SuttaCentral
I have been following this ‘English Monk’ on YouTube. He appears to be a very sincere practitioner. But I was wondering what people here think of his views on citta, defined by him as ‘that which knows’. Is this a good explanation of rebirth in Buddhism?
Here’s his video on Deathless & Rebirth on YouTube; the relevant material starts at 27:59 (here).
He seems like a sincere practitioner. I’ve watched a bit of his stuff last year and remember finding some of his views particularly interesting. I think he comes from Thai Forest tradition, which explains his interesting views.
Valuable venerable though. 
Thank you for your reply.
So would you agree with his summary of citta as ‘that which knows’ and which transfers in rebirth?
(Note: Not looking to start a debate. Just curious if this community would consider him a reliable resource or not.)
I think it’s a rather unorthodox position. In classical theravada, it isn’t quite the citta that transfers in rebirth (although there is a stream of consciousness).
I mean, let me put it this way. I disagree with Ajahn Brahm on his jhana teachings, even though he’s been a meditator for longer than I’ve been alive (!); even so, I find him a valuable resource for many things, and I’m even a BSWA member.
I respect Bhikkhu Bodhi greatly as a scholar but I find his views on war questionable at best.
So, people might have interesting or divergent opinions, sometimes something you don’t even readily accept. That doesn’t mean they’re still not a valuable resource.
Yes, I understand. I’m not looking to brand him as ‘orthodox or heretic’! But his view on citta sometimes sounds more like Dzogchen or Advaita, and not what I usually hear from Theravadins. So I was just hoping some people would chime in on their thoughts. Thank you for sharing, and happy holidays!
Would immediately place him in my Top 10
I also really enjoy his speaking style and candor, not to mention the bubbles of good humor that come up occassionally.
Would you agree with his summary of citta as ‘that which knows’ and which transfers in rebirth? (From the 28 minute mark in the video.)
Me too, I’ve been watching him for a while and have thought about sending it here. He has very raw content of a very austere life. I don’t think he was deeply educated on pali, so I wouldn’t take his definitions in an academic way or too literally, as it is more about talk than theory to make points.
Thanks for your reply, Bran.
Sorry, I wasn’t trying to get all philological here. I can tell he doesn’t have a strong command of Pali, and that’s not a fault. I am talking about the ideas, not the ‘correct terminology’. I’ll leave it to the Confucians to worry about 正名 zhèng míng or ‘rectifying the names’… 
I have not seen the video and heard his explanation of rebirth but the idea of citta as that which knows, can be seen, i believe, as a teaching that belongs to the buddhist teachings on the nature of mind.
These teachings distinguish what the mind seems to be 1. when there are still distorting elements in it and 2. what it shows to be when it is purified, without any distorting elements.
Distorting elements are things like me and mine making, engagement, conceit, conceiving, passion. These element when they are still present, distort our understanding of what mind really is.
For example, if things start to establish in the mind, take root, such as a notion of ‘I am’…the impression arises that what knows is some kind of mental entity at the base of all experiences or at the center of all experiences. The impression of a Me that knows. This is a distorted impression of what mind really is. A distorted understanding of what really knows. This distortion leads to suffering. That is why we need to purify mind from distorted perceptions.
What these teachers teach is that the nature of mind is NOT that things establish or take root. The nature of mind is merely its ability to give rise to. But attachment, engagement, an element of delight and desire, THAT makes that things establish in the mind. Without this element of engagement nothing establishes in the mind, nothing takes root. Things arise but never establish. The amassing of things in the mind is a way to describe dukkha. This is fully consistent with the the suttas but more important one can see this for oneself, right? Aggregation, amassing, heaping up things in the mind is like the arising of a weight on the mind.
But how would you describe mind in which nothing establishes or takes root? A mind without amassing?
When feelings and perceptions do not establish in a pure mind but still arise, means that mind remains like a totally open and empty dimension. Even with formations arsing this mind has always contacts that are empty, signless, undirected/uninclined, desireless because that is minds true nature.
It is not minds true nature that things establish. This is only how a defiled mind functions! There is also a huge difference between sense vinnana’s arising and establishing in the mind. They cannot establish without an element of engagement.
Many buddhist teachers teach that it is crucial to have the right understanding of what mind really is. But it it safe to say 
that there is no consensus about all this.
The tradition i like most learns that when all is stripped off from delusion and passion mind does not really show to be some stream, or something which can be localized but show to be more like a fully empty, open dimension suffused with clear light. Even when the total of samsara would be destroyed this is never destroyed.
It is not an atta or something individual.
This dimension is, for example, described in Ud8.1 but also in other suttas.
I believe no being is ever seperated from it. I believe that the suttas share that for one who knows, he/she also knows only suffering can cease and arise. There is never another cessation possible. This dimension does not cease.
Buddhist here believe this is more like Hinduism. Maybe you to. So be it.
We all have to see for ourselves.
Tell me about it… 
I like how his videos are photobombed with that cat wandering in and out.
The cat has a wide fanbase. If I were 20 years younger I’d probably propose a drinking game based on the cat. I especially liked one episode where the cat was chasing lizards behind him while he talked and, when he finally noticed the cat seizing one, he smiled and said “well, that’s nature…” (Later in the comments he mentioned that the lizard survived. And so the game goes on…)
I think the Thai Forest lineage had some contact with yogi’s in India. I thought English Monk was in Sri Lanka?
English monk was ordained in India and has spent time in Thailand as well. He is currently in Sri Lanka, but he likes to point out that he might go back to India or Thailand. He’s a wanderer.
It’s the 21st century: everybody is meeting everybody these days. Ajahn Amaro has a very good book on Theravada and Dzogchen. I believe he met a Nyingma teacher of Dzogchen in the United States, but it might have been in Thailand. And Bhikkhu Anālayo just did a course for Wisdom Publications with Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche, a Tibetan lama who teaches Dzogchen and Mahamudra. I don’t think English Monk has ever mentioned any direct contact with these teachings. But Amaro and Anālayo both found common ground with these teachings, so I was wondering how ‘mainstream’ or ‘obscure’ his views are. Not in a judgemental way. I just don’t want to accidentally misrepresent views.
Is that room in his videos where he lives, or just where he meditates?
Both! And it’s in Sri Lanka.
I’m afraid I can’t judge. I admit to not knowing enough about classic Buddhist doctrine and terminology on the subject of rebirth, as on other metaphysical subjects (which to me personally are of secondary value).
But since this speaker seems to demonstrate a coherent philosophical understanding in only the first few minutes of his talk, I would guess that his oppinion is probably at least a very valid starting point for further discussion.
Well, I ask because I find similar, if not identical, language used by Dzogchen and Advaitin teachers.
I don’t have any kind of perennial philosophy agenda here, btw. Gods know the Dzogchenpas aren’t keen on the Advaitins! And I do not believe that all religions lead to the same path at the top of the mountain. But in all three examples I mentioned here, they use a concept like that which knows to explain a fundamental kind of awareness, and to also explain that in the context of reincarnation (or rebirth). So I was hoping for more explanation of that concept. But the language choice might just be his own. Anyway, just curious.
I’ve watched all the monks on you tube, from all over the world, some I had to use youtube translations, some living in mountains isolated, others using martial arts as meditation etc etc.
Yet I only ever watch 2 now.
One is the elderly gentleman at Amaravati.
The other is the funny monk at Western Austrailia.
̶A̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶a̶s̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶E̶n̶g̶l̶i̶s̶h̶ ̶B̶u̶d̶d̶h̶i̶s̶t̶ ̶M̶o̶n̶k̶.̶ ̶
If you could roll the 2 of them into one, then in my opinion you’d have the Buddha back!
