Vinnana v. Phassa

[Ceisiwr]

Detractors of traditionalism could just as easily say that Buddhists like to LARP the Iron Age or Medieval India. It runs both ways, of course.

I've had western traditionalist conservatives say that I'm just playing at being a Buddhist.

[Ceisiwr]

Like I said, we’re too far apart. What you often describe as happening at the breakup of the body for the arahant is what I understand to be the insight as soon as arahantship has been realized. That makes it very difficult to come to common ground.

For some reason you think this vale of tears can be made right. That conditioned dhammas can be made to be non-dukkha. I find that to be a curious belief.

I would’ve turned away years ago if I didn’t see signs of being able to be untouched by the vale of tears.

Being untouched by the vale tears, completely, means never being reborn again into it. Do you think there can be a human life with no dukkha at all, that conditioned dhammas can exist which are free of dukkha?

[Spiny Norman]

For some reason you think this vale of tears can be made right. That conditioned dhammas can be made to be non-dukkha. I find that to be a curious belief.

I would’ve turned away years ago if I didn’t see signs of being able to be untouched by the vale of tears.

Being untouched by the vale tears, completely, means never being reborn again into it. Do you think there can be a human life with no dukkha at all, that conditioned dhammas can exist which are free of dukkha?

Dukkha is caused by craving, not dhammas (2nd Noble Truth).
Dukkha ceases when craving ceases (3rd Noble Truth).

[Spiny Norman]

I still haven't seen a clear explanation of the practical difference between vinnana and phassa, which was the OP question.

Anyone?

[PeterC86]

What is being argued for is the non-sectarian early Buddhist teaching. The counter is a very modern and sectarian interpretation, which finds little basis in the earliest non-sectarian texts. On top of this the proposition is being made, either subtly or overtly, that all of the early Buddhists just got it completely wrong but Venerable Ñāṇavīra and Venerable Ñāṇamoli (with a dash of French Existentialism) finally managed to understand it all after 2500 years. Or, even worse, only Peter with his rather poor scepticism has understood it since the Buddha died.

This for me is completely irrelevant. The only relevant thing for me to be on this forum is to share the buddhadhamma as I have experienced it to be liberating. This experience is in line with the understanding of Nagarjuna, those who have understood Nagarjuna, others who have understood the Buddhadhamma layed out in the Pali Canon behind the plaster of Theravada doctrine, or others who came to this realization by themselves.

The only thing which would seem relevant to me if I was an unawakened person on this forum, was to figure out what the buddhadhamma is i.e. attain Nibbana, and not follow a parade of people living in suffering following some interpretation that is widespread. But everyone their own.

Peter, you’ve made so many categorical statements on this forum it’s shocking. It’s as if you have no fear of wrongdoing. I couldn’t imagine being so cavalier.

Maybe this link viewtopic.php?p=648952#p648952might offer you some background info as to how I see 'wrongdoing', especially the video to which I linked.

It is hard to be arrogant if one hasn't got anything to be arrogant about. I am nothing, and I know nothing, and of that I am sure.

Have a nice day!

[Coëmgenu]

Greetings,

Do you also feel that Ven Ñāṇavīra also actually believed in rebirth?

Perhaps reading Nanavira's own words on the logic behind his forthcoming suicide might dispel doubts on that particular issue.

Metta,
Paul.

It's awfully curious to reinvent the wheel and then to decide that maybe you shouldn't have reinvented it after all. What a strange man, he invents a version of DO with no rebirth in it and then dies in such a way. Curiouser and curiouser. I'm not convinced he was in a proper state of mind towards the end because of this strangeness.

[SDC]

Greetings,

Do you also feel that Ven Ñāṇavīra also actually believed in rebirth?

Perhaps reading Nanavira's own words on the logic behind his forthcoming suicide might dispel doubts on that particular issue.

Metta,
Paul.

It's awfully curious to reinvent the wheel and then to decide that maybe you shouldn't have reinvented it after all. What a strange man, he invents a version of DO with no rebirth in it and then dies in such a way. Curiouser and curiouser. I'm not convinced he was in a proper state of mind towards the end because of this strangeness.

He believed in rebirth. It seems you’ve misunderstood how he describes death in terms of DO and the significance when death actually happens. On the other hand, you’ve indicated you haven’t read him, so I’m not even sure what you’re basing that impression on. As I always say, if you’re interested in knowing what he said you should read him, because even though you can’t stand the people who follow his writings, you seem to have taken their clumsy assumptions at face value.

[Coëmgenu]

As I always say, if you’re interested in knowing what he said you should read him, because even though you can’t stand the people who follow his writings, you seem to have taken their clumsy assumptions at face value.

True. At the same time, it's principally through its adherents that I know that, for instance, Eastern Orthodoxy is a waste of time. Also, most of the Dharma teachers, lay and monastic, that I have respected over the course of my life, people whom I consider to have very informed opinions, have had very negative opinions of his understanding. Even Venerable Bodhi thinks he's connecting a lot of dots that just aren't there to be so connected. If you want, you can offer an explanation as to what some of the key misunderstood areas are in your opinion, after all Retrofuturist and Doodoot aren't the first ones to use his writings to completely re-frame what things like "jāti" even mean, but that's likely a very long post, so I understand if you can't make it right now.

[SDC]

As I always say, if you’re interested in knowing what he said you should read him, because even though you can’t stand the people who follow his writings, you seem to have taken their clumsy assumptions at face value.

True. At the same time, it's principally through its adherents that I know that, for instance, Eastern Orthodoxy is a waste of time. Also, most of the Dharma teachers, lay and monastic, that I have respected over the course of my life, people whom I consider to have very informed opinions, have had very negative opinions of his understanding. Even Venerable Bodhi thinks he's connecting a lot of dots that just aren't there to be so connected. If you want, you can offer an explanation as to what some of the key misunderstood areas are in your opinion, after all Retrofuturist and Doodoot aren't the first ones to use his writings to completely re-frame what things like "jāti" even mean, but that's likely a very long post, so I understand if you can't make it right now.

Probably not the time or place.

I guess I take for granted that most members have been present for much of attention that has been given to Ven. Nanavira over the years on this forum. Having been heavily involved in virtually every major venture, it is safe to say not one of the classic rebuttals hasn’t been addressed to the point of nausea. At this point, I have little remaining interest in participating in such heavy discussions. When it comes to Ven. Nanavira, I think people should only take the time if they have an interest in making use of his writings, and should probably avoid doing so if only out of some need to gather information to refute him. The latter tends not to take the writings seriously, which completely defeats the purpose. As I’ve always said, the main thing to gather from his work is an understanding of the attitude he adopted when approaching the suttas and the practice. While I have found such an attitude to be invaluable, I don’t necessarily agree with every angle Ven. Nanavira opted to go with it.

All in all, it is still astounding to me the sheer amount of disdain that is displayed when this monk is mentioned or when it is suspected that his views have been deployed. From day one of my involvement in Buddhism I always took opposing views as a challenge to my my own understanding, and not once did I take any view as a threat in the way Ven. Nanavira has been shaped up over the last 50 years. Development in Dhamma is the project of all projects and to me that means leaving no stone unturned. Views that cause us discomfort only remain uncomfortable when they induce doubt, which is why it always baffles me that those who actively oppose Ven. Nanavira’s views are the same people who clearly won’t take the time to read him. I’ve watched dozens of members try to pass off that they have taken that time only to eventually get to a place in the discussion where it is clear that to whatever extent they did read him, they never took the time adopt the view and see how it pans out. It is, without a doubt, a major investment, but to make the most of it, it has to be taken that far.

So until that time, any such opposition comes off as nothing but pure discomfort in the fact that there’s writings out there making individuals doubt their own decisions. However, I don’t buy the whole “concern about people being misled” argument anymore. So many people out there claiming to be shepherds yet all they do is talk about the choices of other shepherds and presume that is impressive to the sheep. But there are no sheep. Only a bunch of people vying to be shepherds. It’s nonsense. If writings are found to be distasteful, you should probably go gorge yourself on them before you advise others not to eat them. And if at that point you discover that they really are what you thought, the one thing you’ll know 100% is that you could not have known had you not done it yourself. So, at that point you would cease to find a need to take pot shots because the proof is in the pudding, not in what another has to say about it.

I have the utmost respect for Ven. Bodhi, and he was no doubt extremely proficient in identifying precisely where Ven. Nanavira was at variance with the traditional interpretation, but he seemed to completely miss the point that it was the attitude that put the interpretation at variance. Not a misunderstanding of Pali. Not a clumsy grasp of the ancient commentaries. Not a campaign to be a heretic. Not a ploy to become famous. He made it clear that he had developed a certain perspective, which resulted in certain meanings. It is up to the reader to see if that attitude produces any such result in their own experience.

This doesn’t mean you simply think everything that Ven. Nanavira thought. What would that prove? No. It means that you can make use of a certain context and see if it leads to any understanding. A real easy way to know if someone is really making use of that attitude is their willingness to discuss how exposed it made them feel to doubt and how significant that exposure was to working their way out of it. Anyone who isn’t willing to admit that hasn’t been through it. But you don’t even need Ven. Nanavira’s writings to do it. Just start grilling yourself about what you actually know for sure and see what happens. Practice virtue and sense restraint and turn towards renunciation and see what that reveals. That’s where his writings apply. The Notes on Dhamma is a façade for anyone who doesn’t use what he says to at least make them question just how well they understand their Dhamma views. The suttas without a doubt induce that urgency. The monastic lifestyle induces such questions constantly, I imagine. Ven. Nanavira did not reinvent any wheel, he simply attempted to produce a work to remind those who are interested in the Dhamma to ask the most of themselves, and not to settle.

I would advise exercising caution when assuming a member is making use of his writings. DD, for instance, could not have disagreed more with Ven. Nanavira’s views and never made use of them in any discussion about birth. If he were here I’m sure he would agree emphatically.

If you ever truly want to discuss it, I’d suggest you read his work and then we can perhaps dig up one of the older threads and continue the discussion there. Although, like I stated earlier, I’m not on board with every direction he pursued, so the discussion may not be what you’d expect.

Enjoy your day.

[Coëmgenu]

DD, for instance, could not have disagreed more with Ven. Nanavira’s views and never made use of them in any discussion about birth. If he were here I’m sure he would agree emphatically.

Whether he agreed wholesale to it or not, he used the same rhetoric in things like redefining DO, unless he and others horribly misunderstood it. Either way, you have a nice one too.

[SDC]

DD, for instance, could not have disagreed more with Ven. Nanavira’s views and never made use of them in any discussion about birth. If he were here I’m sure he would agree emphatically.

Whether he agreed wholesale to it or not, he used the same rhetoric in things like redefining DO, unless he and others horribly misunderstood it. Either way, you have a nice one too.

[mikenz66]

Hi SDC,

I don’t buy the whole “concern about people being misled” argument anymore.

I don't either, whether it comes from those who lambast Ven. Nanavira, or lament that "This is what happens when people abandon the Suttas in favour of sectarian scholasticism" and present thinkers such as Ven Nanavira, Ven Nananada, and Ven Buddhadasa as heroes who have shown how wrong everyone else had been for the past 2500 years.

I appreciated the discussion we had on here some years ago, when I finally managed to see some logic in Ven Nanavira's "structural" model, a signal that was quite hard to extract from the noise and bluster of most other presentations on this Forum.

I think the following is an essential reminder. Practice is about figuring out and facing doubts and problems, not about proving or celebrating some particular model:

... But you don’t even need Ven. Nanavira’s writings to do it. Just start grilling yourself about what you actually know for sure and see what happens. Practice virtue and sense restraint and turn towards renunciation and see what that reveals. That’s where his writings apply. The Notes on Dhamma is a façade for anyone who doesn’t use what he says to at least make them question just how well they understand their Dhamma views. The suttas without a doubt induce that urgency. The monastic lifestyle induces such questions constantly, I imagine. Ven. Nanavira did not reinvent any wheel, he simply attempted to produce a work to remind those who are interested in the Dhamma to ask the most of themselves, and not to settle. ...

As the Buddha taught:

A good person reflects:
‘The Buddha has spoken of not identifying even with the attainment of the first absorption.
For whatever they imagine it is, it turns out to be something else.’
Keeping only non-identification close to their heart, they don’t glorify themselves and put others down on account of their attainment of the first absorption.
This too is a quality of a good person.
...
https://suttacentral.net/mn113/en/sujat ... ript=latin

Mike

[asahi]

If that is the case , already there with all the suttas being available in the first place , jump the queue proceed to practice , why need an extra questionable work . Some logical fallacy here .

[mikenz66]

If that is the case , already there with all the suttas being available in the first place , jump the queue proceed to practice , why need an extra questionable work . Some logical fallacy here .

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are referring to by "if that is the case".


Mike

[asahi]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are referring to by "if that is the case".

Hi , I am saying if the suttas are self sufficient which embodying of the four great references themselves , why need Buddhaghosa , Buddhadasa , Nanavira , Nanananda , Bossinana etc etc etc . We dont interpret dhamma out from these masters at all .