Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

I was in Thailand recently and caught up with Sujin Boriharnwanaket who was giving a talk in Hua Hin. I admit hogging the microphone for the best part of two hours as I was fascinated with her take on the Abhidhamma. Effectively any form of formal practice is futile as it start with a 'self' having an agenda (if I have understood correctly). Therefore no daily practice. Quite a fresh and a blunt returning to the Dhammas as a precursor to anything and everything.

Anyone else come across her?

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... ilit=Sujin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Has a thread with quotes from sujin

sorry that i dig this thread up. I am thai and i'm archarn sujin student. I meet sujin very often, every other friday evening. If you have any questions, i will be very delighted to help at best i could

hopedhamma wrote:sorry that i dig this thread up. I am thai and i'm archarn sujin student. I meet sujin very often, every other friday evening. If you have any questions, i will be very delighted to help at best i could

You might want to take a very careful look at this thread: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15952 It takes a long look the at Sujin ideas, which do not hold up well in terms of the Buddha's teachings.

Helllo all,

I would encourage anyone seriously interested in knowing and understanding what Khun Sujin actually teaches regarding The Abhidhamma and Vipassana to ask any questions they may have, and discuss topics at this website:

Dhammastudy Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/

Any query and discussion is taken seriously. Polite debate is encouraged and enjoyed. Most members are well-versed in, and all have a deep respect for, the Dhamma of the Theravada as taught in the three Tipitakas, and elucidated in the Commentaries. Some members have taught,or currently do teach, about Buddhism at Universities in Europe, Asia And America.

With metta,
Chris

tiltbillings wrote:

hopedhamma wrote:sorry that i dig this thread up. I am thai and i'm archarn sujin student. I meet sujin very often, every other friday evening. If you have any questions, i will be very delighted to help at best i could

You might want to take a very careful look at this thread: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15952 It takes a long look the at Sujin ideas, which do not hold up well in terms of the Buddha's teachings.

Can you give us a brief description of the main points of contention in term of how her ideas don't fit with the Buddhas teachings?

Thanks....

Beautiful Breath wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:

hopedhamma wrote:sorry that i dig this thread up. I am thai and i'm archarn sujin student. I meet sujin very often, every other friday evening. If you have any questions, i will be very delighted to help at best i could

You might want to take a very careful look at this thread: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15952 It takes a long look the at Sujin ideas, which do not hold up well in terms of the Buddha's teachings.

Can you give us a brief description of the main points of contention in term of how her ideas don't fit with the Buddhas teachings?

Thanks....

To put it simply, as robertk and dhamma-follower have shown us in the "causes" thread, that, according to Sujin, any formal practice of meditation as a way of putting the teachings of the Buddha into effect is driven by lobha and is "motivated by the wrong view of self," making such meditation practice -- to use robertk words -- a "wrong path," which would mean that teachers such as Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Brahm, Buddhadasa, Mahasi Sayadaw, Goenka, Pa Auk Sayadaw, Ven Thanissaro, Ven Sumedho etc, etc are wrong path teachers. In other words, all these teachers are not really teaching true Dhamma. Only Sujin and her followers, since they alone teach the right path, are the true followers of the true Dhamma.

any formal practice of meditation as a way of putting the teachings of the Buddha into effect is driven by lobha and is "motivated by the wrong view of self," making such meditation practice -- to use robertk words -- a "wrong path,"

I don't remember writing that. Do you have the full quote?

robertk wrote:

any formal practice of meditation as a way of putting the teachings of the Buddha into effect is driven by lobha and is "motivated by the wrong view of self," making such meditation practice -- to use robertk words -- a "wrong path,"

I don't remember writing that. Do you have the full quote?

You mean the quote where you characterized formal meditation as the defilement of attachment to rules and rituals, or where you state: "But what is thought to be mindfulness in common parlance is often some type of tedious focussing on an approximation of the here and now. This is merely concentration, without any sati or panna, and is a wrong path." And then there is this remarkable statement: "yes if sitting meditation is done in that way as something to strenghthen posture, or feel relaxed , or to take a breather from the mad pursuit of happiness, then sure it is not silabataparamasa.

For me I have my other hobbies so am not so nterested for now." I have not inapproperiately characterized your approach in this thread.

There is a difference between vipassana and samatha
AS I said on the thread
Thus for one who is intent on samatha , who lives a secluded life then the term formal practice may fit. But I still maintain that for the development of vipassana one is ready to face any object anytime and that preferencing certain postures or activities is actually counterproductive.

robertk wrote:There is a difference between vipassana and samatha
AS I said on the thread
Thus for one who is intent on samatha , who lives a secluded life then the term formal practice may fit. But I still maintain that for the development of vipassana one is ready to face any object anytime and that preferencing certain postures or activities is actually counterproductive.

Having a differing approach to, differing view of, things is not the problem, but what is the problem here, as your words clearly show, you have demeaned and dismissed the formal practice traditions that do not fit your view of things.

I did some poking around in this topic a few years back, and I recall coming to more or less the same conclusion Tilt has. I think Sujin and her followers at dhammastudygroup are doing the Dhamma a disservice and they've led themselves astray through their papanca. We all know what the Buddha has said about ascribing to and propogating a wrong view.

That's just my view anyway and perhaps it's also wrong, but I suspect it is not.

For my part, this conversation has been useful, primarily because it prompted me to re-examine why I practice, to look at how much opportunity for practice daily life offers and perhaps most of all, to examine consciously applying the Dhamma as learned, moment-by-moment in order to see and relinquish the "me" and "mine" in everything. The first two points were not new to me, but the mode of practice I glimpsed through Robertk's posts is very new and I would be happy to hear more detail about that (maybe in another thread).

On the other hand I do see that Khun Sujin's views on what isn't Right Effort, etc are very sectarian and can be harmful to people who are not yet confident in their practice. I think warning signs have been posting loud and clear. Like Tilt says, it may well work for her followers (and they may well be an lovely bunch of people) but the rest of us who practice differently don't have to accept or tolerate the wholesale rejection of formal practice this group preaches.

I'd also like to thank the people who have diligently held up this debate and brought some great materials to bear - it's been very interesting!

Oops! I didn't mean to open Pandoras Box!

I can't really comment as I come originally from a Prasangika stance (Pali not being my best subject) and consequently battle with many of the terms used.

The only thing that I struggled with - in terms of Khun Sujin's talks (or maybe the interpretation of her talks) - was what I see as a fundamental difference between the madhyamika prasangika take on ultimate reality and that of the Abbidhamma as I understood it. I am likely to have misunderstood though and its fair to say that this understanding has been gleaned as a result of responses by her 'followers' on the Yahoo Group.

I for one would like to see a thread looking at this from the bottom up as I seemed to join in many conversations on the Yahoo Group that had established much of their content prior to me joining in.

I am happy to start a thread to look at this if anyones interested? I'll give it a go and see what the response is, but please remember that not everyone is as well versed in Pali as they are in Sanskrit...be gentle with us!

Beautiful Breath wrote:
The only thing that I struggled with - in terms of Khun Sujin's talks (or maybe the interpretation of her talks) - was what I see as a fundamental difference between the madhyamika prasangika take on ultimate reality and that of the Abbidhamma as I understood it.

Do keep in mind, that not unlike the Madhyamaka, the Pali Abhidhamma tradition is layered historically. What one might hear talked about today is not necessarily how things were understood at an earlier time. http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh412.pdf