What's Up with Ajahn Chah's The Knower?

The Watercooler
23

Thanks for the link. :pray:

1 Like
24

I know of some Western Forest teachers who are Ajahn Cha’s direct disciples and his disciples’ disciples who subscribe tovthat idea, which was why I asked in the first place :slight_smile: I always wondered: how come that so many of them seem to talk about it?

Thanks for your answer!

2 Likes
25

Okay, so I found another version of this talk that was included into the Collected Teachings of Ajahn Chah. Turns out that the monk conversing with the Venerable Ajahn was probably none other than Ajahn Amaro (hardly surprising, to be honest). What caught my attention when reading the What is Contemplation version was a small footnote in the beginning of the talk: ‘Some rearrangement of the sequence of conversation has been made for ease of understanding.’ In practical terms, statements like this one almost always mean something along the lines: ‘Okay, so we took this guy’s words and shuffled them around until they started fitting our agenda.’

It is hardly astonishing that this was kind of true in that case as well. Let us just compare the two versions side by side (honest warning: lots of reading ahead).

I.

THE KNOWER
Your sensations are just sensations, that’s all. But what you’ve reached doesn’t arise, doesn’t disband. It’s just the way it is. It doesn’t arise and it doesn’t die. In simple terms, as with our mind: We suppose that the mind knows sensations. But when we really speak about the mind, this is something above the mind. Whatever the mind arises from, we call it the mind. The mind arises and disbands. It arises and disbands, this mind.

But this other thing isn’t the mind that arises and disbands. It’s a different experience. All the things that are that truth: They don’t arise and don’t disband. They’re just the way they are. They go past the issues of arising and disbanding. But when you call them the mind, it’s just in terms of suppositions. When you speak in terms of suppositions, you believe in your own mind—and then what happens? Where does this mind come from? You’ve believed in this mind for so long, and there’s no ease. Right?

In the beginning you know about inconstancy, stress, and not-self. These are issues of the mind. But that reality doesn’t have any issues. It lets go. It lets go of the things that the mind arises with and depends on, but it doesn’t arise or disband at all. The things that arise and disband depend on perceptions and fabrications. We think that because contemplation uses perceptions, then they must be discernment. And so we latch onto fabrications, thinking they’re discernment. But that’s not genuine discernment. Genuine discernment puts an end to issues. It knows, and that’s the end of issues. There are still fabrications, but you don’t follow in line with them. There are sensations, you’re aware of them, but you don’t follow in line with them. You keep knowing that they’re not the path any more.

vs.

WHAT IS CONTEMPLATION
We use thinking as a tool, but the knowing that arises because of its use is above and beyond the process of thinking; it leads to our not being fooled by our thinking any more. You recognize that all thinking is merely the movement of the mind, and also that knowing is not born and doesn’t die. What do you think all this movement called ‘mind’ comes out of? What we talk about as the mind - all the activity - is just the conventional mind. It’s not the real mind at all. What is real just IS, it’s not arising and it’s not passing away.

Trying to understand these things just by talking about them, though, won’t work. We need to really consider impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and impersonality ( anicca, dukkha, anatta); that is, we need to use thinking to contemplate the nature of conventional reality. What comes out of this work is wisdom - and emptiness. Even though there may still be thinking, it’s empty - you are not affected by it.

II.

THE KNOWER
It’s like the ground. What spins around is on top of the ground. But this thing is the ground. What doesn’t arise or disband is the ground. What arises and runs around on top, we call “the mind,” or “perception,” or “fabrication.” To put it in simple terms, there are no forms, feelings, perceptions, fabrications, or consciousness in the ground. In terms of supposition, form, feelings, perceptions, fabrications, and consciousness arise and disband. But they’re not in this. They disband.

vs.

WHAT IS CONTEMPLATION
For example, sitting here downstairs on the stone floor. The floor is the base - it’s not moving or going anywhere. Upstairs, above us is what has arisen out of this. Upstairs is like everything that we see in our minds: form, feeling, memory, thinking. Really, they don’t exist in the way we presume they do. They are merely the conventional mind. As soon as they arise, they pass away again; they don’t really exist in themselves.

III.

THE KNOWER
It’s like the question that Ven. Sāriputta asked Ven. Puáč‡áč‡a Mantāniputta. Have you ever read that? Ven. Puáč‡áč‡a Mantāniputta was going out into the forest to follow the ascetic practices. His teacher had taught him about the ascetic practices. So Ven. Sāriputta asked him, “Puáč‡áč‡a Mantāniputta, when you go out into the forest, suppose someone asks you this question, ‘When an arahant dies, what is he?’ How would you answer?”

That’s because this had already happened.

Ven. Puáč‡áč‡a Mantāniputta said, “I’ll answer that form, feeling, perceptions, fabrications, and consciousness arise and disband. That’s all.”

Ven. Sāriputta said, “That’ll do. That’ll do.”

When you understand this much, that’s the end of issues. When you understand it, you take it to contemplate so as to give rise to discernment. See clearly all the way in. It’s not just a matter of simply arising and disbanding, you know. That’s not the case at all. You have to look into the causes within your own mind. You’re just the same way: arising and disbanding. Look until there’s no pleasure or pain. Keep following in until there’s nothing: no attachment. That’s how you go beyond these things. Really see it that way; see your mind in that way. This is not just something to talk about. Get so that wherever you are, there’s nothing. Things arise and disband, arise and disband, and that’s all. You don’t depend on fabrications. You don’t run after fabrications. But normally, we monks fabricate in one way; lay people fabricate in crude ways. But it’s all a matter of fabrication. If we always follow in line with them, if we don’t know, they grow more and more until we don’t know up from down.

vs.

WHAT IS CONTEMPLATION
There is a story in the scriptures about Venerable Sariputta examining a bhikkhu before allowing him to go off wandering (dhutanga vatta). He asked him how he would reply if he was questioned, ‘What happens to the Buddha after he dies?’ The bhikkhu replied, ‘When form, feeling, perception, thinking and consciousness arise, they pass away.’ Venerable Sariputta passed him on that.

Practice is not just a matter of talking about arising and passing away, though. You must see it for yourself. When you are sitting, simply see what is actually happening. Don’t follow anything. Contemplation doesn’t mean being caught up in thinking. The contemplative thinking of one on the Way is not the same as the thinking of the world. Unless you understand properly what is meant by contemplation, the more you think the more confused you will become.

The reason we make such a point of the cultivation of mindfulness is because we need to see clearly what is going on. We must understand the processes of our hearts. When such mindfulness and understanding are present, then everything is taken care of. Why do you think one who knows the Way never acts out of anger or delusion? The causes for these things to arise are simply not there. Where would they come from? Mindfulness has got everything covered.

IV.

THE KNOWER
Question: Just now when you were speaking, it sounded as if there were something aside from the five aggregates. What else is there? You spoke as if there were something. What would you call it? The primal mind? Or what?

Ajahn Chah: You don’t call it anything. Everything ends right there. There’s no more calling it “primal.” That ends right there. “What’s primal” ends.

Question: Would you call it the primal mind?

Ajahn Chah: You can give it that supposition if you want. When there are no suppositions, there’s no way to talk. There are no words to talk. But there’s nothing there, no issues. It’s primal; it’s old. There are no issues at all. But what I’m saying here is just suppositions. “Old,” “new”: These are just affairs of supposition. If there were no suppositions, we wouldn’t understand anything. We’d just sit here silent without understanding one another. So understand that.

vs.

WHAT IS CONTEMPLATION
Q: It seems as if you are saying there is something else outside of the conventional body-mind (the five khandhas). Is there something else? What do you call it?

A: There isn’t anything and we don’t call it anything - that’s all there is to it! Be finished with all of it. Even the knowing doesn’t belong to anybody, so be finished with that, too! Consciousness is not an individual, not a being, not a self, not an other, so finish with that - finish with everything! There is nothing worth wanting! It’s all just a load of trouble. When you see clearly like this then everything is finished.

Q: Could we not call it the ‘Original Mind’?

A: You can call it that if you insist. You can call it whatever you like, for the sake of conventional reality. But you must understand this point properly. This is very important. If we didn’t make use of conventional reality we wouldn’t have any words or concepts with which to consider actual reality - Dhamma. This is very important to understand.

V.

THE KNOWER
Question: The primal mind and the knower: Are they the same thing?

Ajahn Chah: Not at all. The knower can change. It’s your awareness. Everyone has a knower.

Question: But not everyone has a primal mind?

Ajahn Chah: Everyone has one. Everyone has a knower, but it hasn’t reached the end of its issues, the knower.

Question: But everyone has both?

Ajahn Chah: Yes. Everyone has both, but they haven’t explored all the way into the other one.

Question: Does the knower have a self?

Ajahn Chah: No. Does it feel like it has one? Has it felt that way from the very beginning?

Question: When people sleep soundly, is there still a knower there?

Ajahn Chah: There is. It doesn’t stop. Even in the bhavaáč…ga of sleep.

Question: Oh. The bhavaáč…ga.

Ajahn Chah: The bhavaáč…ga of sleep.

vs.

WHAT IS CONTEMPLATION
Absent (sic!)

V.

THE KNOWER
Absent (sic!)

vs.

WHAT IS CONTEMPLATION
Simply keep putting everything down, and know that that is what you are doing. You don’t need to be always checking up on yourself, worrying about things like ‘How much samadhi’ - it will always be the right amount. Whatever arises in your practice, let it go; know it all as uncertain, impermanent. Remember that! It’s all uncertain. Be finished with all of it. This is the Way that will take you to the source - to your Original Mind.

If you’ve made it this far and have read every side-by-side comparison, you may be feeling just like me: wow! Someone - either the translators and/or editors of The Knower or translators and/or editors of What is Contemplation have really, and I mean really done their best to make Ajahn Chah fit their doctrinal agenda. There is no way that the discrepancies between the two versions can be explained as ‘mere re-arrangement for the sake of better understanding’.

Sure, the original talk must have been in Thai, and it is not always easy to translate Thai Buddhist terminology and Ajahn Chah’s idiosyncratic vocabulary into a Western language. Sure, the ubiquitous problem of most if not all translations of Buddhist terminology is that instead of translating a word to then imbibe it with meaning people take their own ideologized idea and use it as a translation (take for example all the different renderings for sankhara or Nibbana) Still, I think it is pretty obvious that this is not exactly what happened to this talk. I mean, if such text manipulation is not an outright lie it is still something coming rather close to it.

Since The Knower comes from Still, Flowing Water, a book published in 1994, and What is Contemplation, according to the website I linked above, is from 2004, and since it is the latter that is footnoted as meing ‘re-arranged’ in The Collected Teaching of Ajahn Chah, I tend to believe that it is the latter that has been manipulated to better suit Ajahn Amaro’s interpretation of the Dhamma. Another, in my opinion less probable interpretation may be that Ven. Bodhiñāáč‡a really meant what Ven. Amaro wrote in What is Contemplation, and the translators of The Knower spoke substandard Thai or were not that conversant in Ajahn’s vocabulary or whatever.

Again, I would like to ask Ven. @sujato and / or Ven. @brahmali as well as any other monastic from the Ajahn Chah tradition to possibly give me / us some insight on what is going on here, what’s up with Ajahn Chah’s The Knower. Is it the only talk where such changes between different translations were made? Was Ajahn Chah made more of an eternalist in Ajahn Sumedho’s vein in Amaravati-produced translations? Or was he a ‘semi-eternalist’, as someone called Thai forest ajahns on Dhammawheel? I am begging for an answer as this entire situation around the Original Mind doctrine and this Dhamma talk in particular have led to a kind of crisis of faith in me: not of faith in Buddhism, but of faith in the Thai Forest Tradition as a place where the blossoming of true arahants is still possible in our day and age. It hurts a lot. If the venerables feel like it is too delicate a topic to discuss in public, they may send me a private message. If for some reason they would not like to answer me because it is me, I would liketo ask them to change their mind out of compassion as this issue around the Original Mind and Ajahn Chah and the Amaravati lineage has led to a major spiritual turmoil in yours truly in the last couple of weeks.

I and, by extension, most other lay people rely on the Sangha’s integrity as transmitters of the Dhamma taught by advanced masters, whether they were enlightened or not, whether their teachings were orthodox or not or conformed to one’s own tastes or not, so that it would be for us, each Buddhist individually, to decide whether they consider these words authoritative and true. For example, Ajahn Maha Bua may have believed in his eternalist citta all he wanted or Ajahn Mun may have claimed to have talked to the Buddhas and arahants of the past in person - it is for us as upasakas and upasikas to decide whether to bow to their authority or to stick to the Sutta teachings. But for that to happen, these problematic doctrines and biographical episodes have first to be related in as straightforward and unbiased form as possible, which is actually the case with the two above-mentioned ajahns.

For me, such changes to the words of a respected ajahn, considered by quite many to be an arahant, are a major breach of trust, despite actually being their in plain view for at least 17 years. I feel like situations like this undermine the authority of the Ajahn Chah tradition and the Sangha in general in my eyes. Right now, I am feeling confused and lost.

Sorry for a long post, but I think it is an important and necessary addendum to what already has been written in this thread.

8 Likes
26

Maybe this can offer you some solace and confidence :pray:t4:

This is an incident that Ajahn Brahm, who lived with Ajahn Chah, has mentioned many times in his talks. Here is a snippet from a written version


I had a very nice meditation, a very deep meditation. When I came out afterwards I had a lot of happiness and clarity in my mind.

Of course, the first thing that came to my mind after that meditation was to see if I could assist my teacher, Ajahn Chah. So I got up and started walking towards the sauna. Half way between the Dhamma hall and the sauna, I met Ajahn Chah coming in the opposite direction with two or three Thai laymen. He had completed his sauna and he was on his way back to Wat Pa Pong. When he saw me, he obviously perceived that I’d had a very deep meditation and that my mind was clear, so it was one of those occasions when he tried, out of compassion, to enlighten me. He looked me in the eye, as Ajahn Chah could do, and said, “Brahmavamso, tam mai?” which means, “Brahmavamso, why?” I said, “I don’t know”. He laughed and said, “If anyone ever asks you that question again the right answer is, ‘Mai me arai’ (there is nothing)”. He asked me if I understood, and I said, “Yes”, and he said, “No you don’t”.

I’ll always remember his reply. As he walked off it was like a profound teaching that he had just shared with me. What he was actually saying here by his teaching, ‘Mai me arai’ was, there is nothing, just emptiness, anatta. This is a powerful teaching because in our world we always want to have something. We always want to grab on to something, and to say “there is something”. But actually, there is nothing.

Please see here for the full article, transcribed from a talk by Ajahn Brahm.

7 Likes
27

Unfortunately, I am neither on Ajahn Brahmavamso’s nor on Ajahn Chah’s level, so I am still lost and confused. If even for a simple reason that I am now not even sure whether a single talk from the 800-page strong Collected Teachings of Ajahn Chah I had the merit to take from the monastery where I stayed for a couple of days last week really contains Ajahn’s words.

1 Like
28

Suppose, a respected ajahn agrees that the discourse is faulty. Then he has to explain to you about nibbana in different terms or he refuses to describe it at all.
after 2, 3 or 4 days, you would find yourself in exact spot doubting if he knows nibbana at all, why he refuses to give you an direct answer, so on.
Your doubt is pulling a trick on you, it leads you in circle.

Best to dodge all description to nibbana if that gets your mind ranting. Go back to your mindful theme, knowing doubt as doubt, confusion as confusion, knowing stuck as stuck, see them come see them go, get really familiar with yourself, your mind, its tricks.

There is no danger to talk about nibbana with a different name once right view settles in and you have confidence about the stability of the right view. All the time we question the talks treating nibbana as something eternal, but no question that those ajahns still treat us as sentient beings. After all they can see us as empty form, phenoma, not beings at all. Then the mere actions of teaching is in conflict with non-self.

Buddha said something in ball park, ‘what i teach is a fistful of sand and what i know is like all sand in all ocean and rivers.’ Some high minds would tell a tale or two with no roots in sutta, but it doesn’t mean that is beyond what Buddha knows.

If a topic takes you far and long away from your mindful base, you should be really cautious about this indulgence, even if it is nibbana.

5 Likes
29

Well, it is one thing that I may have my doubts about the nature of Nibbana, and it is another thing when someone manipulates a speech by a respected teacher to better support their view on Nibbana.

Sure thing. But again, it is one thing to talk about Nibbana under a different name and another one to preach a wrong view. How do we identify a false view? By applying the criteria advised by the Buddha in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta: if someone’s teaching is not traceable in the Suttas and verifiable by Vinaya, then it is not the saccadhamma. So, when you say

then I am sorry, the Buddha does not seem to agree to that statement.

It is my firm conviction that the Original Mind theory as well as other citta-like beliefs as taught by certain highly venerated ajahns in the Thai Forest Tradition are not traceable in the Suttas despite some rather feeble attempts of their proponents to read the Original Mind or Unbound Signless Consciousness or whatever into some obscure Sutta fragments, mostly taken out of context and translated with a fair amount of doctrinal spin (cf. bhava being translated as ‘becoming’). It means that the ajahns preaching these doctrines are at the very least not arahants. They may be lovely people, extremely good, disciplined, ascetic monks, experienced meditators (far better than me), extraordinarily talented abbots of their monasteries, but they still have wrong views and are still not awakened.

If we ignore the perniciousness of preaching such views for the sasana as well as loads of bad kamma generated by it (AN 1.306–315) and focus solely on whether they conform to the Buddhadhamma as found in the Suttas, Ajahn Chah’s being an Original Mind proponent would mean that at least some of his teachings are patently false and would lead practitioners to bad results. If it is not his teachings but those of his disciples and his disciples’ disciples, it should be discussed, clarified and stated in unequivocal terms for the well-being of all involved. This is actually my primary concern in that entire affair as well as the reason for my spiritual turmoil.

2 Likes
30

Further to your excellent comment, is there a reliable collection of Ajahhn Chah’s teachings that can be recommended?

31

This is exactly what I am trying to find out :slight_smile:

1 Like
32

<<< BEEP >>>

This is a public service announcement, courtesy the Forum FAQ.

<<< BEEP >>>

Q16 I’m so angry! I want to expose the wrong doing of that Teacher, those Monastics and their Tradition.

A : While we understand your situation, we regret that this forum is not the place to express your angst. Every Teacher and Tradition has their plus and minus points. The approach that is best for one person may feel unduly restrictive to another. If you feel that there was some genuine wrongdoing, you should contact the appropriate authorities. Please do not level unsubstantiated allegations against any Teacher, Monastic or Tradition on this forum.

<<< BEEP >>>

And now, back to the thread
 :slightly_smiling_face:

7 Likes
34

Thanks for reminding me about that, but I don’t feel like I have made any allegations or accused someone of something. True, I have memtioned that there is a theory I am more inclined to believe but I am open to other explanations as well. My purpose is to find out the truth, even if it contradicts my assumptions. Which is why I have tried to reach out to the venerables as people with more knowledge of the context and tradition than me.

As for my repudiation of the Original Mind theory, I made extra effort to criticize the theory and not the ajahns. My experience with Thai forest monks has been positive so far, their teachings, books and meditative instructions can be a real help. But some of the teachings one finds in this tradition are just not what the Buddha taught.

Tobsum it all up, we can all be sure that there is an issue with these two renditions of the same talk being quite different. One of them is closer to what @Viveka described, the other one to the Original Mind theory. In any case, such major discrepancies between two versions of the same talk are a cause of legitmate concern. This is why I would like to know the truth.

1 Like
36

@Vstakan and @4GreatHeavenlyKings

Doubt can be either a rightly apprehended temporary tool or a misapprehended detrimental lingering hinderance. In one aspect it can be utilized as a discerning bridge towards proper confirmed confidence that is quickly abandoned once crossed over or it can conversely be a persistent, consistent mental turmoil that is never quenched.

Your doubt seems reasonable.

Perhaps, it is in fact well placed doubt.

It would be prudent to consider where someone is mostly likely to find confidence in the dhamma.

I would suggest reading the Saáčyutta Nikāya cover to cover (skipping the first vagga of verses on the first pass might be helpful) multiple times. Purchase Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation because the footnotes alone are worth the cost, even if one doesn’t have the knowledge base to fully understand them initially. All it takes to get the full value from Bodhi’s notes is a functional understanding of Pali grammar/vocabulary, a rudimentary familiarity with Abhidhamma terminology, and being comfortable with the commentary and sub-commentary being wrong as often as right about the many nuances.

Bhikkhu Bodhi has great classes available free online for elementary/intermediate Pali as well as classes on the Abhidhammattha Saáč…gāha, an overview manual on the Abhidhamma, which is at least interesting, if not particularly practical to praxis.

Make the Saáčyutta your bridge. Read every translation. Cross reference different translations against each other. Understand the definitions of core Pali terminology, not simply how they are translated into English. Know what the commentary/sub-commentary’s glossing of tricky words is, right or wrong.

Conceivably one might learn why certain ubiquitous understandings of core terms are in fact laughable in their naïveté. Like that the word dhamma used in the plural changes in meaning by 100%.

If anyone is aware of any noun in any language whatsoever that changes its meaning in a 100% fashion by simply going from the singular to the plural please let me know. Lol. This is probably the most bizarre grammatical anomaly in history.

By understanding the overall message and intentions of the doctrine in the Saáčyutta the stumbling blocks (for translators and commentators) of saáč…khāra, dhamma/dhammā, and nibbana, etc
 will illustrate themselves over time and one will build an understanding that is divorced from popular contemporary figures.

Best of luck.

3 Likes
37

“What is Contemplation?” was originally published in Seeing the Way, a 1989 anthology of teachings in the Thai Forest tradition. All subsequent publications use this same translation with the exception of Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s in 1994. Here’s a couple of links to the original publication. :

https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Ajahn_Chah_SEEING_THE_WAY.htm#CONTEMPLATION

3 Likes
38

Thanks for pointing that out! :pray: That changes the situation a bit and makes it look somewhat more likely that The Knower’s translators changed the talk.

Although the big question of why the two versions are so different and which one is closer to the real teaching by Ajahn Chah is still standing. Anyway, your comment was of help, thanks again!

2 Likes
39

I just want to say that at times I’ve felt very sad and dejected upon learning that some respected Ajahn teaches something that, according to my own perception, seems very hard to reconcile with the suttas.

I don’t know what to do about it though, except stick to teachers who are sutta oriented?

40

This is an assumption that may not be useful. The Buddha taught how unreliable is perception. We can see this in operation everyday. You and I could read the same passage yet perceive it differently, and in good faith paraphrase it and come out with different slants. There is a huge difference between a technical ‘translation’ and a ‘re-telling’ of something. My hypothesis is that the second ‘version’ of the talk is a re-telling rather than a translation. In principle, both have elements of unreliability built into them, but the latter is much more likely to result in something that reflects the ‘re-tellers’ perception and understanding. It can be the result of the best intentions, of wanting to clarify something that appears a bit unclear to be clearer- but then it is transformed into that persons view. This may be a totally unconscious and invisible process. Views are built on perceptions, which are unreliable. That is why the Buddha says that views are something to be abandoned, and that perception is to be seen to be unreliable. One of my favourite reported stories about Ajahn Chah is that he would have a constant ‘uncertain’ attitude towards ‘views’. Is it ‘x’ ? 
 uncertain, not sure


The Buddha was so meticulous in the way he used language, with such a high order of internal consistency across his teachings. How often do we see him chastise one of the monks “foolish stupid man, when have you known me to teach it like that”
 Sometimes I would find it frustrating - why say things in such a complicated and convoluted manner
 :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes: I think this is the reason why, to reduce the possibility of wrong perception
 (reduce not eliminate). The Buddha also foresaw that over time, just through the natural action of attention/perception/formation of views that his teachings on cessation would become corrupted, to something more comfortable 
 we even see the proto-evidence of this at the end of MN1 - and the monks were not happy


That is why the EBTs are such a gift. One can go back with a pretty high degree of certitude, and actually read what the Buddha taught. Through the scholarship on EBTs and parallels we are closer than ever (in the last 2000 years) of having access to the actual teachings of the Buddha. This is the Standard against which everything else is measured. Reading many translations really helps, as well as referring to the parallels. And this is where I have such gratitude to Sutta Central and the work of Bhante Sujato and all the others who contribute scholarship and translations. Here we have an easily accessible tool for multiple translations and parallels. And then one can always learn Pali. Or Thai if you want to listen to and understand what Ajahn Chah was saying. There are recordings of his talks.

The Buddha said not to believe logic, or gurus, or masters, but to always compare it to his teachings and to accept it ONLY if they match. But it doesn’t stop there, it also needs to be reflected by ones own practice experience - only then can one truly come to an understanding. The rest is a pointing
 the test is when it becomes a lived reality.

With regard to the issue of Nibbana and the end of the path, there is one resource that I have found that really presents this in the most thorough and skilled way, leading us through the maze of misunderstandings and through the history of misinterpretations - always coming back to the Buddhas teachings as the authority. It is the work Nibbana the Mind Stilled by Bhikkhu K áč†Änananda. It is a challenging read, 800 very dense pages. Bhikkhu Anālayo did a 3 year series on it, covering 11 chapters/sermons per year. This is probably the best way to do it - by reading the text together with listening to the lectures. Here is the link

Added:

It is our desire that someone tell us the answer that makes us suffer, when we discover that they are fallible human beings. But this need not be the case, if one realises that these are just perspectives and experiences of individuals, and not invest anything more into it. Also one needs to be careful not to reject the whole lot, just because some aspects are limited. EG if the teacher is spot on about most things, but maybe not about cessation, it doesn’t mean that all the other teachings are worthless. Expectations cause a lot of suffering.

Just keep comparing it to what the Buddha said and to practice experience. The tricky thing is that it takes a LOT of time to become familiar with the Buddhas teachings. The more of a ‘short-cut’ we look for, the less reliable the information. There really is no short cut
 just the Noble 8 fold Path and the word of the Buddha.

10 Likes
41

I think this is really important. I’ve learned a lot from teachers whose use of language I sometimes find problematical, and I deal with it by internally translating their terms into something that makes sense to me. So a teacher might say something like: “If you let go of clinging, greed, hatred, and delusion you’ll find your true nature.” That sounds a little odd to me, but in the context the “true nature” they are referring to is probably
yathābhĆ«tañāáč‡adassanaáč, commonly translated as “knowledge and vision of things as they really are”: AN10.3: SuttaCentral. This translation is also a little problematic, as it sounds like some static “reality”. Bhikkhu Sujato uses: “true knowledge and vision”: AN10.3 SuttaCentral, and some suggest that “knowledge and vision of things as they have become” better captures the dynamic nature of the knowledge. More colloquially: “knowing how stuff works”.

The point is that being overly concerned about whether someone uses exactly the expressions that I prefer is probably counterproductive. I’ve certainly had the experience on retreats of getting internally worked up about such things, which isn’t helpful! Hence my translation strategy. Of course, there will be cases where it’s not just a matter of expression, but I don’t like to jump to that conclusion without some careful consideration.

10 Likes
42

The problem is that the teacher’s wrong views are bound to lead to bad results in him and his practice. Even if I think he is spot on, how do I divide the wheat from the chaff? Ignoring the teacher’s words altogether could also be unwise because the wheat is still there.

The end result, i.e. two rather different talks, is way too visible and even somewhat drastic for these changes to creep into the text in an unconscious and invisible manner. No matter which version is further from the source material, I can’t really believe its author could not notice how far his rendition deviates from Ajahn’s literal words. What is even more heart-wrenching for me is that this deviating version, whichever it may be, is told to be Ajahn Chah’s authentic words: not the translator’s intepretation of it but Ajahn’s direct words.

What the intention behind it was, I do not know and I am not interested to know it because the end result is suboptimal in itself, no matter what the intention behind it originally was.

That is why I find this issue so important for me. I rely on the integrity of a tradition and its transmitters that they will not present their ‘re-tellings’ as ‘translations’. My support of a tradition has many reasons, but of them is that it is exactly that - a tradition, something relating to me important teachings of advanced practitioners without me having to learn Sinhalese, Thai, or Burmese. Imagine that an English-language instruction for your German-produced dish washer would be changed in such a way. It would be absurd to expect that you learn a new language each time you buy a piece of house equipment or medicament from a new country. How much more important is the Dhamma!

If it were a scientific, political or even philosophical text, trying to figure out what went wrong and who is responsible for that (whether maliciously or not is beyond the point). But when it comes to religion or Dhamma in particular, some people for some reason seem to be acting like it is no big deal. Just to be clear, it is not an attack on you or anyone or criticism of someone in particular. I am just trying to get my point across: the Dhamma is the most important thing that there is, which is why I would like to treat this situation the same as it would be treated in most other areas.

1 Like
44

Well, if you look at the side-by-side comparison of the two texts, you’ll see that it is not merely a matter of using other expressions. I am okay with Ajahn Chah’s using the term 'Original Mind’and whatnot. My concern is whether Ajahn Chah really said something like ‘get back to the source, which is your Original Mind’, etc. because the other text does not feature such an expression at all or changes the expression in ways that go beyond merely using other expressions.

1 Like
45

You are indeed exact in your diagnosis here.

I’d refer to the Mahātaáč‡hāsankhayasutta in Majjhima Nikāya #38 which deals explicitly with this issue on multiple levels. There are no excuses or justifications which would be acceptable.

Ajahn Chah unfortunately can not provide clarification and his teachings were haphazardly recorded.

2 Likes