A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
pulga
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by pulga » Fri Sep 11, 2015 3:05 am

SDC wrote: And this would be the 'indirect' approach, correct? Seeing the impermanence of the determination as opposed to 'dealing' with the determined thing itself?
I would say yes, but there may be more to it than just that.

It would seem to me that the hierarchy of generality Ven. Ñanavira refers to in footnote b in his Shorter Note on Dhamma would generate a horizon (cf. Ven. Ñanananda's 'vortex') in which layers of consciousness (or presence) would align vertically as each particular supports the universal above it. In his preface to Notes on Dhamma he refers to the need for a vertical view, straight down into the 'abyss' of one's own personal existence to apprehend the Buddha's Teaching, a view most find too vertiginous to sustain. I think he might be alluding to this aspect of such a structure in some marginalia that he left in his copy of Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript pointing out the need for samatha bhāvana:
[If God were to reveal himself in human form and grant a direct relationship, by giving Himself, for example, the figure of a man six yards tall, then our hypothetical society man and captain of the hunt would doubtless have his attention aroused. But the spiritual relationship to God in truth, when God refuses to deceive, requires precisely that there be nothing remarkable about the figure, so that the society man would have to say: 'There is nothing whatever to see'. When God has nothing obviously remarkable about Him, the society man is perhaps deceived by not having his attention at all aroused. But this is not God's fault, and the actuality of such a deception is at the same time the constant possibility of the truth. But if God had anything obviously remarkable, He deceives men because they have their attention called to what is untrue, and this direction of attention is at the same time the impossibility of the truth. In paganism, the direct relationship is idolatry; in Christendom, everyone knows that God cannot so reveal Himself. But this knowledge is by no means inwardness, and in Christendom it may well happen to one who knows everything by rote that he is left altogether 'without God in the world', in a sense impossible in paganism, which did have the untrue relationship of paganism. Idolatry is indeed a sorry substitute, but that the item God should be entirely omitted is still worse.]: Here, when applied to the Buddha's Teaching, is what or where the position of samatha bhavanā comes in. It is ONLY with the initiation and development of samatha bh. that a puthujjana can even develop any anulomikāya khantiyā samannāgato (see SN, SAKKĀYA ). With the increase of samatha bh. towards the samādhi degree these paṭisotagāmi vertiginous views of the nature of existence can be developed and held longer and steadier finally with the possibility of culmination at first jhāna, that is if anulomikāya khantiyā samannāgato has been developed. Without it samādhi guarantees nothing as far as attainment. It is only the necessary 'allower' for the mind to have such views if it wants. In short, ONLY samatha bh. allows anulomikāya khantiyā samannāgato ; only samādhi allows the ambiguity to subside once for all, tout court.

pulga
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by pulga » Fri Sep 11, 2015 4:22 pm

.
Last edited by pulga on Sat Sep 19, 2015 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4376
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by SDC » Fri Sep 11, 2015 6:10 pm

Could it be said that holding to a 'top-down' arrangement (of the particulars below the universal) shows the particulars as being because of or even for the universal?

pulga
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by pulga » Sat Sep 12, 2015 2:51 pm

It could, but what I have in mind here is the duration of a thing in its self-identity.
You will see, of course, that if we reject your account of grasping as a process, we must return to the notion of entities, and with this to the notion of a thing's self-identity (i.e., for so long as an entity endures it continues to be 'the self-same thing'). And would this not be a return to attavāda? The answer is, No. With the question of a thing's self-identity (which presents no difficulty if carefully handled) the Buddha's Teaching of anattā has nothing whatsoever to do. Anattā is purely concerned with 'self' as subject ('I'). And this is a matter of considerably greater difficulty than is generally supposed. [L. 36 | 43] 29 June 1962.
Ven. Ñanavira isn't saying here that a thing's self-identity has nothing to do with the Buddha's Teaching, but rather that it has nothing to do with the Buddha's Teaching of anattā. The puthujjana is confused in this regard:
The puthujjana confuses (as the arahat does not) the self-identity of simple reflexion—as with a mirror, where the same thing is seen from two points of view at once ('the thing itself', 'the selfsame thing')—with the 'self' as the subject that appears in reflexion—'my self' (i.e. 'I itself', i.e. 'the I that appears when I reflect'). SN Attā
Further down into the note Ñanavira brings up the topic of a thing's duration.
The question of self-identity arises either when a thing is seen from two points of view at once (as in reflexion,[a] for example; or when it is at the same time the object of two different senses—I am now both looking at my pen and touching it with my fingers, and I might wonder if it is the same pen in the two simultaneous experiences [see RŪPA]), or when a thing is seen to endure in time, when the question may be asked if it continues to be the same thing (the answer being, that a thing at any one given level of generality is the invariant of a transformation—see ANICCA [a] & FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE—, and that 'to remain the same' means just this). SN Attā (emphasis added)
The general (or universal) in its self-sameness can last but a moment, a minute, an hour, a day, or even a life-time, and all these aspects are readily accessible to attention. Cf. this passage from FS II. Dynamic Aspect
Consider this figure:

Image

It presents itself either as a large square enclosing a number of progressively smaller squares all within one plane at the same distance from the observer, or as a number of squares of equal size but in separate planes at progressively greater distances from the observer, giving the appearance of a corridor. A slight change of attention is all that is needed to switch from one aspect to the other. In fundamental structure, however, both aspects are equally in evidence.)
The key is to look at the phenomenon holistically: an understanding of what a thing is might very well lead to an insight of what a thing is not, and cannot be:
“Māgandiya, suppose there was a man born blind who could not see dark and light forms…or the sun and moon. He might hear a man with good eyesight saying: ‘Good indeed, sirs, is a white cloth, beautiful, spotless, and clean!’ and he would go in search of a white cloth. Then a man would cheat him with a dirty soiled garment thus: ‘Good man, here is a white cloth for you, beautiful, spotless, and clean.’ And he would accept it and put it on. Then his friends and companions, his kinsmen and relatives, would bring a physician to treat him. The physician would make medicine—emetics and purgatives, ointments and counter-ointments and nasal treatment—and by means of that medicine the man’s vision would arise and be purified. Together with the arising of his vision, his desire and liking for that dirty soiled garment would be abandoned; then he might burn with indignation and enmity towards that man and might think that he ought to be killed thus: ‘Indeed, I have long been tricked, cheated, and defrauded by this man with this dirty soiled garment when he told me: “Good man, here is a white cloth for you, beautiful, spotless, and clean.” Māgandiyasutta MN 72

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4376
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by SDC » Sat Sep 12, 2015 4:00 pm

Groovy post, pulga. Thanks.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4376
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by SDC » Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:57 pm

Please refer to this post for information on the purpose of this thread.

Shorter Notes - 21th Excerpt
Previous Excerpts - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20

NA CA SO
Ven. Ñāṇavīra wrote:Na ca so na ca añño, 'Neither he nor another'. This often-quoted dictum occurs in the Milindapañha somewhere, as the answer to the question 'When a man dies, who is reborn—he or another?'. This question is quite illegitimate, and any attempt to answer it cannot be less so. The question, in asking who is reborn, falls into sakkāyaditthi. It takes for granted the validity of the person as 'self'; for it is only about 'self' that this question—'Eternal (so) or perishable (añño)?'—can be asked (cf. PATICCASAMUPPĀDA, ANICCA [a], & SAKKĀYA). The answer also takes this 'self' for granted, since it allows that the question can be asked. It merely denies that this 'self' (which must be either eternal or perishable) is either eternal or perishable, thus making confusion worse confounded. The proper way is to reject the question in the first place. Compare Anguttara VI,ix,10 <A.iii,440>, where it is said that the ditthisampanna not only can not hold that the author of pleasure and pain was somebody (either himself or another) but also can not hold that the author was not somebody (neither himself nor another). The ditthisampanna sees the present person (sakkāya) as arisen dependent upon present conditions and as ceasing with the cessation of these present conditions. And, seeing this, he does not regard the present person as present 'self'. Consequently, he does not ask the question Who? about the present. By inference—atītānāgate nayam netvā having induced the principle to past and future (cf. Gāmini Samy. 11 <S.iv,328>)--[a]—he does not regard the past or future person as past or future 'self', and does not ask the question Who? about the past or the future. (Cf. Māra's question in line 2 of PARAMATTHA SACCA §1.) (The Milindapañha is a particularly misleading book. See also ANICCA [a], PATICCASAMUPPĀDA [c], RŪPA [e], & PARAMATTHA SACCA §§8-10.)

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16167
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by mikenz66 » Wed Sep 16, 2015 7:29 pm

As with a number of these notes, I don't find Ven Nanavira's argument convincing. He seems much too focussed on picking out sound bites, and in doing so appears to miss the point.

In the passage in question: http://www.softerviews.org/AIM/milinda. ... ongJourney there are a number of vivid similes that illustrate the points made in the suttas about the nature of rebirth and dependent origination. For example:
6. “What is it, Nāgasena, that is reborn?”
“Mind and matter.”

“Is it this very mind and matter that is reborn?”
“No, it is not, but by this mind and matter deeds are done and because of those deeds another mind and matter is reborn; but that mind and matter is not thereby released from the results of its previous deeds.”

“Give me an illustration.”
“It is like a fire that a man might kindle and, having warmed himself, he might leave it burning and go away. Then if that fire were to set light to another man’s field and the owner were to seize him and accuse him before the king, and he were to say, ‘Your maj­esty, I did not set this man’s field on fire. The fire that I left burning was different to that which burnt his field. I am not guilty’. Would he deserve punishment?”

“Indeed, yes, because whatever he might say the latter fire resulted from the former one.”
“Just so, O king, by this mind and matter deeds are done and because of those deeds another mind and matter is reborn; but that mind and matter is not thereby released from the results of its previous deeds.”
Compare the Buddha's admonishment of Sati:
[Sāti:] “Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another.”

“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”

“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions.”

“Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a long time.”
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn38/11-
I'd say that Nāgasena understood the Buddha's admonishment quite well. It is not the same consciousness (or mind, or matter) that is reborn - these things arise dependent on conditions) and has put it in very understandable terms. Contrary to Nanavira's assertion to the contrary, it seems clear to me that these similes are intended to break down the concept of self.

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1690
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by acinteyyo » Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:49 am

mikenz66 wrote:I'd say that Nāgasena understood the Buddha's admonishment quite well. It is not the same consciousness (or mind, or matter) that is reborn - these things arise dependent on conditions) and has put it in very understandable terms. Contrary to Nanavira's assertion to the contrary, it seems clear to me that these similes are intended to break down the concept of self.
I see it differently. In my eyes Nāgasena did not understood the Buddha's admonsihment quite well, because if he had, he would not have accepted the question in the first place. To ask "what is it, that is reborn" is the same wrong question like asking "who is it, that is reborn" only that it is less obvious. Accepting the question takes the underlying self-view for granted.

Maybe these similes are intended to break down the concept of self, but in my eyes they are completely inapropriate to accomplish that, because instead of disclosing the selfidentity as selfidentity, grasping and clinging, it is disguised in statements like "mind and matter" or "neither the same nor another".

What those statements do is they only shift the problem to another level where the identification in terms of self isn't recognized anymore as such, but it still is. The "mind and matter" simile allows the notion of persistence, the eternalist view to be maintained, the concept of self is in no way broken down it is concealed.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16167
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:08 am

On the other hand, the Buddha, being an excellent teacher, always addressed people at the appropriate level and often spoke about beings being reborn. I think that was what Nāgasena was doing here. I certainly see no evidence, reading the entire section, that he misunderstood. One might just as easily criticise the Buddha himself for mentioning beings in his discussion of kamma and rebirth in MN 135 and MN 136.

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1690
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by acinteyyo » Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:43 am

mikenz66 wrote:On the other hand, the Buddha, being an excellent teacher, always addressed people at the appropriate level and often spoke about beings being reborn. I think that was what Nāgasena was doing here. I certainly see no evidence, reading the entire section, that he misunderstood. One might just as easily criticise the Buddha himself for mentioning beings in his discussion of kamma and rebirth in MN 135 and MN 136.

:anjali:
Mike
Reading the entire section I see evidence.
“You were explaining just now about mind and matter. Therein what is mind and what is matter?”
“Whatever is gross is materiality, whatever is subtle and mind or mental-states is mentality.”
Is Nāgasena talking about nāmarūpa here and if so, is the answer he gives correct?
I'm quite sure it is nāmarūpa and it seems to me Nāgasena does not have the right understanding of what nāmarūpa is, according to the Buddha.
Do you think the Buddha would have agreed with the statement that "deeds are done by this mind and matter"?
The Buddha being an excellent teacher, knew how to address people at the appropriate level and spoke of beings being reborn, beings are owner of their kamma, bound to their kamma and so on, but I don't think the Buddha explained that "deeds are done by this mind and matter".

Deeds are not done by this "mind and matter", because that equates "being" with "mind and matter" and that is sakkāya-ditthi.
Not through nāmarūpa is there "a being".
SN23.2 wrote:"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16167
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:09 am

Perhaps your objection is that Nagasena is mixing up conventional and ultimate descriptions. Is that correct? On the other hand, your (and Nanavira's) objections may have more to do with how the passage has been translated. It may be that "deeds are done by this mind and matter" is an awkward translation.

I still don't personally see a fundamental difference between this exchange and the Sati admonition. In that case it was consciousness, rather than nama-rupa, that was spoken about arising in a different life. But I guess that reading also contradicts the Nanavira interpretation.

How about the many suttas where the Buddha speaks of beings being reborn according to their kamma. Would Nanavira criticise those too?

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1690
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by acinteyyo » Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:40 am

mikenz66 wrote:Perhaps your objection is that Nagasena is mixing up conventional and ultimate descriptions. Is that correct? On the other hand, your (and Nanavira's) objections may have more to do with how the passage has been translated. It may be that "deeds are done by this mind and matter" is an awkward translation.

I still don't personally see a fundamental difference between this exchange and the Sati admonition. In that case it was consciousness, rather than nama-rupa, that was spoken about arising in a different life. But I guess that reading also contradicts the Nanavira interpretation.
The problem is not so much in Nagasenas description, it's rather the fact that he accepts the wrong question. Accepting the question accepts the underlying self-view and affirms it. Nagasena, realizing that the question is based on self-view or not, tries to circumnavigate that by answering the question in terms of "materiality and mind", but it would have been better, to reject the question entirely in order to give no room for self-view to be maintained or to sneak in and to introduce for the King again the description of paticcasamupada. That is the fundamental difference in the admonition of Sati, where the Buddha, seeing the wrong identification of a self with consciousness, instantaneously admonishes Sati and gives an explanation on conditionality.
mikenz66 wrote:How about the many suttas where the Buddha speaks of beings being reborn according to their kamma. Would Nanavira criticise those too?
There is nothing to criticise here. Maybe you haven't understood what I criticise.
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16167
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:04 pm

acinteyyo wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:How about the many suttas where the Buddha speaks of beings being reborn according to their kamma. Would Nanavira criticise those too?
There is nothing to criticise here. Maybe you haven't understood what I criticise.
Quite likely. Also, we probably come to these notes with quite different expectations and interpretations.

It may be worth recalling that we have previously discussed the difference between assuming a being and assuming a self:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... ra#p342289
“Why now do you assume ‘a being’?
Mara, is that your speculative view?
This is a heap of sheer formations:
Here no being is found.
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn5.10
:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1690
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by acinteyyo » Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:32 pm

Mike, could you please point out where this quote of mine is to be found? I would like to check the context first before I respond.
I get the feeling that we are talking at crosspurposes.
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16167
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:50 pm

acinteyyo wrote:Mike, could you please point out where this quote of mine is to be found? I would like to check the context first before I respond.
I get the feeling that we are talking at crosspurposes.
Sorry, I messed up the quote in the above message. I think it's fixed now...

:anjali:
Mike

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DarrenM, Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], seeker242, Sobhana and 69 guests