Bhikkhu Anālayo’s e-learning course on the Nibbana sermons by Bhikkhu Katukurunde Ñāṇananda

[Mkoll]

Those who did not register (like me!) need not fear. From the link that Mike gave:

The last day to register was April 20. In late July/early August, we will publicly post all the content from this lecture series.

[mikenz66]

Thanks Mkoll,

The style of the lectures has been that Ven Analayo reads Ven Nanananda's text, but adds some clarifying comments, and also gives more modern English translations (mostly from Bhikkhu Bodhi, including his upcoming Sutta Nipata translation).

At the start of each lecture, he has a brief discussion of points raised on the discussion forum for the previous lecture.

I went though these lectures several years ago, and made use of various extracts in some of our Sutta Study threads, particularly those on the last chapter of the Sutta Nipata. It's great to go through them again.


Mike

[aflatun]

Thanks Mkoll,

The style of the lectures has been that Ven Analayo reads Ven Nanananda's text, but adds some clarifying comments, and also gives more modern English translations (mostly from Bhikkhu Bodhi, including his upcoming Sutta Nipata translation).

At the start of each lecture, he has a brief discussion of points raised on the discussion forum for the previous lecture.

I went though these lectures several years ago, and made use of various extracts in some of our Sutta Study threads, particularly those on the last chapter of the Sutta Nipata. It's great to go through them again.


Mike

I'm glad you pointed that! Are the comments on the audio/video more substantive than those on the written transcripts? I clicked on a lecture transcript this morning and was confused when all I saw was an original Nibbana Sermon with some alternative translations. I probably missed something as I was in a hurry.

[mikenz66]

I'm pleased to see that he has inserted the translation into the written material. In the lectures he does make other comments. Most of these are relatively short, but I did find many of them very helpful.

In several cases he refers to other works briefly, but gives the material on the site. For example, he mentions Jurewicz' paper on parallels between Vedic thought and the first few links in dependent origination, and makes the paper available. See: https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=7464


Mike

[mikenz66]

The question of whether nibbana is experienced at each of the four paths came up over here: https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=29519

This interpretation (that each path is an experience of nibbana) appears to me to be a crucial part of Ven Nananada's discussion (starting, in particular, in #2).

Like the Classical Commentaries, Ven Nanananda describes Nibbana as something that is experienced at each path, and that experience removes the appropriate fetters. Like the Commentaries, he rejects the idea that the nibbana experiences before death are continuous.

Perhaps others have a different take on the Sermons?


Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

Nibbana as something that is experienced at each path, and that experience removes the appropriate fetters. He rejects the idea that the nibbana experiences before death are continuous, just like the Commentaries.

Perhaps others have a different take on the Sermons?

The idea that the "[nibbana] experience removes the appropriate fetters" is to approach the matter back-to-front, as is common amongst meditative traditions which prioritise "the practice" over understanding what the Buddha taught to actually be the practice. Out of interest, does ven. Nanananda actually say that the "[nibbana] experience removes the appropriate fetters", thereby making the experience of nibbana a necessary pre-condition for stream-entry? (Which begs the question, how does a puthujjana bring about nibbana?)

Rather, the arising of the Dhamma-eye (which is actually associated with stream-entry in the Buddha's Dhamma) can come about simply through hearing a Dhamma sermon on the arising and cessation of sankharas, and by comprehending its applicability (see: The Arising of the Dhamma-Eye for examples). In contrast, the experience of nibbana is the experience of the cessation of sankharas. That is the true and constant theme throughout Nanananda's Nibbana Sermons, and why so much attention is given to paticcasamuppada, which is founded upon that principle of idappaccayatā enshrined in the stock description of the Dhamma-Eye.

Even commentaries inspired by the Abhidhamma which get the sequencing of path and fruit in the correct order fall into error by unnecessarily asserting that the fruit moment occurs immediately after the path moment. (This is discussed in Nibbana Sermon 1). It is difficult to fathom how the act of comprehension at such times (which includes thoughts/sankharas pertaining to concepts, relational logic etc.) could simultaneously be all those sankharas, yet also within a nano-second, be the absence of all of them too. Rather, for the attainment of nibbana, sankharas need to be consciously and deliberately removed through a blend of samatha and vipassana, which is different to, but leverages, the pre-existing wisdom which gives rise to the Dhamma-eye...

“A learned monk, Koṭṭhita, should wisely attend to the 5 aggregates as being impermanent, as suffering [unsatisfactory], as a disease, as a tumour, as a dart, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as breaking up, as void, as non-self

If someone can attend to this instruction and achieve nibbana within the space of a nano-second, then I salute them! However, it is not for no reason that the Sangha is classified as "four types [of noble disciples] when taken as pairs, the eight when taken as individual types". This distinction deliberately separates those who have attained to the path, from those who have attained to the commensurate fruit associated with that path. Here's evidence to support that...

"The Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples who have practiced well... who have practiced straight-forwardly... who have practiced methodically... who have practiced masterfully — in other words, the four types [of noble disciples] when taken as pairs, the eight when taken as individual types — they are the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples: worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of respect, the incomparable field of merit for the world."

"Just as the ocean is the abode of such mighty beings as whales, whale-eaters, and whale-eater-eaters; asuras, nagas, and gandhabbas, and there are in the ocean beings one hundred leagues long, two hundred... three hundred... four hundred... five hundred leagues long; in the same way, this Doctrine and Discipline is the abode of such mighty beings as stream-winners and those practicing to realize the fruit of stream-entry; once-returners and those practicing to realize the fruit of once-returning; non-returners and those practicing to realize the fruit of non-returning; arahants and those practicing for arahantship... This is the eighth amazing and astounding fact about this Doctrine and Discipline."

It is the dubious artefact of faith coming from some quarters that a certain meditative "experience" (brought about through the application of some external technique never taught by the Buddha) will in and of itself bring about the liberating knowledge of the Buddha, which encourages some people to approach the Noble Eightfold Path in reverse order. Fruit does not precede path, and for this reason, any approach which endeavours to do so is doomed to frustration.

Metta,
Paul.

[mikenz66]

Thanks, Paul,

I don't have time to comment much, other than that what I explained is how I understand Ven Nanananda's sermons, both from studying them in detail a few years ago, and by recently reading the first two again rather carefully. I gave some quotes in the other thread, which should allow readers to easily locate the Pali passages he discusses in Sermon 2.
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 19#p424328

You seem to be a little dismissive of the effort that Ven Nananada, and the monks in the audience, were putting into their practice. As Ven Nananda says in the first Sermon:

t occurred to me that it would be best if I
could address these sermons directly to the task before us in this Nissarana
Vanaya, and that is meditative attention, rather than dealing
with those deep controversial suttas in academic isolation.

The idea that the "[nibbana] experience removes the appropriate fetters" is to approach the matter back-to-front, as is common amongst meditative traditions which prioritise "the practice" over understanding what the Buddha taught to actually be the practice. Out of interest, does ven. Nanananda actually say that the "[nibbana] experience removes the appropriate fetters", thereby making the experience of nibbana a necessary pre-condition for stream-entry? (Which begs the question, how does a puthujjana bring about nibbana?)

I think the answer to your question is "yes", based on what I quoted, and other passages, such as:

So this string of epithets testifies to the efficacy of the realization
by the first path. It is not a mere glimpse of Nibbāna from a distance.
It is a reaching, an arrival or a plunge into Nibbāna.

Like the sea water parted by the blow of the iron bar, preparations
part for a moment to reveal the very bottom which is ‘unprepared’,
the asankhata. Akata, or the un-made, is the same as asankhata, the
unprepared. So one has had a momentary vision of the sea bottom,
which is free from preparations. Of course, after that experience, influxes
flow in again. But one kind of influxes, namely ditthāsavā, influxes
of views, are gone for good and will never flow in again.

Exactly what combination of "meditative attention" (as Ven Nananda puts it) and other knowledge is necessary to get to that state is, of course, up for debate...


Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

You seem to be a little dismissive of the effort that Ven Nananada, and the monks in the audience, were putting into their practice.

Not at all. Where did I say or infer anything of the sort?

Rather, ven. Nanananda presented to these bhikkhus in order to give them an opportunity to focus on what needed to be learned of the Dhamma about sankharas, dependent origination etc. ... all the Dhamma knowledge that is required in order to actually make their meditation a productive use of their time, and to re-orient it towards nibbana. As he has said about his sermons, he didn't expect his audience to necessarily get it, and many thought his words were heretical because of how it undermined classical understandings rooted in Abhidhammic thought. Whilst some people find comfort in their ruts and do not like them to be disturbed, it certainly didn't hurt for ven. Nanananda to try to at least expose these people to this wisdom (... other than that he eventually felt compelled to leave them to it and form his own monastery).

As Ven Nananda says in the first Sermon:

t occurred to me that it would be best if I
could address these sermons directly to the task before us in this Nissarana
Vanaya, and that is meditative attention, rather than dealing
with those deep controversial suttas in academic isolation.

Well, of course. Nanavira Thera said much the same thing when he said that his words would be of no interest to the academic scholar. Such bhikkhus do not pursue these goals because they value scholarship in and of itself - they pursue these goals in the pursuit of liberation.

Exactly what combination of "meditative attention" (as Ven Nananda puts it) and other knowledge is necessary to get to that state is, of course, up for debate...

It's the knowledge that drives the meditative attention. You may consider it "up for debate", but the dynamic is clearly explained in the suttas...

"One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong view & for entering into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view.

...

"Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? In one of right view, right resolve comes into being. In one of right resolve, right speech comes into being. In one of right speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration... In one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of right knowledge, right release comes into being. Thus the learner is endowed with eight factors, and the arahant with ten.

There is no sugar-coating from the Buddha on the reality that Wrong View leads only to Wrong Mindfulness...

The Blessed One said, "Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, followed by lack of conscience & lack of concern. In an unknowledgeable person, immersed in ignorance, wrong view arises. In one of wrong view, wrong resolve arises. In one of wrong resolve, wrong speech... In one of wrong speech, wrong action... In one of wrong action, wrong livelihood... In one of wrong livelihood, wrong effort... In one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness... In one of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration arises.

... but just as the monks in question were not convinced by ven. Nanananda's words, neither are some convinced by the Buddha's words. Hence, we continue to see meditative traditions attempt to invert the path for some reason. This prospect you introduce of the puthujjana doing some practice that was not prescribed by the Buddha and magically stumbling upon nibbana doesn't sound much like the Dhamma expounded in the Sutta Pitaka. Rather...

The Exalted One said:
"Monks, whether in householder or recluse,
I praise no wrong practice.
If a householder or recluse practise perversity,
then in consequence of
and because of
his practice of perversity
he is no winner of the Method,
the Norm
and the good.
And what, monks, is wrong practice?
It is as follows:
Wrong view,
wrong aim,
wrong speech,
wrong action,
wrong living,
wrong effort,
wrong mindfulness
wrong concentration."
This, monks, is called 'wrong practice'.
Whether in householder or recluse, monks,
I praise not wrong practice.
For if a householder or recluse practise perversity,
then in consequence of
and because of
his practice of perversity
he is no winner of the Method,
the Norm
and the good.

Such 'wrong practice' is a long, long, way from nibbana.

Metta,
Paul.

[mikenz66]

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your views about ruts and whatnot. Clearly one needs the right preparation for these meditative attainments, and I'm not sure why you think anyone would dispute that.

Could we return to the question of nibbana, which is, after all, what the sermons are about? I have explained how I read Ven Nananada's sermons, which seem quite clear that it is the "experience" (any word one chooses is imperfect, hence the quotes) of nibbana that destroys the fetters at the various path levels, including stream entry.

Perhaps you could point out where he is mistaken (or where I am mistaken about his statements, such as the quotes in my last post).


Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

Could we return to the question of nibbana, which is, after all, what the sermons are about? I have explained how I read Ven Nananada's sermons, which seem quite clear that it is the "experience" (any word one chooses is imperfect, hence the quotes) of nibbana that destroys the fetters at the various path levels, including stream entry.

Perhaps you could point out where he is mistaken (or where I am mistaken about his statements, such as the quotes in my last post).

I pointed out where it appears ven. Nanananda's over-reached somewhat here in a different recent topic.

I pointed out where you were mistaken about your "nibbana that destroys the fetters at the various path levels" theory here. (Whether this mistaken perspective is truly reflective of ven. Nanananda's teaching, or simply your interpretation of it, remains to be seen. The quotes you've provided haven't convinced me that this is his meaning.)

Is there even one sutta you can put forth to support your model for the attainment of a "nibbana that destroys the fetters at the various path levels"? Or is this simply an article of faith on your part? What is its origin? How does it account for the classification of the Sangha into the 8 types of individuals? By your inverted logic of the fruit preceding the path there would only be 4. Are you certain you wish to commit to that perspective?

For the time being I have nothing much else to say other than to reiterate that there are suttas galore in the Sutta Pitaka that explain the correct path of Dhamma practice, and its logical sequencing. None of this voluminous wealth of wisdom correlates with the radical hypothesis of a puthujjana fantastically attaining nibbana without having already attained to Right View, merely by following mindfulness techniques not even taught by the Buddha. Are you certain you wish to commit to that perspective? Life is short.

Metta,
Paul.

[mikenz66]

OK, I give up. If you're questioning a straightforward reading of Ven Nananda's words in the Nibbana Sermons I don't have any more to add.

I hope you are enjoying Ven Analayo's expositions and the discussions on the forum there. Perhaps you should present your arguments that Ven Nananda is overreaching there. Some relevant suttas have already been discussed somewhat, such as SN 12.68 (Kosambi sutta). https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.68


Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

I wouldn't call your puthujjana nibbana theory "straightforward" by any stretch of the imagination, but if you're unwilling to defend or substantiate such a bizarre and radical concept with anything from the suttas, or even the Abhidhamma, then so be it.

Metta,
Paul.

[mikenz66]

Hi Paul,

Clearly we understand Ven Nananda's sermons completely differently. In my posts I have merely summarised my understanding of the sermons, which has been helped by the clarifications from Ven Analayo and other course participants. I have no interested in responding to your snide comments about "puthujjana nibbana theory " and "bizarre and radical concepts", so let's just agree that we disagree on our understanding of the words of Ven Nananada and the Buddha.


Mike

[JiWe2]

Those who did not register (like me!) need not fear. From the link that Mike gave:

The last day to register was April 20. In late July/early August, we will publicly post all the content from this lecture series.

Not sure when they made these Nibbāna Lectures of Bhikkhu Anālayo available, but here they are:

https://www.bcbsdharma.org/resources/bh ... -lectures/

[ToVincent]

Not sure when they made these Nibbāna Lectures of Bhikkhu Anālayo available, but here they are:
https://www.bcbsdharma.org/resources/bh ... -lectures/

Thanks JiWe2

Already in the first lecture, I have a hard time with how Analayo, reduces the meaning of Nāma.

Reducing nāma to "naming" is, I believe, to reduce nāma to just what it has become when it reaches satta - that is to say, when there is a descent of nāma-rūpa in saḷāyatana; and further, when nāma reaches satta proper.
However, Nāma must also encompass the immaterial khandhas.
One must adress the all Nāma shebang.

Analayo agrees that there is an immaterial side to nāma; but he seems to adress the Nikāyas' definition of it; and does not take much, the Āgamas' definition into account.
And I should insist again: "they are not at all conflictual - but just complementary".
Understanding such an evident fact, is a real improvement in the understanding of the Teaching.

I have explained that here - https://justpaste.it/1bzye.
It has to do with understanding the meaning of: "Consciousness turns back; it goes no further than name-and-form" in SN 12.65 - But it explains very straightforwardly what Nāma is exactly - and the changes in its nature, along the all process (of nāma).

I strongly advise people to read it thoroughly and seriously.
All of it, is based on suttas with parallels.

The Āgamas' definition addresses the nature of nāma in the Nāma-Rūpa nidāna proper; as well as what it becomes, when it descends in saḷāyatana.
While the Nikaya's definition addresses what nāma becomes, when it reaches satta proper - that is to say contact & the following.

The "naming" process is definitely more tied up with the components in that latter definition of the Nikāyas (and with mano). But it is not what nāma means at large; or even more restrictively in satta.

--------

I have also a hard time with absolutely pairing Nāma and Akkheyya in Analayo's first lecture - that is to say, this:

Nāmaṃ sabbaṃ anvabhavi,
nāmā bhiyyo na vijjati,
nāmassa ekadhammassa,
sabbeva vasamanvagū.

Name has conquered everything,
There is nothing greater than name,
All have gone under the sway
Of this one thing called name."

And this

Akkheyyasaññino sattā,
akkheyyasmiṃ patiṭṭhitā,
akkheyyaṃ apariññāya,
yogam āyanti maccuno.

Beings are conscious of what can be named (?),
They are established on the nameable,
By not comprehending the nameable things,
They come under the yoke of death."
(Analayo ?)
SN 1.20

“Beings who perceive what can be expressed
Become established in what can be expressed.
Not fully understanding what can be expressed,
They come under the yoke of Death.
(Bodhi)

Men, 'ware alone of what is told by names,
Take up their stand on what is so expressed.
If this they have not rightly understood,
They go their ways under the yoke of death.
(Mrs. Rhys Davids)

Perceiving in terms of signs,
beings take a stand on signs.
Not fully comprehending signs, they
come into the bonds of death.
(Thanissaro)

Beings who perceive the expressible [what can be expressed]
Are established in the expressible.
Not fully understanding the expressible,
They go under the yoke of death.
(Piya Tan)

The SĀ 1078 & the SA2 17 parallels have the same Chinese formulation:
眾生隨愛想，　　
以愛想而住，
以不知愛故，　　
則為死方便。
Whoever says that the signs
​arising from name-and-form (?) do truly exist,
know that this person
​is on the road of death.
SA2 17
(Bingenheimer)

-----

I have a hard time with Bingenheimer's translation.
The literal translation in the Chinese -> English look-up, on suttacentral, gives the following:

In accord with the arising of desire (愛) for ideation (想),
And by mean of the abinding in this desire for ideation,
One does not know the reason for this desire
And directly goes to death.

This is much more in line with the suttas.
For we know from the suttas with parallels, in accord with modern linguistics, that the vaca process is the following:
Vitakka (ideation - abstract thoughts) >> Vicāra (concretism [representation of an abstract idea in concrete terms] - concrete thoughts] - and vaca (word).
"Abstract thought" and "concretism" are my own translations - however based on a study of the words vitakka & vicāra in the suttas with parallels.

Earlier having abstractly thought, and mentally concretizing that thought, someone breaks into a word (speech); therefore vitakka & vicāra are verbal determinations.
Pubbe kho āvuso visākha vitakketvā vicāretvā pacchā vācaṃ bhindati. Tasmā vitakkavicārā vacīsaṅkhāro.
SN 41.6

And all the latter shows that the "naming" process has more to do with the vaca process (vitakka>>vicāra>>vaca), than with nāma - of which it is just a part in satta.

In Pali, Akkheyya is the gerund of akkhāti (in SN 1.20 above)
Akkhāti，[ā + khyā]
- to declare, tell.

“For the sake of leading us across the flood
You **told** about the path with its many aspects.
oghassa nittharaṇatthaṃ,
anekavihitaṃ maggaṃ akkhāsi (Aor.)
SN 8.8

Being asked, **tell** it to me.
taṃ me akkhāhi (Imper.) pucchito”ti
SN 1.42 & SN 2.17

In the case of pleasant progress with quick comprehension, progress **is told** (to be) excellent on account of both pleasantness and quick comprehension.
Tatra, bhante, yāyaṃ paṭipadā sukhā khippābhiññā, ayaṃ pana, bhante, paṭipadā ubhayeneva paṇītā akkhāyati sukhattā ca khippattā ca.
DN 28

Note that the root √Khyā to which Akkheyya is bound, has a late meaning of "told" in the Sanskrit texts. While it has an underlying meaning of reckoning & appearing - like in संख्या saṃkhyā [ saṃ-√ khyā ] = to appear along with (RV. VS. ); and to reckon (ŚBr. MBh.).


The translation Akkheyyasaññino sattā might then be:
Beings who perceive what can appear (reckon >> judge to be probable >> deem to be >> think about in a particular way).
instead of:
Beings who perceive what can be expressed

And the all strophe becomes:

Beings who perceive what deems to be
Become established in what they judge to be probable.
Not fully understanding what is thought about in a particular way,
They come under the yoke of Death.

In this context, khyā does not have the underlying meaning of "telling - but "reckoning", I suppose.

Voila!
Metta