these difficulties.
Despite all this, there is no 'justification' or 'excuse' for suicide, nor for anything at all, as he would say. We are fully responsible for every little choice we make, in any circumstance. Being himself one who preached that notion very frequently, he never tried to convince anyone that his choice was blameless or 'justified'.
But as regards the Dhamma itself, all that is ultimately trivial. The crux of the matter is that most people have already decided that he Must be wrong well before they examine his work, if they ever care to do so carefully and with an open mind. And the very few who criticize it after some amount of actual examination, like the Ven. Bodhi, seem to not even realize just how abysmally they are missing the point, even though Ven. Ñāṇavīra took great pains to repeat it all throught his writings... including the preface.
Part of that point is the fact that genuine practice of the Dhamma requires putting All of one's cherished notions to the test of sharp, self-transparent reflection: 'Have these notions Truly freed me from dukkha?', while recognizing that if the answer to that question is clearly No (and it really Must be No unless it is a rotund Yes), then all the sense of comfort and safety that usually comes from adhering to those notions and interpretations—traditional or not—means nothing.
A good example of this is Ven. Vaṅgīsa, who was a sotāpanna already in all of the following instances:
"https://suttacentral.net/sn8.1/en/sujato"
"https://suttacentral.net/sn8.2/en/sujato"
"https://suttacentral.net/sn8.4/en/sujato"
There might be other examples in the Suttas.
To accurately judge Ven. Ñāṇavīra's case, one should take a moment to recognize (and it is not difficult) how virtually impossible it is for an ordinary person to commit suicide without having been an emotional mess well before they dared to even attempt it (which he wasn't, judging from his letters).
And if he was an emotional mess but was hiding it, presumably to not discredit his claim to sotāpatti, then why would he bother openly discussing (for many years on end) his plans to kill himself And his sexual disorder? Especially if he was trying to deceive others (or even himself) of his attainment, knowing full well that many people would use these things as a way to discredit him. Critics can call him many things, but I don't think 'exceptionally dumb' is one of them.
And let's not forget how a normal person would likely disrobe or at the very least tone down their dedication to solitude and asceticism when having to face only a fraction of all these difficulties.
Despite all this, there is no 'justification' or 'excuse' for suicide, nor for anything at all, as he would say. We are fully responsible for every little choice we make, in any circumstance. Being himself one who preached that notion very frequently, he never tried to convince anyone that his choice was blameless or 'justified'.
But as regards the Dhamma itself, all that is ultimately trivial. The crux of the matter is that most people have already decided that he Must be wrong well before they examine his work, if they ever care to do so carefully and with an open mind. And the very few who criticize it after some amount of actual examination, like the Ven. Bodhi, seem to not even realize just how abysmally they are missing the point, even though Ven. Ñāṇavīra took great pains to repeat it all throught his writings... including the preface.
Part of that point is the fact that genuine practice of the Dhamma requires putting All of one's cherished notions to the test of sharp, self-transparent reflection: 'Have these notions Truly freed me from dukkha?', while recognizing that if the answer to that question is clearly No (and it really Must be No unless it is a rotund Yes), then all the sense of comfort and safety that usually comes from adhering to those notions and interpretations—traditional or not—means nothing.
Last edited by ANG1509 on Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:12 am, edited 3 times in total.