Why many Ajahns of Thai forest tradition seem not to refuse the 'Permanent Citta' explicitly?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
thang
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:37 pm

Why many Ajahns of Thai forest tradition seem not to refuse the 'Permanent Citta' explicitly?

Post by thang » Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:57 pm

Why Ajahns of Thai forest tradition are difficult to be found to have refused the eternal Citta (the one who knows/Buddha nature/ non duality) explicitly? Some says Ajahns like Ajahn Chah, Thate, Gunha and Liem didn’t teach this. So why didn’t they refuse it directly? I invite everyone to quote if there is any ajahn, for the welfare of us and the confused future generation. I think this is a serious point that we must clarify in order to save the time and effort of many spiritual explorers. Otherwise “appasannanan c’ eva appasadaya, pasannanan ca ekaccanam annathattaya” will happen. Many of monks and lay people who had faith in or been willing to join Thai Forest Tradition had discouraged because of this reason.
"Bhikkhus, whatever the Tathāgata speaks, utters, or expounds
in the interval between
the night when he awakens to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment
and the night when he attains final nibbāna,
all that is just so and not otherwise"
;

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16460
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Why many Ajahns of Thai forest tradition seem not to refuse the 'Permanent Citta' explicitly?

Post by mikenz66 » Sat Sep 08, 2018 11:18 pm

Greetings, Thang,

There have been many discussions of this in the past. See, for example:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=23338
viewtopic.php?t=22741&start=60#p329417
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=28740

:heart:
Mike

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1537
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Why many Ajahns of Thai forest tradition seem not to refuse the 'Permanent Citta' explicitly?

Post by cappuccino » Sat Sep 08, 2018 11:19 pm

It's not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One would not say, 'A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.
Yamaka Sutta

thang
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:37 pm

Re: Why many Ajahns of Thai forest tradition seem not to refuse the 'Permanent Citta' explicitly?

Post by thang » Sat Sep 08, 2018 11:58 pm

cappuccino wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 11:19 pm
It's not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One would not say, 'A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.
Yamaka Sutta
We have read in the suttas that both annihilanism and eternalism are incorrect. And it is true that there is an extreme of blindly taking Anatta. Here it is not the case.

May be some ajahns have had refused the eternal citta idea. I don't know. Many of the famous ajahs seem to have studied suttas well. So why it is hard to find any explicit/direct/official mention about it? It is hard to understand.
"Bhikkhus, whatever the Tathāgata speaks, utters, or expounds
in the interval between
the night when he awakens to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment
and the night when he attains final nibbāna,
all that is just so and not otherwise"
;

User avatar
budo
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am
Location: The world

Re: Why many Ajahns of Thai forest tradition seem not to refuse the 'Permanent Citta' explicitly?

Post by budo » Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:18 am

cappuccino wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 11:19 pm
It's not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One would not say, 'A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.
Yamaka Sutta
That's not meaning what you're implying it to mean with the context of this thread, because it's not true that he does not exist AFTER death since he never existed at all in the first place, hence the analogy in the Yamaka Sutta

" And when, taken on as a servant, he would rise in the morning before his master, go to bed in the evening only after his master, doing whatever his master ordered, always acting to please him, speaking politely to him: wasn't he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder's son did not know him as 'my murderer.'"

Meaning the murderer always had the intention to kill, it's not true for the victim to say he's HIS murderer because he was a murderer already before the event happened.

In the same way, you do not exist in the first place so how can you stop existing after death?

All the elements that came into form at birth happened without your control, and they will separate after death without your control, so it was never YOUR birth, and it won't be YOUR death either. You do not control the 6 elements.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2980
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Why many Ajahns of Thai forest tradition seem not to refuse the 'Permanent Citta' explicitly?

Post by DooDoot » Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:17 am

thang wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:57 pm
Why Ajahns of Thai forest tradition are difficult to be found to have refused the eternal Citta (the one who knows/Buddha nature/ non duality) explicitly? Some says Ajahns like Ajahn Chah, Thate, Gunha and Liem didn’t teach this. So why didn’t they refuse it directly?
I doubt there was/is an actual "Thai Forest Tradition". My impression is this so-called tradition and lineage is something pushed by Western monks to compete with the lineage traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. For example, the teachings of the Western monk Ajahn Brahm are often so different to Ajahn Chah that it often looks silly seeing Ajahn Chah's photograph behind Ajahn Brahm when he gives a talk. Ajahn Chah met Ajahn Mun for a few hours or a few days so it sounds silly to me to call this a "lineage" or "tradition". I imagine Ajahn Chah was more influenced by his contemporary Ajahn Buddhadasa than by Ajahn Mun; yet many of the Ajahn Chah Bhikkhus shows pictures of Ajahn Mun. The old Thai Forest Ajahns seemed to be like Hindu gurus; each teaching their own version of dhamma & having their own disciples, followers & faith village groupies who worshiped them like gods.
thang wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:57 pm
Many of monks and lay people who had faith in or been willing to join Thai Forest Tradition had discouraged because of this reason.
I can't imagine many people are aware of Ajahn Maha Boowa's teachings. I doubt the issue of Eternal Citta is important.
Last edited by DooDoot on Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1537
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Why many Ajahns of Thai forest tradition seem not to refuse the 'Permanent Citta' explicitly?

Post by cappuccino » Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:40 am

budo wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:18 am
In the same way, you do not exist in the first place so how can you stop existing after death?
you think in terms of no self, which is a self doctrine

User avatar
Idappaccayata
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2017 8:54 pm

Re: Why many Ajahns of Thai forest tradition seem not to refuse the 'Permanent Citta' explicitly?

Post by Idappaccayata » Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:41 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:17 am
thang wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:57 pm
Why Ajahns of Thai forest tradition are difficult to be found to have refused the eternal Citta (the one who knows/Buddha nature/ non duality) explicitly? Some says Ajahns like Ajahn Chah, Thate, Gunha and Liem didn’t teach this. So why didn’t they refuse it directly?
I doubt there was/is an actual "Thai Forest Tradition". My impression is this so-called tradition and lineage is something pushed by Western monks to compete with the lineage traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. For example, the teachings of the Western monk Ajahn Brahm are often so different to Ajahn Chah that it often looks silly seeing Ajahn Chah's photograph behind Ajahn Brahm when he gives a talk. Ajahn Chah met Ajahn Mun for a few hours or a few days so it sounds silly to me to call this a "lineage" or "tradition". I imagine Ajahn Chah was more influenced by his contemporary Ajahn Buddhadasa than by Ajahn Mun; yet many of the Ajahn Chah Bhikkhus shows pictures of Ajahn Mun. The Thai Ajahns seemed to be like Hindu gurus; each teaching their own version of dhamma & having their own disciples, followers & brainwashed groupies.
thang wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:57 pm
Many of monks and lay people who had faith in or been willing to join Thai Forest Tradition had discouraged because of this reason.
I can't imagine many people who are aware of Ajahn Maha's teachings. When I lived in Thailand, I used to chuckle at the lost Western souls walking around like zombies with the Visuddhimagga and those complicated meditation books of Maha Boowa.
There certainly is a Thai Forest Tradition. You, or I, or most in the west just haven't heard of the teachers because they're busy actually training monks and not trying to become famous on youtube or be a political activist like Ajahn Brahm. The Ajahn Chah tradition monks are technically Mahanikaya, but in thailand mahanikaya are know to practice a lot of rites and rituals -picking lottery numbers, fortune telling, etc. So I could see why they wouldn't want to be associated.

To say Ajahn Chah was influenced mostly by Buddhadasa has no evidence. If you read Ajahn Chah's biography or listen to his talks he explains how he was influenced by Ajahn Mun.

What's considered the forest tradition is the Dhammayut sect, which was revitalized mostly by Ajahn Mun, with the help of Rama IV. Ajahn maha boowa is widely discredited among monks in the tradition (except for a fringe few). Just because something caught on in America, doesn't mean that's how it is in thailand. I know monks who left his monastery because he was contradicting the suttas. They're out there, you have to look. You can't just watch a few youtube videos and think you understand a 200 year old tradition.
The furniture may be exquisite,
And the bars of solid gold,
But once the bird realizes that the cage is a cage,
It finds within that cage
No joy

- Ajahn Jayasaro

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2980
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Why many Ajahns of Thai forest tradition seem not to refuse the 'Permanent Citta' explicitly?

Post by DooDoot » Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:54 am

Idappaccayata wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:41 am
To say Ajahn Chah was influenced mostly by Buddhadasa has no evidence.
I didn't say "mostly". Ajahn Chah's teachings are closer to Ajahn Buddhadasa than Ajahn Mun. Show me where Ajahn Mun taught Dependent Origination the same as Ajahn Buddhasasa or Ajahn Chah.
Idappaccayata wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:41 am
If you read Ajahn Chah's biography or listen to his talks he explains how he was influenced by Ajahn Mun.
Did Ajahn Chah write his own biography? Can you please provide a link? Thanks. Why don't you post some quotes to provide evidence of your claims. Thanks
Idappaccayata wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:41 am
You can't just watch a few youtube videos and think you understand a 200 year old tradition.
200 years is not exactly a "tradition". Also, how is it 200 years old? Who started it 200 years ago?
Idappaccayata wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:41 am
Ajahn maha boowa is widely discredited among monks in the tradition (except for a fringe few).
How can this be when Ajahn Chah's English disciple Ajahn Jayasaro claims Maha Boowa was an Arahant?


dharmacorps
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:33 pm

Re: Why many Ajahns of Thai forest tradition seem not to refuse the 'Permanent Citta' explicitly?

Post by dharmacorps » Sun Sep 09, 2018 6:15 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:54 am

How can this be when Ajahn Chah's English disciple Ajahn Jayasaro claims Maha Boowa was an Arahant?

Ajahn Maha Boowa himself claimed to be an arahant. Ajahn Jayasaro was referring to that claim.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2980
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Why many Ajahns of Thai forest tradition seem not to refuse the 'Permanent Citta' explicitly?

Post by DooDoot » Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:38 pm

dharmacorps wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 6:15 pm
Ajahn Maha Boowa himself claimed to be an arahant. Ajahn Jayasaro was referring to that claim.
There is a video where AJ talks about overestimating attainment and says for confirmation of attainment the go-to monk is Maha Boowa.

thang
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:37 pm

Re: Why many Ajahns of Thai forest tradition seem not to refuse the 'Permanent Citta' explicitly?

Post by thang » Mon Sep 10, 2018 4:58 am

Uncertain assumptions about Amata Citta traditions:

Assumption1: This is only poor terminology, causing no problem to the path to Arahantship.
Assumption2: This is only a minor mistake, still they can attain at least Anagami, since it is about Bhava Thanha.
Assumption3: This is a big offence about Ditthi which they must correct.
"Bhikkhus, whatever the Tathāgata speaks, utters, or expounds
in the interval between
the night when he awakens to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment
and the night when he attains final nibbāna,
all that is just so and not otherwise"
;

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2980
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Why many Ajahns of Thai forest tradition seem not to refuse the 'Permanent Citta' explicitly?

Post by DooDoot » Mon Sep 10, 2018 11:41 am

Maha Boowa said:
The citta never disintegrates or falls apart…the true power of the citta’s own nature is that it knows and does not die. This deathlessness is a quality that lies beyond disintegration
The Pali suttas say:
Sariputta, even if you have to carry me about on a bed, still there will be no change in the lucidity of the Tathagata’s wisdom. MN 12
A sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long? MN 140
The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead already. Dhp 21

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 100 guests