bksubhuti wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:35 am
Read the last section. I explained it.
What was explained? It just says:
the book written on Ajhan Mun’s life, believe that the Buddha lives in Nibbana.
bksubhuti wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:35 amAlso google "The Dark Side of Ajahn Mun's Biography"
I have personally raised this Ajahn Mun-Ajahn Chah matter before here on this forum; giving my impression the so-called 'Thai Forest Tradition Lineage' is more of a mythology than a fact. When I was living in a monastery in Thailand, for a number of years, I heard many (recorded) dhamma talks of Ajahn Sumedho. Even though these rambling talks would bore me into meditation, I don't recall Ajahn Sumedho talked about Ajahn Mun very much. My recollection was the Ajahn Mun-Maha Boowa thing was distinct from the Ajahn Chah thing; which was distinct from the Buddhadasa thing.
For example, recently I was listening to what for me were very creepy talks by another Ajahn Chah lineage "Western Ajahn". There is really no conformity among the Ajahn Chah Ajahn's. The teachings of Sumedho, Amaro, Brahmavamso, Jayasaro, Chandako, Creepy Ajahn, etc, are often miles apart. Even Sujato often contradicts Brahmavamso. The following ideas in my opinion are false:
1. Ajahn Mun is inherently related to Wat Pa Pong
2. Wat Pa Pong is a tradition of uniform doctrine.
Personally, I have recently been considering returning to the monastery within the Ajahn Chah tradition however the Ajahns are so varied it gets pretty confusing. Also, the Ajahn that recently gave me the creeps really diminished my faith in the whole Ajahn Chah system (which appears rife with '
individualism'). The point I am making is to say "Wat Pa Pong" is a set doctrine appears
non-sequitur. Pa-Auk may be a cult or sect but my impression of Wat Pa Pong is it is something quite different; just a bunch of Westerners who do their compulsory 5 or 10 years and then go off and do their own thing.