We have already established, though, that paying respect to a monastic is not in the Vinaya.
Isn’t this a conditions of granting ordination for females, which was imposed by Buddha?
So what you call it?
It’s important to remember that the path happens within the mind, not within tradition.
Please stop your slander, you did it before.
I don’t know all the subdivisions within the Thai Forest Tradtition, but stating that The Thai Forest Tradition believes in a true self is complete nonsense - please stop repeating that slander.
That is a senseless comparison. While “believing in a true self and all kinds of mahayana stuff” would fundamentally change the teachings of the Buddha, the reasons for not ordaining women are pathetic, excuse me, I can’t find a better word. Did the Buddha ever say that once there are no nuns anymore, from that moment on no new nuns are to be ordained?
And you know what? Even IF the Buddha had said such a stupid thing…
he was not a god we have to follow with blind belief.
No, of course he did not say such a thing. There is no argument based on reason to make against bhikkhuni ordination. It’s just that it won’t happen because this is how an orthodox tradition works and this is the world you are living in. It’s simply how things work.
If you believe yourself too worthy for this world, if you are too good for this world, then move to another one or do your best to get reborn somewhere else next time. If you want to change things in this world, then good for you, we all should try that. All I’ve said is to not put too much passion in this since it’s only going to bring you stress, it’s like fighting with the windmills. And don’t start hating these orthodox people because of this since it’s like hating rains and clouds. It’s simply how things work. These people are not some evil bastards, they are simply orthodox people. And I have shown why this has more benefits than downsides if you look at the picture from above.
At one point, when we grow up, we need to realize most things in this world have benefits and downsides. It would be so nice to be only benefits but… there are also downsides. And it is the same with orthodox traditions.
In orthodox christianity, woman are not even allowed to set foot inside Mount Athos. They are not allowed to enter as a tourist, let alone to become monks there. And we are speaking about a rich, western country. Also, woman will never be priest in christianity religion. I say the status of woman in buddhism is much higher than in christianity. Also, it is good to keep in mind that Myanmar and Cambodgia for example are poorer than Kenya. And Thailand is poorer than Belarus. So maybe lower your expectations a little.
2 Likes
I was speaking about having an “orthodox mentality” as a whole. Yes, an orthodox mentality does have more benefits (preserving the dhamma and not turning into mahayana) than downsides (bhikkhuni ordination, selling amulets etc.) There is nobody better than orthodox people at preserving teachings.
If you care so much about bhikkhu and bhikkuni food, maybe you should investigate why Myanmar, Laos and Cambodgia are poorer than Kenya and why Sri Lanka used to be like that too, while Thailand is 5 times richer than them (yet still very poor by world standards). If you investigate that, you will find out it is because of socialism. So maybe you would become less of a communist apologetic after you find out 4 out of 5 theravada buddhist countries got to be poorer than Kenya thanks to socialism.
Don’t be silly. You don’t weight these things as a whole.
But I have seen you reasoning like this in other topics, too: The discrimination of women by blocking Bhikkhuni ordination, that’s for you collateral damage, right?
Correct me if you have changed your view.
First, I am not a “communist apologetic”, and secondly, you are really obsessed with this topic, my friend, as you now start to introduce the topic of communism even in a thread that has nothing to do with it.
Besides, it is a myth to think that the orthodox are necessarily the best protectors of the Dhamma. Don’t you know what a mess Christianity and its scriptures is? And closer to home, in Buddhism, can we be sure all what is in the Pali Canon is original?
You seemed concerned about bhikkhunis doing bad with food in those countries. So I just taught I should brought up that these countries are poorer than Kenya. Maybe this has something to do with it, I don’t know. Maybe if they would not be poorer than Kenya this would have improved bhikkhuni living conditions and also their level of acceptance in these countries. Been poorer than Kenya, this also means people are less educated than in Kenya.
They are poorer than half of subsaharan africa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
This must have an effect on bhikkhuni living conditions and on the level of acceptance of bhikkhunis in society.
So, because a country is poor, that is a justification for treating women badly???
You keep surprising me, really.
But they do believe in a true self. Even Ajhan Mun believed in a true self https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=23338
Pretty much everybody except A.Bhram monastery believes in a true self in the thai forest tradition.
This is what happens with modernist traditions. They have not even started been a tradition and already they believe in a true self and eternal consciousness in nibbana. If they change the nr 1 most fundamental teaching of the Buddha like that, what hope is for smaller things ? In no time they will become mahayana. (if they don’t count like that already)
Now you see why having an “orthodox mentality” is important ?
As B.Dhammanundo has explained in a topic on DW, monks in these buddhist countries do not read the canon. They read only enough to pass the sutta exams. They could not care less about what is written in the suttas. They just go by tradition. If the tradition believes in a true self, that’s what they will believe too. So an orthodox mentality in regards to tradition is even more important.
Could you please give some serious references with substantial evidence instead of links to another forum before continuing to propagate your slander.
For example, did Ajahn Chah ever support the idea of a true self?
Btw, you are derailing this topic by making these unsubstantiated, off-topic claims.
The reason I brought this up is to show how important an orthodox mentality is for preserving the teachings. Sure, you might say that it does not affect us at all if monks in buddhist countries would be believing in a true self or other funky ideas. Why would their lack of interest in buddhism affect us?
But… this is not how things go. Many people start by getting involved in some tradition. And they have huge reverence to their teachers. It is a well known process in religions. The person starts idealizing his teacher and believing him advanced so that he too is therefore advanced by proxy. If his teacher believes in a true self, the disciple will believe in a true self too. And it will be very difficult to abandon these wrong views since he got them from his idealized teacher. And if everybody would be like that, there would be the added element of the majority believing in a particular thing witch therefore makes it correct. There would be no pressure put on those who believe in wrong views to maybe take a moment to think about them.
I know these traditionalist people do not read the suttas either. But at least they hold some good beliefs because of dogmatism. And this puts pressure on mahayana ideas that infiltrate theravada. If all theravada would be believing in a true self and eternal consciousness in nibbana, then there would be no theravada to speak about. You could not tell a person: “Look, theravada does not believe in this, this is mahayana and has nothing to do with what the historical Buddha taught” - you could not tell a person this thing. Not to mention a looot of people get attached to tradition and become “traditionalist”. If the tradition would be believing in gross wrong view, it would be impossible to make people change this opinion because they can’t go against tradition.
And this is why an orthodox mentality is good for preserving the teachings uncorrupted. It may produce some colateral damage such as bhikkhuni ordination but at least they are preserving the teachings in a good manner.
You might say the suttas would still be there, well preserved. Sure, they would be there. But they would be there like the agamas are there for mahayana. Already few people care about the nikayas. After a while of mahayanization, they become just like the agamas in mahayana tradition. Just some old books people could not care less about. Go tell a mahayanist about these suttas/agamas and what the historical Buddha taught to see if they care about them or care more about what their tradition taught them.
I repeat:
Didn’t the Buddha warn us not to go by hearsay?
You want me to provide evidence for thousainds of bhikkhus of thai forest tradition believing in a true self and eternal consciousness ? How do you expect me to do that ? It is simply a well known fact that monks from thai forest tradition believe in a true self and eternal consciousness in nibbana. Their main teachers, considered by many to be arahants, believed in such things. I can provide evidence for these well respected teachers lack of interest about the dhamma, but how could I provide for thousainds of bhikkhus ?
And by the way, Ajhan Mun, the founder of thai forest tradition and considered by many an arahant - not only believed in a true self but supposedly Buddha spoke with him in his sleep: https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=19302
This is basically mahayana.
Please come up with this evidence. Start with Ajahn Chah who greatly influenced Western Buddhists.
Real evidence, not just links to forum messages.
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.
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.
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.
From Universal Rules of Dhamma Discourse
9 Likes
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.
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.
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 
4 Likes
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.
1 Like