The Work of Venerable Ñānavīra Thera

[SDC]

"Only in a vertical view, straight down into the abyss of his own personal existence, is a man capable of apprehending the perilous insecurity of his situation; and only a man who does apprehend this is prepared to listen to the Buddha's Teaching." - Ñānavīra Thera


I wouldn’t consider myself a Ñānavīrist by any means, but I am almost done reading Clearing the Path and it has been a terrific experience. This was the second time I've read his “Notes on Dhamma” and it has again enriched my experience and understanding of the Buddha’s teaching. I think his ideas throw a wrench in the gears of the common, accepted view of the dhamma. I have found this shakeup stimulating and thought provoking. Now I can understand how some may see this as bad, or even an unnecessary for their practice, which is fine, and if that is your opinion then perhaps you shouldn’t put any unnecessary pressure on yourself to look into what he had to say – just leave it be.

But those that are interested in what he had to say, I think it would be good to have a spot on dhammawheel to toss around his ideas. So let's give it a try.

[tiltbillings]

I will revisit once and a while and post some more of his ideas for discussion.

Rather than revisiting once in a while, posting stuff for discussion, be an active participant in this thread you have started to help shape it. I think that we on moderation team can help keep in the thread in line with what you would like to see, and if a posting is out of line, then the "report" button/function can be used. But if you want a good, productive thread, it would help to put some ongoing energy into it.

[SDC]

That statement was misleading. I will definitely be an active part of this.

Every once in a while when the discussion quiets I will post something new is what was meant by that.

[tiltbillings]

That statement was misleading. I will definitely be an active part of this.

Every once in a while when the discussion quiets I will post something new is what was meant by that.

Good enough, and I hope it goes well.

[Moth]

Recently read the introduction to Notes on Dhamma. I enjoyed his pointing out of how the Buddha put aside the existential question rather than answering it. I spent a lot of time alone recently, delving quite deeply into my thoughts, trying to find definitive answers to certain questions--specifically about the nature of my self. Eventually I gave up. I believe the Buddha called this 'the thicket of views' and warned us simply to drop it. He clearly avoided the basic logical stances: true, false, true and false, neither true nor false. Instead he introduced a new position: it depends , and called it the middle way. When the book arives in the mail I will continue it... >

[ancientbuddhism]

Recently read the introduction to Notes on Dhamma. I enjoyed his pointing out of how the Buddha put aside the existential question rather than answering it. I spent a lot of time alone recently, delving quite deeply into my thoughts, trying to find definitive answers to certain questions--specifically about the nature of my self. Eventually I gave up. I believe the Buddha called this 'the thicket of views' and warned us simply to drop it. He clearly avoided the basic logical stances: true, false, true and false, neither true nor false. Instead he introduced a new position: it depends , and called it the middle way.

The ‘thicket of views’ is with reference to those of the puthujjana, who wrongly considers a personal existence ‘for me’ – ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? (ahosiṃ nu kho ahaṃ atītamaddhānaṃ, na nu kho ahosiṃ atītamaddhānaṃ) … ‘I have a self’ … I do not have a self’ (atthi me attā’ti … natthi me attā’ti) etc.. Ñāṇavira (Notes/CTP p. 8) is making a common mistake (see Ṭhanissaro’s NSS) of assuming the Buddha considered the question of ‘this world with its gods…’ views on ‘self and the world’ (= Upaniṣadic ātman) to be unanswerable. The Buddha did not set aside the issue of claims of self, including the Upaniṣadic ‘Self’, where instruction to the suitable audience was deemed necessary. He even mocked the notion of a universal self and what would belong to it as a ‘doctrine of fools’ (bāladhammo) in MN.22.

[piotr]

Ñāṇavira (Notes/CTP p. 8) is making a common mistake (see Ṭhanissaro’s NSS) of assuming the Buddha considered the question of ‘this world with its gods…’ views on ‘self and the world’ (= Upaniṣadic ātman) to be unanswerable. The Buddha did not set aside the issue of claims of self, including the Upaniṣadic ‘Self’, where instruction to the suitable audience was deemed necessary. He even mocked the notion of a universal self and what would belong to it as a ‘doctrine of fools’ (bāladhammo) in MN.22.

But setting aside, or — as Ñāṇavīra puts it — “seeing that the questions [about attā] are not valid and that to ask them is to make the mistake of assuming that they are” is quite different from asserting the existence of attā. Don't you think?

• [Attā] is a deception, and a deception (a mirage, for example) can be as definite as you please—the only thing is, that it is not what one takes it for. To make any assertion, positive or negative, about attā is to accept the false coin at its face value. If you will re-read the Vacchagotta Sutta (Avyākata Samy. 8: iv,395-7), you will see that the Buddha refrains both from asserting and from denying the existence of attā for this very reason. (In this connection, your implication that the Buddha asserted that there is no self requires modification. What the Buddha said was 'sabbe dhammā anattā'—no thing is self—, which is not quite the same. 'Sabbe dhammā anattā' means 'if you look for a self you will not find one', which means 'self is a mirage, a deception'. It does not mean that the mirage, as such, does not exist.)
  
  — http://nanavira.xtreemhost.com/index.ph ... &Itemid=49" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Moth]

The Buddha, so far as I have read, does not answer the questions concerning the existence or non-existence of a self. Rather he disregards the question. When asked, "does the self exist?" he does not reply. When asked, "does the self not exist?" again he does not reply. That is not to be confused with the law of anatta, that is, that all dhammas (which includes Nibbana) are not self. The puthujjana is bound by logic. Thus questions that are beyond the scope of logic, i.e the existence or non-existence of a self, the beginning and end of samsara, the state of a tathagatha after death, etc will only bring more suffering when tackled within the logical constriction. We are trapped within the twofold logic of true and false, black and white, birth and death. Our views are like a mini-samsara, cycling infinitely between these two extremes.

[ancientbuddhism]

But setting aside, or — as Ñāṇavīra puts it — “seeing that the questions [about attā] are not valid and that to ask them is to make the mistake of assuming that they are” is quite different from asserting the existence of attā. Don't you think?

Yes, to set aside the habit of the assutavā puthujjano, who ‘considers improperly (ayoniso manasi karoti) thus: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past?...’ Here the puthujjana is raising the question of personal existence, ‘for me’, and is vexed. This is the context for setting aside views.

But Ñāṇavira does not simply stop at 'seeing that the questions [about attā] are not valid' he continues with the specious claim that many (Ṭhanissaro, Collins, Harvey et al) have leaned against the Ānanda Sutta (SN. 44.10), asserting that based on the Buddha’s silence to Vacchagotta, that the Buddha never denied ‘Self’ with reference to the ontological claims of ātman in the Upaniṣads. The Buddha most certainly did instruct his learned disciples on ‘positions on views’ (diṭṭhiṭṭhānāni), including notions of a universal self, and refuted these as non-existent (asat).

[pulga]

I think the real litmus test of Ñanavira's views are whether they hold up to our own experience. We can argue about their validity textually and historically until we're dead in our graves, but until we are willing to grapple with the ideas he has to offer we'll never be able to really appreciate his insights. And unfortunately he came to his views not only by his reading of the Suttas, but by exploring worlds of thought that few of us are willing to devote any time to.

[SDC]

I think the real litmus test of Ñanavira's views are whether they hold up to our own experience. We can argue about their validity textually and historically until we're dead in our graves, but until we are willing to grapple with the ideas he has to offer we'll never be able to really appreciate his insights. And unfortunately he came to his views not only by his reading of the Suttas, but by exploring worlds of thought that few of us are willing to devote any time to.

Thanks, pulga. Hence the reason for this suggested guideline:

---> His work has been available for almost fifty years, and has long been considered by some to be controversial and against the traditional interpretation of the dhamma. This is not a secret, so it would not be considered a revelation to point this out by directly quoting such differences from the suttas or related commentaries. If there is something of his you don’t understand or happen to disagree with then by all means bring it to the table, but please try to show how it conflicts with your own personal understanding and experience of the dhamma rather than someone else’s.

[ancientbuddhism]

I agree that Ñāṇavira’s personal matters, such as ariya attainment or his suicide should be left out. But to suggest that a discussion of The Work of Venerable Ñānavīra Thera be only filtered through ones personal understanding and experience of the dhamma, and exclusive of others who have written on these matters, leaves one rather in a vacuum when The Work of Ñāṇavira includes reference to canonical sources, secular philosophy and personal letters with ‘others’. In keeping with what the title of this thread implies, any relevant material connected with his views should be reasonably considered as ‘on topic’, including Bodhi’s essay mentioned above.

Also, with reference to Bodhi’s essay, this thread would be a good place to vet its veracity, something which has been long overdue.

[SDC]

I agree that Ñāṇavira’s personal matters, such as ariya attainment or his suicide should be left out. But to suggest that a discussion of The Work of Venerable Ñānavīra Thera be only filtered through ones personal understanding and experience of the dhamma, and exclusive of others who have written on these matters, leaves one rather in a vacuum when The Work of Ñāṇavira includes reference to canonical sources, secular philosophy and personal letters with ‘others’. In keeping with what the title of this thread implies, any relevant material connected with his views should be reasonably considered as ‘on topic’, including Bodhi’s essay mentioned above.

Also, with reference to Bodhi’s essay, this thread would be a good place to vet its veracity, something which has been long overdue.

All good points, ancientbuddhism. Thank you for the objection. I will modify the guidelines in the OP somewhat.

In regards to references from the canon: I wanted to avoid pointless back and forth about how Ñāṇavira said this, but the suttas clearly say this. If conflicts have been identified then by all means bring them to the table, but bring them with why YOU see the conflict as an issue. It needs to more then merely pointing out disagreements. Agreed?

Now in regards to Bhikkhu Bodhi's essay: The last time that was brought up on dhammawheel I saw nothing good come from it. For now, not forever, but for now, I would like to keep that discussion off to the side.

[daverupa]

I would be interested in engaging with anyone's bhāvana developments, corrections, and/or refinements as a result of contact with this material. Additionally, I wonder if much is known about the specifics of Ñānavīra's bhāvana? I believe he tended to prefer walking meditation.

[ancientbuddhism]

I would be interested in engaging with anyone's bhāvana developments, corrections, and/or refinements as a result of contact with this material. Additionally, I wonder if much is known about the specifics of Ñānavīra's bhāvana? I believe he tended to prefer walking meditation.

I also heard somewhere that Venerable Ñāṇavīra preferd walking meditation, but as I recall it was due to his illness and the restlessness it caused which left walking as his only contemplative option.

My understanding and appreciation of Venerable Ñāṇavīra’s work is his analysis of Dhamma. And errors notwithstanding, what I gained from it, as with Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, was an interpretation of DO in present existence, that is, without the three lifetime theory. How he arrived at that has been controversial, as is common knowledge of his work, but in the last analysis, I think he was correct.