That is a very good question, as I see it, puthujjana guided by Dhamma instructions, and trying to practice it, gradually removes his wrong ideas about the things as they are, untill in fact his understanding isnât in contradiction with Dhamma, and at this point the arisnig of the eye may happened.
Perhaps I expressed myself not very clearly, my main objection is that Norman was outsider puthujjana, not merely puthujjana who strives to understand the Dhamma. I can elaborate my position:
Pali is a very specific language, perhaps the only language in the world where the best scholar can be corrected by one who in fact doesnât know the language. And I donât mean the obvious explanation: namely certain texts in Suttas deal strictly with the right view,â so in order to translate such texst into other languages one simply has to see the Four Noble Truths. With such direct and private knowledge even without much knowledge about Pali, just from context, right meaning of the word could be deducted, while the best Pali scholar without the right view has at his disposal only purely grammatical considerations.
â [⊠it is possible to regard the Suttas as the product of the Buddhaâs âpersonalâ experience. The Buddha is dhamma-bhĆ«ta, âbecome Dhammaâ, and the Suttas are an account of Dhamma.
In the Suttas, however (unlike in a novel, where the emphasis is in the other direction, upon the particular), the Buddha expresses, for the most part, what is universal in his experienceâi.e. what can be experienced by anyone who makes the appropriate effort in the appropriate conditions. So it is that the Buddha says âHe who sees the Dhamma sees meâ ⊠The sekhaâno longer a puthujjana but not yet an arahatâhas a kind of âdouble visionâ, one part unregenerate, the other regenerate.) As soon as one becomes a sotÄpanna one is possessed of aparapaccayÄ Ă±Änam, or âknowledge that does not depend upon anyone elseâ: this knowledge is also said to be ânot shared by puthujjanasâ, and the man who has it has (except for accelerating his progress) no further need to hear the Teachingâin a sense he is (in part) that Teaching. (From Nanavira Thera Letters)]
That should be obvious and I donât mean that.
The point is that Suttas describe things as they are, certain truths about putthujjana experience which are timeless, things which were like this ten thousands years ago and which will not change after another ten thousands of years. They are already in our experience, so in order to clearly see them, supported by the Dhamma, reflecting on our experience we can see them, even without ceaseing to be puthujjanas. In other words apart linguistics examinations we have to examine consequences of certain translations on existential level.
The good example is âasmimÄnaâ. It is a very important word, since cessation of asmimÄna is recognised by Suttas as nibbana here and now.
I have met with the three rendering of the term, namely:
âI amâ; â(I) amâ, and âamâ.
The third translation is made by very well known scholar, Bhikkhu Nanananda. But even without Pali knowledge one who practice Dhamma, reflect on it, can see that his translation is the worst of all. And it is so because he as a Pali scholar, at least in this particular case limited himself to purely linguistic considerations, without examining the existential consequences of his translation.
He insisted that translation asmimÄna as âI amâ is too strong. I am not in position to disagree with it, also Ven Nanavira seems to agree with him*. But when English speaking puthujjana reflects about himself, about his existence or being he thinks âI amâ not âamâ. Now if he is informed that nibbana is the cessation of âamâ, he is wholly justified to insist, that it means that certain noumenal âIâ still is present in nibbana. Perhaps that idea could find some enthusiasts, but I donât think ven Nanananda was on of them, he simply havenât recognised all the consequences of his translation on the existential level. And he was practicing Buddhist. So what about scholar who not only was limited to linguistics considerations, but who also didnât boder to practice Dhamma (and reflecton on Dhamma is the part of practice)?
Also I didnât say that reading Norman cannot be useful, I only wanted to emphasize Suttas message:
âCunda, that one who is himself sinking in the mud should pull out another who is sinking in the mud is impossible ⊠MN 8
Certainly I donât believe that this or that monk has a right view, but apart that I can be wrong, I donât see how I can demonstrate it to general public. But in this particular case if Norman even didnât take a refuge in the Buddha and Dhamma, I found it slightly ironic that he wanted to teach us about nibbana. 
.
My memory isnât great and my time is limited, so I prefer rereading Suttas, than to read non canonical sources written by outsiders.
âHouseholders, if wanderers of other sects ask you thus: âHouseholders, what kind of recluses and brahmins should not be honoured, respected, revered, and venerated?â you should answer them thus: âThose recluses and brahmins who are not rid of lust, hate, and delusion regarding forms cognizable by the eye, whose minds are not inwardly peaceful, and who conduct themselves now righteously, now unrighteously in body, speech, and mindâsuch recluses and brahmins should not be honoured, respected, revered, and venerated. Why is that? Because we ourselves are not rid of lust, hate, and delusion regarding forms cognizable by the eye, our minds are not inwardly peaceful, and we conduct ourselves now righteously, now unrighteously in body, speech, and mind. Since we do not see any higher righteous conduct on the part of those good recluses and brahmins, they should not be honoured, respected, revered, and venerated. (âŠ)
- âHouseholders, if wanderers of other sects ask you thus: âBut what are your reasons and what is your evidence regarding those venerable ones whereby you say about them: âSurely these venerable ones are either rid of lust or are practising for the removal of lust; they are either rid of hate or are practising for the removal of hate; they are either rid of delusion or are practising for the removal of delusionâ?ââbeing asked thus, you should answer those wanderers of other sects thus: âIt is because those venerable ones resort to remote jungle-thicket resting places in the forest. For there are no forms cognizable by the eye there of a kind that they could look at and delight in. There are no sounds cognizable by the ear there of a kind that they could listen to and delight in. There are no odours cognizable by the nose there of a kind that they could smell and delight in. There are no flavours cognizable by the tongue there of a kind that they could taste and delight in. There are no tangibles cognizable by the body there of a kind that they could touch and delight in. These are our reasons, friends, this is our evidence whereby we say about those venerable ones: âSurely these venerable ones are either rid of lust, hate, and delusion, or are practising for their removal.ââ Being thus asked, householders, you should answer those wanderers of other sects in this way.â MN 150
- asmimÄna â conceit â(I) amâ.
(âConceitâ, mÄna, is to be understood as a cross between âconceptâ and âprideâ â almost the French âorgueilâ suitably attenuated. Asmi is âI amâ without the pronoun, like the Latin âsumâ; but plain âamâ is too weak to render asmi, and aham asmi (âego sumâ) is too emphatic to be adequately rendered âI amâ.) Nanavira Thera
The forums dreamer.
