SN43.12
And what is the unconditioned?
The ending of greed, hate, and delusion.
This is called the unconditioned.
I’ve used the example of the signless immersion (experience) since that’s a state of awareness where greed, hate and delusion cannot be present. Hence unconditioned.
Yet since this state is depending on the effort of the meditator, the “problem” is not with the state, but with the meditator who is not free from defilements.
I’m familiar with Ajahn Maha Boowa’s teachings, and I’d like to point out the key realisation he had:
He was protective of the (mental) state he experienced. If it’s unconditioned you can hit it, try to malformed it, and it won’t work. There is no need to be protective of the unconditioned.
In an essence I think I said the same thing:
The problem is that based on these experiences yearning arises: the desire that somethings comes to be, remains or ceases to be. The experience of the unconditioned and yearning afterwards is beyond doubt: the mind itself creates this yearning, by making this unconditioned an object/subject of desire. It’s the greatest possible perversion, and it’s known.
This realisation made him examine the state itself, leading to a new experience.
I have no issue with this experience, I consider Ajahn Maha Boowa is genuine in his expression of it.
What I realised early when reading the books written by him is that I cannot see them without cultural context, with the problem of translation on top of it. I know some of the writings on Ajahn Mun (the “deva stories”, even more the encounter with past Buddha’s) are controversial, but these are more understandable from a (northern) Thai perspective. To me parts of Ajahn Mun persuading villagers to abandon ancestor worshipping and convincing them in meditative practice is relatable, I’ve witnessed this ancestor worship myself in modern (rural) Thailand.
We need to take great care when trying to interpret Ajahn Maha Boowa’s teachings. His teachings on citta are intriguing, yet one has to understand by own practice what he refers to, and agree what the experience of citta that he refers to is the same as the experience of citta of oneself.
From my rather limited understanding what Ven. Boowa had been doing is continuous meditation, being either active contemplation or resting the mind. This is not unheard of, for us lay people there is less opportunity due to frequent engagement with other people, which makes active body contemplation or resting the mind in deep meditative states somewhat harder.
Due to the continuous meditative state many impressions are identified for what they are, and with that “removed” from the mind. First by seclusion, later by dispassion (to stick close to the suttas).
This leaves a mental state where all which is “outside” is investigated and abandoned, and the undisturbed mind is what remains.
Now I’m going to take a small detour, just to ensure we understand each other.
You - relaying Ven. Boowa - speak of a “knowing” essence.
There is a mental state, we can call it signless, where nothing but awareness remains. It’s the awareness which is not influenced by anything else. The reason it’s known as signless is because it does not sustain, when emerging from it a small ripple (as on a still pond) is experienced. The difference between the experience with and without ripple is conclusive, and the mind drops into “silence” again.
Later, when the mind withdraws further, sensory impressions return. A sound might be distinguished, the breathing or heartbeat is present. Yet the “mental commentary” labeling these experiences is not present. There is no verbal knowledge of these events. This will return even later.
The problem here is that you appear to take this knowing essence as something distinct from the aggregates. I understand where this comes from, because that’s how Ven. Boowa described it, or at least you interpreted it that way. I really encourage you to do the actual practice leading up to this point and verify if Ven. Boowa is correct on this. You might object that what Ven. Boowa did is not achievable by us lay people (we can’t be arahants…) but when you state this you have to accept that you can follow Ven. Boowa only up to the point you practiced. All beyond is hearsay.
My main issue with your statement is on this: Mental consciousness does and cannot see it.
There you have to take great care in determining what “mental consciousness” is.
The verbal part cannot touch it, sure. The sensory impressions are unrelated: sure.
Yet the moment we get from the “drop into the experience” to the ripple there is no perception nor feeling. The ripple is where perception becomes present, it’s experienced as a disturbance and fades away right at that spot. But does that mean there is no perception?
Again, the sutta’s are clear. The unconditioned is where greed, aversion and ignorance/delusion are no longer present. And I consider that Ven. Boowa sincerely tried to describe just this.
Let me put this in a slightly different way, as I understand it from his writings. The moment he realised what was going on he started to investigate the experience itself, and with that purged the mind (citta) from whatever was in it (being the pre-occupation with the experience). This is similar to hearing a thief in your home, flipping the light on and starting to pursue the thief, driving him out of your home.
The source of discomfort is experienced, identified and purged. What remains is that whatever is experienced is experienced without the defilements.
So we might state that Ven. Boowa experienced the citta without defilements from that moment onward, which is a different experience than before.
The remaining issue I have with Ven. Boowa is that in his way of describing - and I don’t think it’s related to translation, or only partly - is that he positions this citta as something which continues.
I consider that this might be influenced by Mahayana traces, or as a counter to the also present notion in (Birmese) Buddhism that all there is are mental notions (hope I present this correct, I’m not that familiar with Birmese Buddhism) - I consider that Ven. Boowa was aware of the Birmese teachings as well.
I think it means: One cannot be a personal wittness of the unconditioned element. One has to become it, as it were
On the first part I agree. The notion of witness is gone with the unconditioned (signless) element.
But to state one has to become it, as it were, is making it personal once more. There is the experience.[period]
Any attempt to make it personal is known to be ridiculous, yet out of habit the mind might attempt to do just this. This is what Ven. Boowa discovered as well. He purged that [I take his account as factual, it was not disputed considering such a claim would lead to expulsion from the monastic order if found untrue].
But we should be very wary to read things into it which Ven. Boowa did not say, or to close our eyes to the cultural and related linguistic influences of the larger Thai Isaan region (and Chiang Mai), as well as potential translation problems.
