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

[thang]

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.

[mikenz66]

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


Mike

[cappuccino]

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]

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.

[budo]

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.

[DooDoot]

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.

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.

[cappuccino]

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

[Idappaccayata]

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.

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.

[DooDoot]

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.

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

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?

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]

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.

[DooDoot]

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]

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.

[DooDoot]

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

[healionr]

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.

Could the answer lie in the Buddhas reluctance to address this question" I pose it as a question as the Buddha may have addressed this issue, I am not so strong on the literature. "The phrase unanswered questions or undeclared questions (Sanskrit avyākṛta, Pali: avyākata - "unfathomable, unexpounded"[1]), in Buddhism, refers to a set of common philosophical questions that Buddha refused to answer, according to Buddhist texts.

[DooDoot]

questions that Buddha refused to answer, according to Buddhist texts.

It appears, often, the refusal to answer was based on the unteachableness of the questioner (eg SN 44.10). In other words, the suttas (eg. DN 16; SN 22) seem quite clear the Buddha said he kept nothing secret and revealed & taught everything that was required to be taught.