Друзья! Недавно я опубликовал серию постов, в которой лейтмотивом проходила тема препятствия привязанности к воззрениям (санскрит दृष्ट्युपादान dṛyupādānana или drishti-upadana (дришти-упадана) так же на пали diṭṭhupadānā или ditthi-upadana (диттхи-упадана) Удивительным образом, практически синхронно с этой публикацией, наш друг Олег Павлов, являющийся последователем традиции южного буддизма тхеравады, задал вопрос на данную тему одному из ведущих экспертов в Палийской Традиции – досточтимому бхантэ Бхиккху Бодхи. Приведу цитату в оригинале на английском языке. Перевод будет опубликован в комментариях к посту. Oleg Pavlov: My question to you (about non-clining to the Right View as a part of the Right View) was caused by the fact that here there is a very active group of the "Buddhists-fundamentalists" who take the Right View as a Creed or dogma, and there is a lot of disputes and quarrels because of this. Could you please to write or say something very certain about this? Your word is highly significant. Bhante, as for these "fundamentalists" i told in my previous letter, they actively promote the point of view according to which nibbana is a total disappearance. So if a materialist holds that the death of body is a complete finish, these people claim that according to Buddha's teaching we have to work hard to disappear and this is what Buddha taught.  When they are objected that this is a kind of suicide, they answer that there is no anything to disappear because there is no "self". These people are very aggressive. They say this is a position of the "true Buddhist Tradition". Suttas are a sort of Holy Bible for them.  Metta Oleg Bhikkhu Bodhi: Dear Oleg, I know this type of person. I would run across people who held dogmatic, fundamentalist views of Buddhism when I was in Sri Lanka. Almost always, they were Western converts to Buddhism. The Sri Lankan Buddhists were much more open-minded and non-dogmatic. The Westerners were often followers of the British monk Ven. Nyanavira Thera (d. 1965), who published a collection of "Notes on Dhamma" in which he claimed to have a uniquely accurate understanding of the Dhamma. Now the Nyanavirist interpretations have taken root among a new generation of Serbian and Slovenian monks. A relevant passage in addressing this attitude might be one found in the Maha-Tanhasankhaya Sutta (Majjhima no. 38). After teaching the formula for dependent origination, the Buddha says:  14. “Monks, purified and bright as this view is, if you adhere to it, cherish it, treasure it, and treat it as a possession, would you then understand that the Dhamma has been taught as similar to a raft, being for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of grasping?”—“No, Bhante.”—“Purified and bright as this view is, if you do not adhere to it, cherish it, treasure it, and treat it as a possession, would you then understand that the Dhamma has been taught as similar to a raft, being for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of grasping?”—“Yes, Bhante.” The reference here is to the Alagaddupama Sutta (Majjhima no. 22), which uses the famous "simile of the raft" to illustrate how the Dhamma is for the purpose of crossing the stream, not for the purpose of carrying around on one's head.  I think it would be unwise to engage in arguments with the fundamentalists. It is hard to change their point of view, and one just becomes angry or frustrated with them. Just let them go their own way.  In regard to the different interpretations of nibbana, that too is an old debate that goes back even to ancient India. The school called Sautrantika held that nirvana is merely the destruction of defilements and the ending of the cycle of rebirths. Other schools, including the Theravada, held that nibbana is an unconditioned state. In support they cite several suttas in the last chapter of the Udana. I'll deal with nibbana in the Nov