My guess is that is not a real quote. Luang Por Sumedho can use some unconventional or perhaps unorthodox (by theravada standards) language describing âultimate realityâ or conciousness however which I wouldnât get too worried about. Did you see this on facebook or twitter?
In your practice, as you begin to understand and experience letting go, you begin to realise what Buddhas know: sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe dhamma anatta. Itâs not just the words - even a parrot can say the words - but thatâs not an enlightened parrot, is it? Insight is different from conceptual knowledge. But now youâre penetrating, going deep into this, breaking through the illusion of self as being anything at all; or nothing - if you believe that you donât have a self - thatâs another belief. I believe I donât have a self. We believe in no selfâ. You see that the Buddha pointed to the way between those two extremes: of believing you have a self and believing that you donât have a self. You cannot find anything in the five khandhas which is a permanent self or soul: things arise out of the Unconditioned, they go back to the Unconditioned. Therefore it is through letting go rather than through adapting any other attitude, that we no longer seek to attach to mortal conditions.
I should say that on the whole it is a pretty nice Dhamma talk. And if you say that Unconditioned is equal to non-existence, then the controversial passage become more orthodox as well. You can even make it compatible with the Ten Unanswerables by saying that, well, Parmenides told that non-existence exists in some way, so it is not like complete non-existence.But if you look deeper into that conundrum of existing/non-existing, you start running circles, which is maybe why the Buddha and Ven. Sariputta warned against pondering on issues like this one.
So, I think this is an unskilful saying, but it can be interpreted as more or less compatible with the early texts if Unconditioned = non-being.
I think this is an unskilful saying.
There is a Sutta which clearly demonstrate his statement is not true. (I canât locate it right now)
This is the lack of his understanding and his knowledge of Sutta.
I expect prominent monks who write books to be familiar with the Sutta.
At least he would have asked another knowledgeable monk to review his writing.
However this will not diminish my respect for him considering his contribution to the Buddha Dhamma.
Yeah, sure, it takes some mental gymnastics to make it orthodox, so yeah, I am afraid Ven. Sumedho didnât show nice rhetoric skills here. I also think that this is a transcript of an oral discourse, so badly formulated propositions are more easily forgivable here.
I would also add - and this is not directed at you or anyone in particular, it just occurred to me - that we should not conclude from this quote to what the views of Ven. Sumedho himself are, I would rather be cautious. Just as we donât conclude to the views of the Buddha based on one orf two obscure sayings in an odd Sutta or two, we should not make any conclusions here. If we find a few quotes like this one, well, then maybeâŚ
I attended a dhamma talk by Ajahn Sumehdo earlier this year and found him pretty impressive. I donât mean impressive in the sense of displaying a lot of scholastic knowledge of the ancient texts, but rather in the sense of projecting a pretty convincing air of unperturbed joy, happiness and concern for others, including the ability to answer peopleâs questions compassionately and insightfully.
My impression is that the bhikkhus in his tradition focus on living in line with the discipline and meditating a lot, and that when they offer views about what the practice reveals about the mind and reality, they are basing those views on their own direct experience and their best effort at putting those experiences into words. They are not regurgitating the conceptual framework they have read in texts.
The words are just words. They help point toward the release of the heart. Sometimes they help a lot and sometimes they donât, but the przctitioner has to untangle the experiential knot themselves.
This is typical of people sharing things on the internet to agree with their own views which are antithetical to the Buddhaâs teachings.
Itâs like the people from the Secret using, âWhat you think you becomeâ to mean that whatever you think will poof out of thin air with the law of attraction.
When you read alternate translations of that passage and you see that the Buddha merely meant that whatever we focus on and donât let go, our minds lean in that direction and keep going that way and so we should be very careful where we place and keep our attention and if we allow it to wander with the waves of the mind, we will be overtaken in the ocean eventually and drown.
Likewise, if we focus on wholesome objects, our mind will incline in that direction and so we should steer the ship of the mind instead of allowing it to crash into the rocks and shatter.
But what they think is not inline with the Sutta. This is no difference to the idea that the Nibbana is a consciousness outside the five aggregate.
This is even worse type of an idea to think that the ignorance is emanate from Nibbana.
Are you enlightened? Iâm not. Unless we are, then we donât know whether the formulations in our favorite suttas are a better or worse representation of whatâs really going on than Ajahn Sumedhoâs explanations.
Ajahn Sumedho is in his eighties and has been cultivating his mind diligently for decades. His thoughts merit some deference.
Communication in the modern era as changed from 2500 years ago, monks communicate to their best ability from their own conditioning of words to their understanding of their audiences supposed conditioning of words, no easy task, and yet people seem so quick to engage in ridicule of such a wise Ajahn from distinctive and yes mixture of all sort sangha of teachings and understandings.
As far as I have seen in this thread, everyone has been very carful not to criticize or even ridicule Ven. Sumedho himself or his general views, we only discussed this particular statement using the Four Great Standards. I think this method of discussion was recommended by the Buddha HImself, so whatâs the problem?