gabrielbranbury wrote:"The main point is that one has to recognize that a positive thing draws it’s existence from its negative possibilities." -Ven. Nanamoli
pulga wrote:I think his ideas hold up even quite apart from scriptural support.
pulga wrote:That's not to say that they are without such support, only that their merit can be appreciated from one's own direct experience.
pulga wrote:It's striking that so few Buddhists seem willing or inclined to try to understand it.
Nanavira wrote:The Note on Fundamental Structure perhaps needs a remark. It is offered as an instrument of thought to those who are looking for something on these lines, and such people will probably find it self-explanatory. The fact that it is unfinished is of no great consequence, since anyone who succeeds in following what there is of it will be able to continue it for himself as far as he pleases. Those who are unable to understand what it is all about would be best advised to ignore it altogether: not everybody needs this kind of apparatus in order to think effectively.
daverupa wrote: My main take from his writings is that the Suttas are necessary and sufficient for deriving the Dhamma, which is delightful news in the modern day for the Dhammanusaris among us.
pulga wrote:daverupa wrote: My main take from his writings is that the Suttas are necessary and sufficient for deriving the Dhamma...
I'm not really sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Didn't Ven. Ñanavira write that in the absence of an enlightened teacher some of the ideas of the existentialists (probably because of their allegiance to phenomenology) had something to offer those who were trying to come to understand the suttas on their own? And that he himself had benefited from his study of their writings?
pulga wrote:I regard FS as phenomenological -- as Ven. Ñanavira said it was -- a phenomenological ontology...
pulga wrote:I do not mean to underplay the need to develop samádhi, nor to devalue a familiarity with the suttas in the original Pali, but there are countless people proficient in both who fail to inspire me. Perhaps I'm more inclined towards putting a greater emphasis on samma-ditthi, which of course in accordance with the suttas comes first. A greater confidence and clarity in one's understanding of the Dhamma also has a way of inspiring one towards fulfilling all of the other factors of the path.
daverupa wrote:Nanavira writes:
"Let there be no mistake in the matter: the existential philosophies are not a substitute for the Buddha's Teaching -- for which, indeed, there can be no substitute."
daverupa wrote:Phenomenological - but not ontological. He makes this clear in the first footnote to the Static section by writing, "An existing thing is an experience, either present or (in some degree) absent (i.e. either immediately or more or less remotely present)." His use of the term 'existence' is therefore without any metaphysical commitments.
pulga wrote:In any case, from my experience it is those who are fully acquainted with the likes of Sartre, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, etc. who seem to have made inroads into undestanding Notes on Dhamma, particularly FS.)
pulga wrote:Ñanavira denies the validity of bháva, the being of the subject, but not the being of phenomena, and it is the being of phenomena that FS deals with, i.e how their different levels of being are hierachically structured. And that for me is an ontology.
Users browsing this forum: davidbrainerd, Google [Bot] and 71 guests