"Going Forth – for Liberation" by Ajahn Candasiri

[Leon74]

Let me help you:

Ajahn Chah:

“When one does not understand death, life can be very confusing. If our body really belonged to us, it would obey our commands. If we say, “Don’t get old,” or “I forbid you to get sick,” does it obey us? No, it takes no notice. We only rent this house, not own it. If we think it belongs to us, we will suffer when we have to leave it. But in reality, there is no such thing as a permanent self, nothing solid or unchanging that we can hold on to.”

Source: A Still Forest Pool, by Jack Kornfield & Paul Breiter

Probably you are very confused by this I took from Wikipedia, from the Ajahn Maha Bua article:

"Bua observes the essential enduring truth of the sentient being as constituted of the indestructible reality of the citta (heart/mind), which is characterized by the attribute of Awareness or Knowingness. This citta, which is intrinsically bright, clear, and Aware, gets superficially tangled up in samsara but ultimately cannot be destroyed by any samsaric phenomenon. Although Bua is often at pains to emphasise the need for meditation upon the non-Self (anatta), he also points out that the citta, while getting caught up in the vortex of conditioned phenomena, is not subject to destruction as are those things which are impermanent, suffering, and non-Self (anicca, dukkha, anatta). The citta is ultimately not beholden to these laws of conditioned existence. The citta is bright, radiant, and deathless, and is its own independent reality:

‘Being intrinsically bright and clear, the citta is always ready to make contact with everything of every nature. Although all conditioned phenomena without exception are governed by the three universal laws of anicca, dukkha, and anattã, the citta’s true nature is not subject to these laws. The citta is conditioned by anicca, dukkha, and anattã only because things that are subject to these laws come spinning in to become involved with the citta and so cause it to spin along with them. However, though it spins in unison with conditioned phenomena, the citta never disintegrates or falls apart. It spins following the influence of those forces which have the power to make it spin, but 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. Being beyond disintegration, it also lies beyond the range of anicca, dukkha, and anattã and the universal laws of nature. …’[6]

The fundamental problem that besets human beings, according to Bua, is that they have taken fake and false things as their true self and lack the necessary power to be their ‘own true self’; they allow the wiles and deceits of the mental defilements to generate fear and anxiety in their minds. Fear and anxiety are not inherent within the citta; in fact, the citta is ultimately beyond all such things and indeed is beyond time and space. But it needs to be cleansed of its inner defilements (the kilesas) before that truth can be realised."

and:

“The citta remains, experientially abiding in its own firm foundation, yet ultimately indescribable:”

The Buddha, while living, was enlightened, he had removed all view of a self, one can’t deny he had citta , at least while he was still living, so I see nothing contradictory with the Buddha’s Teachings here.

[dxm_dxm]

Sure, not Ajhan Chan. But the founders of thai forest and pretty much all thai forest monks over there in thailand believe in such things. And this has even spread to western monks such as Thanissaro and a couple of others who were involved in this.

All I wanted to say is that having an “orthodox mentality” is something good. There is a problem with bhikkhuni ordination banned because of some ridiculous rule or debates about monks shaving their eyebrows. They are exactly like orthodox christians: debating only about rules, seen nothing more than rules in front of their eyes. If you want to debate with them, you debate based on rules not based on reason. This is what many people fail to understand about orthodox traditions. Only rules are important. Rules, rules, rules !!!

And we should be happy they are like that. This is how I want to see them thinking. I want to see them thinking with as much rigidity as possible. I do not want to see 1% of open mindness over there because through that 1% of open mindness, a “true self” is going to enter the tradition. Remember these people do not read the suttas, they only go by the dogma. This is how the theravada tradition has resisted so many attempts of mahayanization: through rigidity.

You might think “these people read the suttas and that is why they know such ideas are wrong” - but no, it is strictly through an unbroken chain of very rigid and dogmatic attitudes that theravada has not transformed into mahayana yet.

[Cara]

Hi friends,
I appreciate your debate here. But I just want to remind you that kind words make your point even stronger. It is against this forum’s guidelines to use ad hominem attacks because they alienate people. Try using language like “your comments could be interpreted as…” Rather than “you are a …” Remember disagree with the idea, not the person.

@post:1

But remember the advice of the Araṇavibhaṅga Sutta: criticize ideas, not people.

From Universal Rules of Dhamma Discourse

Universal Rules of Dhamma Discourse

This is a friendly place for Dhamma discussion Participating in this forum should be taken as an opportunity to practice Right Speech. As such, please show the forum and your fellow practitioners the same respect shown in a temple. We, too, are a community spiritual center — a space to share Dhamma ideas, understandings and questions in a supportive atmosphere. We are delighted to have you participate in this forum, but if you choose to do so please note that we will understand your participat…

[Leon74]

@dxm_dxm

But the founders of thai forest and pretty much all thai forest monks over there in thailand believe in such things. And this has even spread to western monks such as Thanissaro and a couple of others who were involved in this.

@Cara

My apologies if I displayed inappropriate behaviour but this person keeps slandering bhikkhus.

Now he is slandering Thanissaro’s name. I can’t find Thanissaro propagates the belief about a self and @dxm_dxm delivers no proof for his allegations.
I am all for free speech, but slandering people should not be allowed in this forum I think and it would be good if the moderators acted against this.

[Vstakan]

@Leon74

Could you please give some serious references with substantial evidence instead of links to another forum before continuing to propagate your slander.

Ajahn Mun’s teachings, §5 The root cause of everything in the Universe, note the use of the term ‘heart’ as corresponding to mano;

Ajahn Maha Boowa, Citta - The Mind’s Essential Knowing Nature - you might also watch pretty much any video sermon by the Ven. Ajahn available on YouTube or listen to audio sermons my Ven. Martin Piyadhammo, widely available online. The use of citta corresponds at least in large parts to the term ‘heart’ used by Ajahn Mun.

P. 190 and onwards of this book by Ven. Pasanno and Ven. Amaro (Chapter ‘Knowing’).

This nice critical post by Ven. Sujato - even though is not mentioned by name, I don’t think Bhante criticized no-one in particular.

You are correct in saying that Ajahn Chah never used terms like ‘original mind’ or approved of using them. Instead, he used the term Dhamma in referring to the Ultimate Reality, even though in my understanding it doesn’t denote anything even remotely citta-like, being more akin to ‘non-discoursive reality’, ‘reality as it is’ that can be only directly known, for any term or any thought is already part of a discourse. With some mental gymnatics, we could possibly explain away the cittas and manos of other Thai forest teachers as poor terminology decribing the same thing as Ajahn Chah, but it is still a fact that this poor terminology is extremely susceptible to being interpreted in a Dzogchen-like way, whether this was the intention of the old masters or not. Given that you can find this inappropriate terminology in teaching of quite a few old Thai forest masters - I just provided the links to those I could find in less than 5 minutes, you could find much more if you want to - I would abstain from using strong words like ‘slander’.

I should also note that I think there is some truth to @dxm_dxm’s words about the conservative mindset of the clergy in the traditional Theravada countries, absence of Bhikkhuni ordinations and the preservance of the Dhamma. I don’t think dxm_dxm is really a hardcore opponent of female monasticism just because he pointed out we should be realistic and not expect any change in these countries - at least in the next couple of centuries. At the same time, having analyzed and explained how socially dangerous the excessive conservatism and how spiritually dangerous the lack of appropriate conservatism can be, we could try to find a middle way at least in the societies and countries where it is feasible, e.g. the UK or Australia.

@Leon74

male chauvinist pig

@dxm_dxm

So maybe you would become less of a communist apologetic

So, my friends, that was really the last straw for me. I respect your opinions and your different personalities, and you are free to present your sentiments in any form you deem appropriate in your private communication. However, if your communication is public, I demand from you to present it in a more dignified manner, otherwise I personally will have to ignore you and your comments and opinions completely. I don’t want this place to become a cesspit of mutual accusations and unrestrained verbal swordplay, so this will be the only way for me to avoid it. If you don’t care, that is okay, just let me know

I would also be very thankful to you if you told me the same words, should I be using Wrong Speech. Just to be clear: your opinions are welcome, quite frequently I think they are absolutely or partially correct, and I think you are both nice and interesting people, my single problem is just how exactly you are presenting your thoughts. Thanks in advance

[Leon74]

@Vstakan

With some mental gymnatics, we could possibly explain away the cittas and manos of other Thai forest teachers as poor terminology decribing the same thing as Ajahn Chah, but it is still a fact that this poor terminology is extremely susceptible to being interpreted in a Dzogchen-like way, whether this was the intention of the old masters or not. Given that you can find this inappropriate terminology in teaching of quite a few old Thai forest masters - I just provided the links to those I could find in less than 5 minutes, you could find much more if you want to - I would abstain from using strong words like ‘slander’.

I saw Jack Kornfield using the term “true self”. I agree that it is very poor terminology, especially for a Western teacher who should know the Western way of thing about the ego and the self.

But let’s take Ajahn Maha Boowa you mention. I can’t read a book of 117 pages, right now, leave alone the rest you mention, so I looked at the glossary in the book and how citta was explained.

The citta is the mind’s essential knowing nature, the fundamental quality
of knowing that underlies all sentient existence. When associated with
a physical body, it is referred to as “mind” or “heart”. Being corrupted
by the defiling influence of fundamental ignorance (avijjã ), its currents “flow out” to manifest as feelings (vedanã), memory (saññã), thoughts(sankhãra), and consciousness (
viññãõa), thus embroiling the citta in a web of self-deception. It is deceived about its own true nature. The true nature of the citta is that it simply “knows”. There is no subject, no object, no duality; it simply knows. The citta does not arise or pass away; it is never
born and never dies.

Do you conclude from that that the Venerable believed in a self, as dxm_dxm wants to make us believe?

Same with Thanissaro, who says this:

“In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there’s the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what’s experiencing it, or whether or not it’s a self?”

(but one should really read the whole article to judge Thannisaro’s stance - and I am not saing that I agree or disagree with him (!)
( No-self or Not-self? )

Also from this, one cannot conclude that Thanissaro propagates the belief in a self.

I am showing proof here, but dxm_dxm comes with NO proof whatsoever for his allegiations.

I maintain it is slander.

[Brenna]

This topic was created to discuss Ajahn Candasiri’s article. If you would like to discuss another topic please make a new thread.

[Leon74]

If you had respected Brenna’s admonition to make a new thread, I would have gladly discussed this topic with you.
But as you obviously wanted to have the last word here, I leave it to you, my friend.

[dxm_dxm]

No, I will have the last word and the last offtopic post here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notselfstrategy.pdf

Claiming that Buddha never expressed a clear opinion about existence or non-existence of a self. And about eternal consciousness “luminous, all around” - it is discussed better in Sjutato article quoted.

And no, I am not against bhikkhuni ordination. As I’ve said, there is no rational reason to be against such a thing. Just that it really is not going to happen too soon in these theravada countries. The focus should be on the west where there is still oposition against this in england for example.

[Brahmali]

@Cara

This seems to indicate (which is something I have also observed) that confusion and difficulty with the interpretation of bhikkhuni patimokkha is one of the major barriers to both lay women and female renunciates considering higher ordination.

You may be right that some see this as a barrier, but to be honest, I feel the problem is often overstated. First, I don’t think we should to wait until we have “a satisfactory agreement on how the numerous rules of the bhikkhunī pātimokkha would be interpreted”, because this will never happen (depending a bit on who is supposed to be included in this “agreement”). Decisions, as always, should be taken at local Sangha levels, the only legitimate authority on such matters according to the monastic law.

Second, there are only a few rules in the bhikkhunī pātimokkha that need to be interpreted in a way that is acceptable to our modern sensibilities. There are especially two culprits that stand out: the garudhammas and bhikkhunī saṅghādisesa 3. (Which happen to be the precise rules brought up by Ajahn Amaro in his talk.) As for the garudhammas, there are some very good reasons why these can be disregarded in our times. It has been argued by many, including @sujato, that these rules are late and were not laid down by the Buddha. If this is correct, they can be dismissed on the basis of the four great standards, without further ado. Others, especially Ven. Analayo in a recent essay, have argued that the garudhammas are likely to be early, but that they are minor rules with no real consequences if they are not kept. This means that these rules should be regarded in the same way as other minor rules in the Vinaya, that is, there is only an offence when the rule is breached because of disrespect. The minor rules of the Vinaya are bound to time and place, and it is understood that the rules may or may not be relevant at any particular time and in any particular society. It follows that there is no need to keep these rules in most contemporary societies.

As for bhikkhunī saṅghādisesa 3, there is plenty of scope for interpretation, as there is with all Vinaya rules. It is important to realise that it is virtually impossible to find two monastics who understand the Vinaya in exactly the same way. The Vinaya is just too complex and too subject to interpretation. So no rule is set in stone, and we need to read each rule carefully to see what sort of flexibility is built into the rule itself. (I suspect a degree of flexibility may have been intentionally incorporated into the rules by the Buddha.) In accordance with the Buddha’s own recommendations, we should take a text-critical approach (the Great Standards) and proceed from the premise that the commentaries – including the Canonical commentary, which is the rule analysis found in the Vinaya itself – are not binding on our understanding of the actual rules. Once we consider saṅghādisesa 3 in isolation, divested of all the commentarial type material, it is not very difficult to find interpretations that I suspect most bhikkhunī would be willing to accept. At least that’s my experience.

@Cara

So what more can we do in terms of interpretations of Bhikkhuni patimokkha to encourage postulants?

The principles I have outlined above can, and probably should, be applied to any rule in the pātimokkha, whether it is for bhikkhunīs or bhikkhus. One of the main considerations would be the need to consult monastics with enough experience to differentiate between reasonable interpretation and a dilution of the efficacy of the Vinaya.

@Cara

Sometimes I feel that people believe that creating a workable and functioning version of the bhikkhuni vinaya is as impossible as reviving the bhikkhuni order, and yet, the evidence is already here - it can be done.

I have no doubt that this is correct, but it needs to be done at the local level. We will never get, and we should never wait for, universal acceptance.

[Cara]

Thank you Venerable for your detailed answer, I appreciate it very much

@Brahmali

You may be right that some see this as a barrier, but to be honest, I feel the problem is often overstated.

I see it as a significant barrier, as someone who contemplates ordination - but maybe that’s just me, maybe I misunderstand something. I see the importance of keeping sila and how that helps to maintain peace of mind and happiness. I imagine the same is true for Vinaya. If you feel like you’re not keeping Vinaya, people will criticize you and you may see those criticisms as true. I feel this may lead to sadness and lack of faith in one’s path.

As for the garudhammas, I agree with you that they can be dealt with satisfactorily enough. But Sanghadisesa 3 is more significant, and as a sanghadisesa can’t be treated lightly right?

@Brahmali

I have no doubt that this is correct, but it needs to be done at the local level.

I definitely agree that a suitable interpretation needs to be found personally, or if applicable, according to the local communities preference. That is the most important thing, as you say.

@Brahmali

One of the main considerations would be the need to consult monastics with enough experience to differentiate between reasonable interpretation and a dilution of the efficacy of the Vinaya.

I think it’s just difficult for the lay novice, with the paucity of access to bhikkhuni communities, and various other factors, to ascertain for themselves. That is what I would say from my individual experience, but maybe I’m just wrong or crazy. Am I crazy? (LOL, but seriously though, do tell me if so!)

[Brahmali]

@Cara

I see it as a significant barrier, as someone who contemplates ordination - but maybe that’s just me, maybe I misunderstand something.

I think it’s quite natural that you see it as a barrier, especially with all the scare stories people are told. But I suspect that this will change as you see the broader picture. The Vinaya is in most respects just a natural expression of morality. In other instances the Vinaya is about protecting the Sangha or Buddhism in a broader sense. All of it is quite reasonable. It is not there simply to be oppressive. Within this broader framework, few things are firmly fixed. The most important thing is to find a community that is compassionate and reasonable and not too fixed on following a particular tradition of interpretation. In such circumstances it is surprising what can be achieved, all within the framework of the pātimokkha rules.

@Cara

But Sanghadisesa 3 is more significant, and as a sanghadisesa can’t be treated lightly right?

Indeed. These rules need to be followed strictly. But if they are interpreted in a reasonable fashion, then the idea of strict interpretation takes on a very different meaning. My point is that one should never break these rule, but what constitutes a breach is all in the interpretation.

@Cara

I think it’s just difficult for the lay novice, with the paucity of access to bhikkhuni communities, and various other factors, to ascertain for themselves.

Of course it is, and that’s why I thought I would reply to you. I don’t think anyone has ever called me a slack monk (Vinaya-wise), and yet I do a follow a policy of reasonable interpretation. It’s a middle way between being slack and being strict for strictness’s sake.

You are certainly not crazy; in fact I would say the exact opposite. It’s just hard for lay people to get a clear idea of the monastic Vinaya. The Vinaya is really just a natural extension of the Dhamma, and it is entirely subsidiary to it. If you get inspired by the Dhamma, then the Vinaya should be no different.

[Cara]

Thank you Venerable. That helps to clear things up. And I really do appreciate you sharing your opinion and wisdom on it very much!

I have visited a few bhikkhuni monasteries in Australia, U.S., and Thailand, and the difference in patimokkha interpretation is both confusing and somewhat a relief, I guess. I want to continue investigating Vinaya, especially bhikkhuni Vinaya, so I am just always looking for more ideas. So I appreciate discussing and going through this!

@Brahmali

The most important thing is to find a community that is compassionate and reasonable and not too fixed on following a particular tradition of interpretation. In such circumstances it is surprising what can be achieved, all within the framework of the pātimokkha rules.

What I have seen so far is this is definitely true, and provides much hope.
Thank you!

[SarathW1]

@Brahmali

You may be right that some see this as a barrier, but to be honest, I feel the problem is often overstated. First, I don’t think we should to wait until we have “a satisfactory agreement on how the numerous rules of the bhikkhunī pātimokkha would be interpreted”, because this will never happen (depending a bit on who is supposed to be included in this “agreement”). Decisions, as always, should be taken at local Sangha levels, the only legitimate authority on such matters according to the monastic law.

Agree.
This remind me of:

"It’s just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.’ He would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me… until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short… until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored… until I know his home village, town, or city… until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow… until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark… until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated… until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird… until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.’ He would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.’ The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html

[sujato]

@Cara

I see it as a significant barrier, as someone who contemplates ordination - but maybe that’s just me

Well, it’s certainly not just you! In a sense, the Vinaya should be a barrier: it should deter anyone who is not serious.

But for serious candidates who happen to be women, the barrier is not the Vinaya, which is there to support your holy life. The barrier is the sexist patriarchy, which abuses the Vinaya to create obstacles for women.

That is a reality, a painful and difficult one. But here’s the thing: if it wasn’t Vinaya, it’d be something else. The real agenda of sexists is to exclude women from what they see as the male preserve. Since the Vinaya is available, they use that. If the Vinaya wasn’t there, they’d fall back on “tradition” or “women’s nature” or “kamma” or whatever else. Which is why, even though the supposed Vinaya objections to bhikkhuni ordination have been repeatedly refuted, it has made precisely zero difference to the attitudes or actions of the patriarchs.

The good news is, the mainstream patriarchy in Theravada is so dysfunctional and spiritually bankrupt that you can just ignore it.

[Timothy]

Could there be a connection between refusing the establishment of a bikkhuni order in Thailand, and the effect it could have on the, from what I’ve heard, prevalent sex industry? For instance, if disadvantaged girls had the choice to become a monastic, rather than prostitution, could that be an underlying motivation for the continuance of this seemingly nonsensical course? Meaning, if women were given equal access to resources, as well as respect from the laity, making a monastic life much more attractive than the other choices a woman could make to earn a living, is there some fear that it would impact the male supporters of the Sangha because they would not have such a wide choice of people to exploit when there grasping for pleasure gets the best of them?

[Mat]

Hmm uncertain about that one. Someone said temporary ordination prevalent in Thailand maybe diluting the sangha of serious monks and eventually corrupting the monkhood. In Sri Lanka the problem might be ordaining due to poverty.

[Gabriel_L]

Yes, but this seems to have been the case since the very beginning of the Sangha. By going through the origin stories of the Vinaya Rules as recorded in the Bhikkhu Vibhanga one sees examples of all sorts of misuses and exploitation of the Bhikkhu status.

The fact we have records of whole sub-segments of the Sangha having as heads very corrupt and crazy monks (aka the Group of Six) at the same time the Buddha was walking around and helping individuals awake on the spot should serve as a lesson that just like with other things in life, things may not have been better in the past.

[sujato]

There is a record of a very frank conversation among senior monks in Bangkok regarding ordination, and this is one of the major issues. The problem they expressed is that, given that there are estimated to be twice as many sex workers as monks in Thailand, if bhikkhuni ordination were to be available, these women and girls would soon find they had other options, and would join the Sangha in large numbers.

This would mean that there would likely be soon more nuns than monks in Thailand; and they pointed a worrying finger at the situation here in Taiwan as an example of what can happen when things get out of hand, with four times as many nuns as monks.

The notion that it would be a good thing for women to have options other than sex work was not a part of the conversation.