mikenz66 wrote:I keep struggling to get a handle on Ven N's ideas.
... if he gains a reflective acceptance of a view, he preserves truth when he says: ‘My reflective acceptance of a view is thus’; but he does not yet come to the definite conclusion: ‘Only this is true, anything else is wrong.’
Mike wrote:...polemics about how one or two modern commentators hold the key to the True Dhamma are off-topic meta-discussion, and hardly a positive advertisement for their ideas
Nanavira wrote:This Note will take for granted first, that the reader is acquainted with this traditional interpretation, and secondly, that he is dissatisfied with it. It is not therefore proposed to enter into a detailed discussion of this interpretation, but rather to indicate briefly that dissatisfaction with it is not unjustified, and then to outline what may perhaps be found to be a more satisfactory approach.
Nanavira wrote:The principal aim of these Notes on Dhamma is to point out certain current misinterpretations, mostly traditional, of the Pali Suttas, and to offer in their place something certainly less easy but perhaps also less inadequate.
SDC wrote: For those who find themselves at odds with his writings I request extra patience from you while you participate and any attempts to unbalance this thread will be met with a
Mike wrote:I would, however, be interested in a civilised discussion of my rather straight-forward question about Ven Nananvira's note.
Mike wrote:This definition of sankhāra as "something that something else depends on" seems, on the face of it, to miss at least half of the meaning
retrofuturist wrote:Understanding what Nanavira, Nanananda et.al. have to say involves a radical shift in thinking,
Spiny Norman wrote:I find the ideas of these writers interesting but often difficult to follow.
Nanavira Thera wrote:These books of the Pali Canon correctly represent the Buddha's Teaching, and can be regarded as trustworthy throughout. (Vinayapitaka:) Suttavibhanga, Mahāvagga, Cūlavagga; (Suttapitaka:) Dīghanikāya, Majjhimanikāya, Samyuttanikāya, Anguttaranikāya, Suttanipāta, Dhammapada, Udāna, Itivuttaka, Theratherīgāthā. (The Jātaka verses may be authentic, but they do not come within the scope of these Notes.) No other Pali books whatsoever should be taken as authoritative; and ignorance of them (and particularly of the traditional Commentaries) may be counted a positive advantage, as leaving less to be unlearned.
Spiny Norman wrote:Has anyone attempted a succinct summary of the phenomenological approach?
retrofuturist wrote:If you specifically mean a phenomenological approach to the Dhamma, I believe you could sum it up nicely with four suttas, to be taken as they were spoken, and (in keeping with Nanavira's ethos) not as they were later interpreted by the commentators or Theravada orthodoxy.
An interesting, and not introductory, book is Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogäcära Buddhism and the Ch'eng Wei -shih lun by a top rate scholar, Dan Lusthaus. Infinitely better scholar than Nanavira. It has a fair amount that pertains to the Pali tradition.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Spiny,Spiny Norman wrote:Has anyone attempted a succinct summary of the phenomenological approach?
Well, there are (non-Dhammic) introductions to phenomenology available, but I don't think they're really necessary.
. . .
In time, the phenomenological view can be brought to all suttas, but these are useful for getting a feel for what is and isn't involved.
retrofuturist wrote: Samsaric experience depends on sankhata-dhammas (aka sankharas).
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,Mike wrote:...polemics about how one or two modern commentators hold the key to the True Dhamma are off-topic meta-discussion, and hardly a positive advertisement for their ideas
Your response is indicative of why these conversations go round and round for years at a time without end.
retrofuturist wrote:Mike wrote:This definition of sankhāra as "something that something else depends on" seems, on the face of it, to miss at least half of the meaning
Not at all. The "something else" may simply be samsaric experience.
With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be;
retrofuturist wrote:Samsaric experience depends on sankhata-dhammas (aka sankharas). The rest of paticcasamuppada from sankhara onwards is dependent upon sankharas.
mikenz66 wrote:I keep struggling to get a handle on Ven N's ideas. This definition of sankhāra as "something that something else depends on" seems, on the face of it, to miss at least half of the meaning, since sankhāra's depend on other things. See, for example, Bhikkhu Bodhi's examples from the SN: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=23352#p335218. It's interesting to note that Ven N uses Nanamoli's "determinations" terminology.
However can see some value in emphasising the active side (something that something else depends on) since perhaps the passive side of the meaning (something that depends on something else) may otherwise be over-emphasised.
It is there maintained that the word sankhāra, in all contexts, means 'something that something else depends on', that is to say a determination (determinant).
retrofuturist wrote:Maybe let's call it a path of practice, based on the wisdom derived from the phenomenological view.