Manopubbangama wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:47 am
Which one of his "points" addressed any of my questions?
I think none.
I think these are all what we would call 'meta-discussion?'
Rebutting misrepresentations and mischaracterisations is not meta-discussion.
Your post on the other hand is.
Please learn what "disruptive meta-discussion" is, and refrain from it in the future.
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Manopubbangama wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 5:49 pm
I'm also looking through some of his writings and it appears he wanted to convince people that the gay lifestyle was acceptable,
Where does Ñāṇavīra do that? I don't recall him even mentioning homosexuality except in one marginal note inscribed in his copy of P. H. Nowell-Smith's Ethics. Are you perhaps confusing him with another English monk, Sangharakshita?
P. H. Nowell-Smith: Even when it is known that a certain type of conduct, for example homosexuality, is not amenable to penal sanctions or moral disapproval, it is difficult to persuade people that it is not morally wrong.
(p. 305)
Ñāṇavīra: Is this simply a matter of language? The majority of people regard "queers" with emotional horror.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
Ivy Piyen wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:31 pm
I am pretty sure that it is impossible to find a whole monastic community that accepts Nanaviraism.
I think you are correct, too. As always, the proof is in the pudding.
Some teachings of Nanavira on Dependent Origination appear very close to those of Thailand's Bhikkhu Buddhadasa. Bhikkhu Buddhadasa was selected to represent Thailand at the 6th Buddhist Council in Burma in 1954 plus once held the official position as the most senior teaching monk in Southern Thailand. There are whole monastic communities who accept Bhikkhu Buddhadasa. Ajahn Chah also taught in a similar way. While the monks in the many Ajahn Chah monasteries appear to have quite diverse views, many of the senior monks accept Ajahn Buddhadasa's and Ajahn Chah's teachings about Dependent Origination. Ajahn Chah taught as follows; similar to Bhikkhu Nanavira:
''Becoming'' (bhava) means ''the sphere of birth.'' Sensual desire is born at sights, sounds, tastes, smells, feelings and thoughts, identifying with these things. The mind holds fast and is stuck to sensuality.
If you were to ask them, ''Why were you born?'' they'd probably have a lot of trouble answering, because they can't see it. They're sunk in the world of the senses and sunk in becoming (bhava). Bhava is the sphere of birth, our birthplace. To put it simply, where are beings born from? Bhava is the preliminary condition for birth. Wherever birth takes place, that's bhava.
For example, suppose we had an orchard of apple trees that we were particularly fond of. That's a bhava for us if we don't reflect with wisdom. How so? Suppose our orchard contained a hundred or a thousand apple trees... it doesn't really matter what kind of trees they are, just so long as we consider them to be ''our own'' trees... then we are going to be ''born'' as a ''worm'' in every single one of those trees. We bore into every one, even though our human body is still back there in the house, we send out ''tentacles'' into every one of those trees.
Now, how do we know that it's a bhava? It's a bhava (sphere of existence) because of our clinging to the idea that those trees are our own, that that orchard is our own. If someone were to take an ax and cut one of the trees down, the owner over there in the house ''dies'' along with the tree. He gets furious, and has to go and set things right, to fight and maybe even kill over it. That quarreling is the ''birth.'' The ''sphere of birth'' is the orchard of trees that we cling to as our own. We are ''born'' right at the point where we consider them to be our own, born from that bhava. Even if we had a thousand apple trees, if someone were to cut down just one it'd be like cutting the owner down.
Whatever we cling to we are born right there, we exist right there. We are born as soon as we ''know.'' This is knowing through not-kDSirnowing: we know that someone has cut down one of our trees. But we don't know that those trees are not really ours. This is called ''knowing through not-knowing.'' We are bound to be born into that bhava.
As a lone Englishman in Sri Lanka, it seems it would have been difficult, even impossible, for Bhikkhu Nanavira to start a monastic community in Sri Lanka; let alone in England.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
Nyanamoli is definitely a "Nanavirist" if such a term is apt
Vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā — All things decay and disappoint, it is through vigilance that you succeed — Mahāparinibbāna Sutta
Self-taught poverty is a help toward philosophy, for the things which philosophy attempts to teach by reasoning, poverty forces us to practice. — Diogenes of Sinope
I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a chase after wind — Ecclesiastes 1.14