Ven. Ñāṇananda is widely known as a distinguished scholar monk and a person of high personal virtue. He is also regarded by some as a ‘phenomenological Buddhist’, a representative of a loosely defined current in the Buddhist thought based largely on the ‘one-life’ interpretation of the Dependent Origination and espoused by such influential figures in the ‘underground Buddhism’ as Ven. Ñāṇavīra. I myself prefer to think of this brand of Theravada Buddhism as ‘phenomenological existentialism’, as it is also concerned with interpreting the Buddha’s Teaching in the light of existentialist philosophers like Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sarte, etc. - and vice versa.
One of the best known works of Ven. Ñāṇananda is ‘Nibbana - The Mind Stilled’, a series of 33 sermons on the subject of Nibbana. I myself have so far tried three times to read it and stumbled on the central metaphoric idea of the Venerable, the idea of our existence as a magic show. This idea seems to me to presuppose the ultimately illusory nature of the whole existence, an idea that disturbs me so much that I had to stop reading. Now, a good spiritual text is always disturbing and thought-provoking, so it may be just my personal limitedness and fear of the truth. At the same time, Ven. Ñāṇananda staunchly denies any accusations of being an idealist and ‘illusionist’, and this is where I get lost and don’t really know how one could summarize his views about the nature of Nibbana. So, I am turning for your help: Could someone please explain to me the Venerable’s ideas concisely and in the most plain language possible? Are there any canonical arguments against it (there is no need for arguments for it, since Venerable’s books are abundant in them)?
Another possile avenue of discussion is how Ven. Ñāṇananda’s work, and really the whole Buddhism-existentialism-cum-phenomenology project is really a product of the Western culture - not in the derogatory sense of being merely a cultural product, but treated rather as an attempt of a Western grasp at the universal truth of the Dhamma, focusing on the issues that are troubling and interesting to people of the Western culture. As Stephen Bachelor wrote about Zen:
A key significance of Zen in the coming of the Dharma to the West is that it provides an excellent historic case study of the encounter between Indian Buddhism and a civilization with a highly evolved and distinctive culture of its own, i.e. China.
The Chinese culture is peculiar in its disinterest in the afterlife, so, as Mr. Bachelor’s argument goes, it resulted in Zen disinterest in the rebirth teaching to the point that some Zen teachers are openly agnostic about the rebirth. The modern Western person seems to be at least unconsciously suspicious of the rebirth doctrine, with many of the people, Mr. Bachelor including, discarding it as an Ancient Indian superstition and a result of cultural conditioning. This nibbida at the idea of rebirth could hardly have resulted in it being prominent in the Buddhist phenomenological existantialism, so you don’t really read much about it in the works of Ven. Ñāṇananda and Ñāṇavīra. At the same time, they despite being representatives of the Western intellectual tradition never rejected the rebirth. In fact, Ven. Ñāṇavīra’s killed himself because of believing in rebirth. He considered himself a stream-enter, and as a gravely ill person unable to meditate as much as he wished he decided to take his own life to achieve the Awakening as soon as possible. For the sake of clarity, my personal stance is that it was a wrong thing to believe in and a stupid thing to do.
Considering all of the above, couldn’t this phenomenological Buddhism of Ven. Ñāṇananda be a middle ground between us, ‘hardliner Western Buddhists’, and Secular Buddhist rejecting the monastic institutions and rebirth altogether? Are there any fundamental irreconcilable differences of opinion making it unacceptable to any of the other two sides? Couldn’t we find a common ground in this form of Dhamma and respectfully agree to disagree on the other issues (and I mean real respect on both sides)? Not that we are that divided anyway, but bringing more harmony into our relations is always beneficial.
