<p>Most of it is available in his Notes on Dhamma, and some more in the Letters. In other words, anyone interested is welcome to do their homework. Some examples:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Cittavīthi</em>, ... of which so much use is made in the Visuddhimagga ... is a pure scholastic invention and has nothing at all to do with the Buddha's Teaching</p>
</blockquote>

<p>...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>... the erroneous notion of <em>anuloma-gotrabhu-magga-phala</em>, supposed to be the successive moments in the attainment of <em>sotāpatti</em>. It is sometimes thought that the word <em>akālika</em> as applied to the Dhamma means that attainment of <em>magga</em> is followed 'without interval of time' by attainment of <em>phala</em>; but this is quite mistaken.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Phassa</em>, 'contact', is defined ... as the coming together of the eye, forms, and eye-consciousness ... But it is probably wrong to suppose that we must therefore understand the word <em>phassa</em>, primarily at least, as contact between these three things.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-09-26T14:44:08.677Z
I was looking for commentary vs Ven. Sir's interpretations side by side and what exactly the differences between them.
Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-09-26T12:29:30.477Z
2014-09-26T12:29:30.477Z
Andriy Volkov
<p>I came across that the Ven. sir (<a href="http://www.nanavira.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.nanavira.org</a>) interpreted the Dependent Origination without the traditional 3 lifetime interpretation. </p>

<p>Are there other places he deviated? What are they and what was his interpretation? How are the others who hold similar view? </p>

<pali-canon>
Where did Nanavira Thera deviate from the commentaries
# Where did Nanavira Thera deviate from the commentaries

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-09-26)

I came across that the Ven. sir (<http://www.nanavira.org>) interpreted the Dependent Origination without the traditional 3 lifetime interpretation.

Are there other places he deviated? What are they and what was his interpretation? How are the others who hold similar view?

**Tags:** pali-canon


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2014-09-26. Score: 2

Most of it is available in his Notes on Dhamma, and some more in the Letters. In other words, anyone interested is welcome to do their homework. Some examples:

> *Cittavīthi*, ... of which so much use is made in the Visuddhimagga ... is a pure scholastic invention and has nothing at all to do with the Buddha's Teaching

...

> ... the erroneous notion of *anuloma-gotrabhu-magga-phala*, supposed to be the successive moments in the attainment of *sotāpatti*. It is sometimes thought that the word *akālika* as applied to the Dhamma means that attainment of *magga* is followed 'without interval of time' by attainment of *phala*; but this is quite mistaken.

...

> *Phassa*, 'contact', is defined ... as the coming together of the eye, forms, and eye-consciousness ... But it is probably wrong to suppose that we must therefore understand the word *phassa*, primarily at least, as contact between these three things.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I was looking for commentary vs Ven. Sir's interpretations side by side and what exactly the differences between them.  

---

