Questions and Answers

on Venerable Nanavira and the Arahant

Comment and quotes from a Ñanavira enthusiast seeking clarification:

I don’t see Ñanavira describing Viññana nirodha as cessation of it in some special Samadhi attainment.

22. It should be borne in mind that paticcasamuppāda anulomam (‘with the grain’—the samudaya sacca) always refers to the puthujjana, and patilomam (‘against the grain’—the nirodha sacca) to the arahat. Avijjāpaccayā sankhārā is true of the puthujjana, and avijjānirodhā sankhāranirodho is true of the arahat. This might provoke the objection that so long as the arahat is living he breathes, thinks-&-ponders, and perceives and feels; and consequently that cessation of avijjā does not bring about general cessation of sankhārā.
    –Clearing the Path - Ñanavira 2003 p.32

This assumes that the paticcasamuppāda example of the twelve-chain paṭiloma describes the arahat’s everyday sense experience, but there are other paticcasamuppāda examples that better describes the arahats sense experience. The twelve-chain paticcasamuppāda example best describes how suffering arises from ignorance and ceases in the attainment of cessation, whereas the paticcasamuppāda example in the nātika sutta (SN 12.45) best describes how suffering from sense experience arises and how cessation of suffering from sense experience comes about through the cessation of thirsting.

And in the Kevaddhasutta (Dīgha i,11 <D.i,223>), viññānam anidassanam,[j] which is the arahat’s ‘non-indicative consciousness’, is also viññānassa nirodho. While the arahat yet lives, his consciousness is niruddha, or ‘ceased’, for the reason that it is ananuruddha-appativiruddha (Majjhima ii,1 <M.i,65>).
–Clearing the Path - Ñanavira 2003 p.33

It is true that the arahats are free from lust, free from hate, free from delusion, free from thirst, they are those without undertakings, they are those with vision, they are those who do not affirm and negate, they are those who do not enjoy papanca and delight in papanca as said in the cūḷasīhanāda sutta (MN 11) quoted above.

But all these can be considered synonyms for nibbāna, just as anidassana is a synonym for nibbāna. However, to say the arahat’s consciousness is ‘non-indicative’ is only applicable when the arahat’s conciousness has ceased in a cessation attainment. In that case the paticcasamuppāda example of the twelve-chain patiloma is more appropriate for describing the arahat’s freedom from suffering. But when the arahat is not in a cessation attainment, then the ñātika sutta (SN 12.45) is more appropriate for describing the arahat’s cessation from suffering.

In the same way, when there is no longer any apparent ‘self’ to be contacted, contact (phassa) is said to have ceased: Phusanti phassā upadhim paticca / Nirūpadhim kena phuseyyum phassā. (‘Contacts contact dependent on ground – How should contacts contact a groundless one?’) (Udāna ii,4 <Ud.12> This matter has already been touched upon in §§10 & 15. (See also VIÑÑĀNA & PHASSA.)
–Clearing the Path - Ñanavira 2003 p.33

That is also true but here again it requires further explanation. Here is the full quote of the verse with a more direct rendition:

game araññe sukhadukkhaphuṭṭho,
nevattato no parato dahetha;
phusanti phassā upadhiṃ paṭicca,
nirūpadhiṃ kena phuseyyuṃ phassāti.

“Touched by pleasure or pain in the village or forest,
neither regard it as my own nor another’s;
touches touch one on account of ownership,
by what could touches touch the ownerless one?”

The Buddha demonstrates this disowning in the akkosa sutta (SN 7.2) when he refuses to take ownership of the Brahmin Akkosaka Bharadvaja's abuse as follows:

At one time the Auspicious One was dwelling in Rajagaha at the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrel's feeding place. The brahmin Akkosaka Bharadvaja heard that apparently, a brahmin of the Bharadvaja clan has gone forth from the home life into homelessness in the presence of the samana Gotama. Angry and displeased, he approached the Auspicious One. Having approached, to insulted and abused the Auspicious One with vulgar and harsh speech.

When thus was said, the Auspicious One said this to the brahmin Akkosaka Bharadvaja: “So what do you think, O Brahmin? Do friends, colleagues, blood relations and guests visit [you]?”

“Sometimes, O Master Gotama, friends, colleagues, blood relations and guests visit [me].”

“So what do you think, O Brahmin? Do you offer them some hard foods, soft foods and sweets?

“Sometimes, O Master Gotama, I offer them some hard foods, soft foods and sweets.”

“But what if, O Brahmin, they do not accept that?”

“If, O Master Gotama, they do not accept, that is still ours.”

“So too, O Brahmin, you abuse and provoke us who do not abuse and provoke, you quarrel with us who do not quarrel. We do not accept that. They are still yours, O Brahmin.” “He who abuses in return when abused, who provokes in return when provoked, who quarrels in return when quarreled with, responding in kind, is said to partake of the meal, O Brahmin. We neither respond in kind to them, nor partake of the meal. They are still yours, O Brahmin, they are still yours, O Brahmin.”

I think it is in this sense that the Buddha tells the Ven. Ānanda that touches don’t touch the ownerless one in this sutta.

In the kalahavivāda sutta (Snp 4.11), the Buddha is asked about how one abides in a way that “touches don’t touch”. He answers that it is for one who abides in such a way that form does not come to be, that “touches don’t touch” (rūpe vibhūte na phusanti passā). This is the state described in the kevaddha sutta where the Buddha describes viññānam anidassanam as where the four great elements have no footing. So again “touches don’t touch” can either refer to an arahat in a cessation attainment or in everyday sense experience.