History Question: Interpretations of Dependent Arising

Your confidence: “I can say with confidence that this interpretation is unprecedented, unique” is not well grounded:

Nanamoli Thera writings precedes it. As far as written words goes. Because in fact dependent arising is the general formula, so any ariya sees it. All comes to one point, either one sees this or not:

Now this has been said by the Blessed One: “One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent origination.” And these five aggregates affected by clinging are dependently arisen. The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origin of suffering. The removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire and lust for these five aggregates affected by clinging is the cessation of suffering.’
MN 28

And I think Ajhan Chah would give quite proper interpretation of this passage.

Edit [Quote from the book A Still Forest Pool

Those who speak of death are speaking the language of ignorant children. In the language of the heart, of Dharma, there’s no such thing.

“When we carry a burden, it’s heavy. When there’s no one to carry it, there’s not a problem in the world. Do not look for good or bad or for anything at all. Do not be anything. There’s nothing more; just this.”

A visiting Zen student asked Achaan Chah, “How old are you? Do you live here all year round?”
“I live nowhere,” he replied. “There is no place you can find me. I have no age. To have age, you must exist, and to think you exist is already a problem. Don’t make problems; then the world has none either.]

And this statement: The fact that Sartre and Heidegger laid the theoretical foundation for such an interpretation in the 30s and 40s—only two decades prior—is what gives me such confidence that Ven. Ñanavīra’s interpretation is unprecedented and without any historical Buddhist antecedent.

sorry to say, is just a nonsense. That four noble truths are descriptions, it should be quite obvious to any averagely intelligent man, you really do not need Heidegger, nor Sartre to understand this.

If the second noble truth is a description, it’s reformulation in the terms of dependent arising also must be description.


What I mean nobody in his senses interpretes the second noble truth in terms of three, two, one existence or existence from moment to moment. But when the second noble truth is reformulated in terms of dependent arising suddenly what is a atemporal description of the state of puthujjana, and his state is that of being, suddenly various temporal interpretations appear.

The reason for this that sine qua non relationship between items undermines the most fundamental puthujjana certainty: that of being. And there is absolutely no direct relation between Heidegger and Dhamma, that his philosophy was helpful for Ven Nanavira says more about ven Nanavira then about universal validity of Heidegger writings for all who aspire to understand Dhamma.

Ajahn Chach could manage to do it without Heidegger :smiling_face: