Path of "Right Endurance" of Ven. Nyanamoli (from Hillside Hermitage) incompatible with the Noble Eightfold Path

[DNS]

A lay person cannot create a schism. Lay people can have differences of opinions, interpretations, but that is not a schism. Some have incorrectly gone so far as saying a lay person with an idiosyncratic view is causing a schism, but this is not the case.

“A bhikkhunī does not split a Community even if she strives for a split. A female trainee does not split a Community. A novice … A female novice … A male lay-follower … A female lay-follower does not split a Community even if she strives for a split. A regular bhikkhu, of common affiliation, standing in the same territory splits the Community.” — Cv.VII.5.1

https://info-buddhism.com/sangha_schism.html

Only a monk can create a schism, which is of course heavy bad kamma.

[mikenz66]

Zom and I are old friends. I referred to the OP, not zom.

I am not causing a schism in the sangha, either, if that is what you meant.

.....
With mettā.

Well, it's an interesting issue. In the red corner Ven Thanissaro, as the champion of effort. In the blue corner Ven Nyanamoli as the champion of being careful of not generating by aversion to what one is trying to tame and eliminate.

In my view, the warnings from both corners are valid under particular circumstances. It's like this famous Ajahn Chah quote, but on this thread the voices are from different teachers and/or students:

"It is as though I see people walking down a road I know well. To them the way may be unclear. I look up and see someone about to fall into a ditch on the right-hand side of the road, so I call out to him, 'Go left, go left' Similarly, if I see another person about to fall into a ditch on the left, I call out, 'Go right, go right!' That is the extent of my teaching. Whatever extreme you get caught in, whatever you get attached to, I say, 'Let go of that too.' Let go on the left, let go on the right. Come back to the center, and you will arrive at the true Dharma."
https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books2/Ajah ... t_Pool.htm

Some of us need more of the "go left", and for get that others actually need the opposite.


Mike

[User019336]

In reference to the excerpt in op

In defense of Nyanamoli i think that he might be simply taking 'right endurance' to mean rightly [skillfully] experiencing whatever there is, as in being prepared to face whatever kamma is ripening as a responsible person would be prepared to face the consequences of his actions.

As i understand it his point is that we have to endure samsara without making our predicament worse [prolonging our wandering on]

These three feelings have been spoken of by me: a feeling of pleasure, a feeling of pain (stress), & a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. These are the three feelings spoken of by me. But I have also said: ‘Whatever is felt comes under stress (pain).’ That I have stated simply in connection with the inconstancy of fabrications. That I have stated simply in connection with the nature of fabrications to end… in connection with the nature of fabrications to fall away… to fade away… to cease… in connection with the nature of fabrications to change.

In particular making it worse by either avoidance or by taking mara's bait.

One who harms himself is like a person who when asked to pay back a debt would put himself into a hospital as to temporarily avoid his lender but thus incurring further medical bills.

Whereas one who takes the bait is akin to one who on being asked to repay a debt will rather repay later with interest.

Both are just sinking further into debt instead of doing some skillful work.

[NotMe]

A lay person cannot create a schism. Lay people can have differences of opinions, interpretations, but that is not a schism. Some have incorrectly gone so far as saying a lay person with an idiosyncratic view is causing a schism, but this is not the case.
...
Only a monk can create a schism, which is of course heavy bad kamma.

Dr. Snyder! Cannot express the gratitude we all owe to you. Thank you for sharing!!!

[NotMe]

Well, it's an interesting issue. In the red corner Ven Thanissaro, as the champion of effort. In the blue corner Ven Nyanamoli as the champion of being careful of not generating by aversion to what one is trying to tame and eliminate.
....
Some of us need more of the "go left", and for get that others actually need the opposite.


Mike

Thanks you Mike! Good to read you again. Paraphrase Kalmus: The proof is in the pudding - make the recipe offered and taste. Yum!

[NotMe]

Some of us need more of the "go left", and for get that others actually need the opposite.

Mike

I need to go down more - as in sit down!

[User019336]

As to his defining of sensuality i'll just say that it's very unorthodox and leave it at that. Whether he got the meaning right or not i shouldn't have judged without asking him.

[Lucilius]

I need to go down more - as in sit down!

Same (^^;)

[Lucilius]

Well, it's an interesting issue. In the red corner Ven Thanissaro, as the champion of effort. In the blue corner Ven Nyanamoli as the champion of being careful of not generating by aversion to what one is trying to tame and eliminate.

I'm team red corner then XD.

As for trying to get rid of akusala dhamma by generating aversion; that is not skillful. However, the motivation to get rid of akusala dhamma is simply heedfulness (when done correctly), not aversion.

"It is as though I see people walking down a road I know well. To them the way may be unclear. I look up and see someone about to fall into a ditch on the right-hand side of the road, so I call out to him, 'Go left, go left' Similarly, if I see another person about to fall into a ditch on the left, I call out, 'Go right, go right!' That is the extent of my teaching. Whatever extreme you get caught in, whatever you get attached to, I say, 'Let go of that too.' Let go on the left, let go on the right. Come back to the center, and you will arrive at the true Dharma."
https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books2/Ajah ... t_Pool.htm

Ven. Ajaan Chah, good as always XD. Thanks for sharing.

.....
With mettā.

[Jack19990101]

Sutta praises many qualities/strength in context of practice.
Among them, there are conflicts to each other.
The reason is that there are superior, inferior ranking among qualities.

Some inferior quality is to mastered then discarded, in order to cultivate superior strength.

i.e. Sila vs wisdom - although sila is important, but it is to develop wisdom. Once wisdom matures, sila disappears.

Suppression vs Endurance - endurance is much sturdy quality over suppression. If you cant endure, suppress it. If you can't suppress it, avoid it.
If you cant endure, there is no eroding. there will be no cessation.

[NotMe]

……..

Beautiful.

Metta

[Lucilius]

Suppression vs Endurance - endurance is much sturdy quality over suppression. If you cant endure, suppress it. If you can't suppress it, avoid it.
If you cant endure, there is no eroding. there will be no cessation.

Sutta reference?

.....
With mettā.

PS: Sure, there is a progression on the path.
However, to my knowledge, akusala dhamma (such as sensual desire, ill-will etc.) are to be consistently abandoned. The suttas don't talk about enduring or tolerating akusala dhamma.
There are things to be endured/tolerated: heat, cold, the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words & painful bodily feelings. But never akusala dhamma in your mind.
(Things to be avoided are wild elephants, wild horses, wild dogs, etc.) See MN 2. In other words, the things to be endured, avoided and abandoned are different.
But if you know of a sutta that contradicts this, please feel free to share.

sidenote: a non-returner doesn't have to abandon or suppress sensual desire or ill-will, because for them, such thoughts don't arise anymore. So there is that progression.

[Jack19990101]

Nah - going extra yard to convince somebody, not interesting.
I said my piece, i already had my fun.

[SDC]

Suppression vs Endurance - endurance is much sturdy quality over suppression. If you cant endure, suppress it. If you can't suppress it, avoid it.
If you cant endure, there is no eroding. there will be no cessation.

Sutta reference?

.....
With mettā.

PS: Sure, there is a progression on the path.
However, to my knowledge, akusala dhamma (such as sensual desire, ill-will etc.) are to be consistently abandoned. The suttas don't talk about enduring or tolerating akusala dhamma.
There are things to be endured/tolerated: heat, cold, the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words & painful bodily feelings. But never akusala dhamma in your mind.
(Things to be avoided are wild elephants, wild horses, wild dogs, etc.) See MN 2. In other words, the things to be endured, avoided and abandoned are different.
But if you know of a sutta that contradicts this, please feel free to share.

sidenote: a non-returner doesn't have to abandon or suppress sensual desire or ill-will, because for them, such thoughts don't arise anymore. So there is that progression.

Hi Lucilius,

Not sure if you saw my post above, but akusala vitakka are to be consistently abandoned (not tolerated), though I’m not sure what you mean by akusala dhamma - those are usually referred to in the suttas as pleasing, displeasing (or neither) in their content. That is not the choice of the individual - those exterior bases are described in SN 35.238 as:

Village-attacking dacoits’: this is a designation for the six external sense bases. The eye, bhikkhus, is attacked by agreeable and disagreeable forms. The ear … The nose … The tongue … The body … The mind is attacked by agreeable and disagreeable mental phenomena.

Now, where thoughts go on account of the content seems to be what is either wholesome or unwholesome. Those are consistent with descriptions of vitakka.

Did you happen to read the sutta I posted? AN 6.7? It explicitly says it is noble to endure all six exterior sense bases; thoughts (dhamma) being one of them. Again, it seems Ajahn Nyanamoli - like many translators - uses thoughts for dhamma and vitakka interchangeably, though the suttas seem to account for the distinction between endurance and avoidance for dhamma and vitakka respectively.

Like I initially said in my first post in this thread, I think the key to making use of this particular description is not only to consider these suttas but also to consider how Ajahn N has consistently used the terms in question. If he only was referring to vitakka I would have no choice but to agree with you 100%, but seeing as though that isn’t the case, I think the matter of incompatibility raised in the OP is cleared up.

In the very least would you agree that the suttas treat these terms in this way? MN 20 and MN 2 are consistent with your analysis of vitakka, but that AN 6.7 (AN 6.6) are consistent with what we’ve been discussing about dhamma?

[NotMe]

Nah - going extra yard to convince somebody, not interesting.
I said my piece, i already had my fun.