Okay, so I found the original talk in Thai. Are there any Thai speakers here in this thread or in our community that could listen to the recording of the talk and compare it to both versions?
I think this is splitting hairs because if you donât know Central Thai/ NE Lao dialect, whichever this one is in, you cannot really get confirmed confidence through a third party.
It seems very likely to me that when Ajahn Chahâs surviving teachings are taken in as a whole, this âOriginal Mindâ talk could be taken mostly as an idiomatic tongue-in-cheek expression. 
Either way it doesnât matter. The suttas/root texts are the sole authorityâŚ
Iâm not sure if I can answer your question satisfactorily, but I hear your pain and confusion, and I understand what youâre going through. I have been through something similar myself. Itâs never easy to feel that the spiritual teachers that one looks up to might be fallible.
Let me clear up a few things.
- Is it the case that some of the Thai Forest Ajahns say things that sound uncomfortably close to eternalism?
- Yes, this is acknowledged and widely debated in Thailand.
- Is Ajahn Chah among them?
- Certainly less so than, say, Ajahn Maha Bua. I canât really recall anything that heâs said that made me go, hmmph. When questioned directly on the matter, as in the discussions quoted above, he equated the âoriginal mindâ with cessation.
- What about Ajahn Chahâs students?
- Well, there are a lot of them and I canât speak for all. But one monk shared with me a conversation about this with Ajahn Liem, and he agreed that the original mind stuff spoken of by some Ajahns sounded like eternalism.
- Are the translations of Ajahn Chahâs work reliable?
- TBH Iâm not really sure. I do know that Ajahn Jayasaro has both impeccable Thai and a lot of integrity, so I would expect his translations to be reliable. But I have never really checked them in detail.
- Are some translators guilty of translating the Ajahn Chah they wanted to hear, rather than the one who existed?
- It seems so, and this has been a topic of discussion among the Sangha for many years. Apart from the âoriginal mindâ thing, itâs also been claimed that Ajahn Chahâs emphasis on jhanas has been downplayed or removed.
- Do some of the western Ajahns read their own eternalistic readings into Ajahn Chah?
- I can say that this happens with how Ajahns such as Amaro or Thanissaro quote and deal with the Suttas. Itâs worth remembering that Ajahn Amaro spent only a short time in Thailand. When I hear him speak about the Thai forest tradition, it sounds nothing like what I heard in Thailand.
As some practical advice, Iâd caution about reading too much into what any of the Thai Ajahns say. They were not philosophers and did not attempt to develop coherent bodies of thought. By their own admission, they were offering practical guidelines based on their own experience. Ajahn Maha Bua would say, âIf what i say disagrees with the texts, just put it aside.â
The Ajahns all taught in their own idiosyncratic ways, using language in playful and creative ways (especially Ajahn Chah!) If you try to capture the language and bottle it, you end up with a bunch of dead specimens. The value of the Thai forest tradition is not in philosophy, but in inspiration and a dedication to authentically living the Dhamma.
Donât try to understand the Dhamma from the top down. Thatâs a rookie mistake. Look to the simple things, the basic things, things that everyone knows. Build up from there.
For myself, I canât get too excited if someone has a different understanding of Nibbana than I do. But if they cannot get their heads around the idea of relating to women with equality, respect, and decency, then we have a problem. And perhaps it is a coincidence, but did you ever wonder why the same monks pushing eternalism are also the same ones opposing bhikkhuni ordination? (Psst: itâs about power.)
26 Likes
Thanks for your answer, Venerable, it definitely did help me.
As for my concern with that particular talk and its translation, maybe I will enough merit for Ven. Dhammanando to spend some of his precious time on that when heâs back from his vassa-related Internet abstinence, as I do not know other people who could help me with that. Or he will not - in that case it will be a nice exercise in letting go, I presume.
Oh yes. I just read Luang Pu Waenâs talks for the first time today, and oh boy⌠Still, sometimes Ajahnsâ focus on quasi-etermalistic doctrine is way too pronounced for me to simply say it is because of their being practitioners first - take, for example, Ajahn Maha Bua, or Ajahn Mun for that matter.
3 Likes
Yes, I mean, at a certain point I just decided that it wasnât for me. I remember with gratitude all I learned, and how my life was changed, but my teacher is the Buddha. Understanding him is my path.
17 Likes
Hi Vstakan,
Iâve never met Ajahn Chah, so I canât confirm or deny anything he has said or hasnât said. But Iâve often taken this âknowerâ as a pragmatic instruction rather than a kind of eternal consciousness.
Iâm a bhikkhu ordained by Ajahn Brahm, who as you know was a disciple of Ajahn Chah. (I donât consider myself parth of a tradition, though, other than that of the Buddha.) Ajahn Brahm has often said that the translations of Ajahn Chahâs talks are not good, or at least some of them. And Ajahn Brahm is quite convinced Ajahn Chah didnât believe in a permanent âknowerâ or what have you. We only have his word for it, though, so that counts for nothing much. (:
But anyway, that doesnât mean translators are, as you say, lying âor close to itâ. If you have a certain view, you just see it reflected everywhere, even where it isnât. That happens especially if that view is so central to your life. You can imagine how this can be the case with permanent cittas. Monastics often live their life based around that idea, so they see it everywhere. Heck, people even see it in the suttas, where it obviously (to me) is denied unambiguously. (E.g. DN1, SN12.62) Itâs just like Christians see God everywhere, or if you have a hammer, you see nails everywhere! And so they see a permanent knower in talks of Ajahn Chah (whether it was there or not).
So donât let that shake your faith too much. There are good intentions underlying those translations. Moreover, the translators donât make any money out of it, itâs all for free, there isnât any glory in it, or whatever. So if youâre disappointed, let it be just with views, not with intentions, morality or those things.
I reply because I can relate. At some point, when I was still a lay person, I was also disappointed in certain views prevalent in the forest tradition. But I found out they are not universal in that tradition, and there are also many traditions both inside and outside Theravada where this view of eternal mind isnât held.
My advice is this: stick to the Dhamma, stick to the suttas taught by the Budha. Yeah, the Budha has been gone a long time. So itâs sometimes less inspiring than an arahant in living memory, like perhaps Ajahn Chah was. But that was the Buddhaâs own advice: the dhamma will be your teacher after Iâm gone (DN16). If you rely on the suttas, you have never reason to be disappointed in any teacher ever again.
I disagree, by the way with people who say, just start at the basics and see where you end up. To me itâs always been important to have an idea of nibbana. Thatâs how the Buddha started teaching (the third noble truth), so I think itâs important to have an intellectual understanding from the get-go. Also, so you know what youâre in for, haha! 
Now Iâll read the rest of the thread and see that others have said the same things already.
20 Likes
Thank you, Venerable! Your kind words are much appreciated and I am not saying it just for the sake of courtesy 
This is why I often let clumsy and ideologized translations of Suttas pass. What we are having here is on another level, and I canât really see how one doing it was not aware of it. Sure, it is most likely not an outright lie, but the amount of partisanship and self-deception involved here it is truly worrying for me.
2 Likes
Thanks for the comment, and also for your work putting the translations side-by-side. Iâm sure youâre helping many people with it.
Like you I donât speak Thai. So Iâm not in a position to really judge. But even if I were, I would assume the translations (or re-tellings) are all made out of good intentions to help others. That way at least you keep a happy mind! 
Also, if you have a different view you can always have compassion for people stuck in samsara, lol. 
Iâd not be particularly worried about other peopleâs self-deception, whatever it may be. Even in the time of the Buddha people misinterpreted his words. 
And they could speak his language! Thatâs reflected in the suttas in many funny ways, like Sati the fisherman, and the Buddha being called an annihilist, etc. So what I personally care about instead, is not othersâ, but my own potential self-deception. 
Anyway, I recognize the emotions behind your words. As I said, I was also disappointed at some point. But for me, I realized that disappointment was not so much with individuals or translations⌠it came mostly from the realization that right view was perhaps much more difficult to attain than I thought! 
That if you have decades in the robes, you can still miss out. Thatâs perhaps the disturbing part, more than anything. (Regardless of what view you take to be right, this still holds.) Anyway, all you can do is keep walking the path, keep investigating.
For whatever itâs worth, let me say that with your investigations I think youâre making big steps in the right direction. 
Not only intellectually, also emotionally. I belief at some point we have to face that we really have to face the Dhamma by ourselves. Teachers canât hold your hand into nibbana! even if they have right view, or even if they are arahants. And that can (perhaps should) be a challenge. But it will eventually lead to you being your own island! 
So be happy, at least youâre swimming, not drowning.
14 Likes
Thanks again!
Wide words! And this is actually something that I am worrying about. The Ajahn Chah tradition / Thai forest tradition is comparatively popular here in the West. In some countries, like in Romania, thatâs pretty much the only strain of Theravadin/EBT tradition available to anyone. So when you encounter something like this, I canât help asking myself: âHow many people did this investigation? How many people just accept this as Ajahn Chahâs words and teachings?â And I think the answer is many. And it is scary because it is not about me anymore.
There is much cruder and straightforward eternalism in the English translations of some forest Ajahnâs talks, but these Ajahns are largely obscure for the non-Thai audience, so I am not worried about it. This here is another story.
Still, I see a lot of value in your words and Ibwil take them to heart. Apart from this communal dimension, the issue with translations of Ajahn Chah also has a personal dimension for my own practice, and I realy think that what you said really can help solve my problems in that regard
3 Likes
My understanding of âoriginal mindâ is like that of a newborn baby, before it is conditioned by personal experiences, societal norms, etc. It is a state without judgement, simply observing events as they are.
âIt is what it isâ
1 Like
I read some Ajahns (canât quite remember who exactly) who compared a new-born baby with the Original Mind and emphasized that they are not the same thing. Even the Buddha did it in the Suttas: he was actually poking fun at other asceticsâ teachimg, saying thay according to it a new-born baby would be enlightened.
As far as I remember, the Buddha described a newbornâs mind as an undeveloped one, one still being in the process of faculty formation. However, even this undeveloped mind still possesses all the evil roots and kilesas, albeit some of them are in a dormant form yet.
6 Likes
One of the issues is that the different Thai teachers have completely different explanations. Ajahn Chah spoke of it as cessation; Ajahn Thate equated it with jhanas; Ajahn Maha Bua and his students describe it as a state of primordial knowing. 
So by all means, interpret it how you like! But just remember, how you understand it may well not be like how anyone else understands it.
Few indeed. Itâs remarkable how easily people accept what theyâre told in the spiritual realm.
In addition to your well-considered and helpful comments, I just wanted to congratulate you on your emoji game. 
Iâll have to level up.
13 Likes
Why canât it be all three? Are they mutually exclusive?
It reminds me of a parable about blind men trying to describe an elephant based on touch. One of them describes the trunk, another describes the tail, another describes the ear, etc⌠everyone has a different description, but they are all describing the same elephant.
2 Likes
Well, that would be adding another level of interpretation. One that, I suspect, they wouldnât agree with.
3 Likes
Vstakan, you may want to explore the teachings of Ajahn Dtun who has some very detailed talks on Youtube detailing the practice to the final goal. His teachings do not evoke eternalism or âoriginal mindâ. His translator, Ajahn Te has impeccable Thai and is very knowledgeable himself. Similar flavors are also found in Ajahn Ananâs and Ajahn Liemâs teachings. As I am sure you know, all these Ajahns are direct disciples of Ajahn Chah.
A couple of things that I have realized in my practice (for I too struggled with precisely what you have pointed out): âultimate realityâ (itself an inadequate word)/nibbana is obviously complex enough that words are not able to communicate that experience (once again an inadequate word) and that is why the Buddha often used the negative tetralemma to refer to it obliquely. Perhaps our desire to distill it into words (eternalism, non being etc) is exactly what the Buddha was trying to avoid, namely perception colored with ignorance. After all, how does a fully enlightened being who operates within emptiness, describe extinguishing to a regular personâit may actually be impossible. Thus, having a general idea that one is in the right direction is likely what is needed for most of usâand this is the work of sila, samadhi and intellectually understanding (and then experiencing) the 4 noble truths. The work of letting go of the knower (refined states of I-making) is the kammathana of someone working toward arahantship. There is much value (in my opinion) to being mentored by those who have gained spiritual prowess in sila, samadhi and panna, putting aside confusion on higher Dhammas that will ultimately be work relevant only to a very small number of people. And as oneâs spiritual qualities mature (through path 1-3) our understanding of what is in the Suttas will evolve and that highest work will likely present itself anew.
So eschewing those Western Ajahns from the Thai tradition who use words like original mind may not be absolutely necessary (especially if thatâs the best option). They are likely well established in reasonable sila, samadhi and panna. One will likely learn a lot and if one graduates out of their tutelage, one can move on and continue the journey.
7 Likes
Thanks for including those links!!
1 Like
I could agree with you if equating Nibbana with were not a wrong view and it were not the Buddhaâs words that wrong views lead to bad results and bad kamma. From a certain point on it is and will be hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Still, I do find some of the advice and talks by these Ajahns useful. So, Ajahn Sucittoâs and Nick Scottâs Where are You Going? dilogy is definitely the best Dhamma book for lay people and non-Buddhists I have read in quite some time.
Listening to Ajahn Dtun would be interesting. His biography dies feature mentions of a mind âbeyond the khandhasâ but it can be interpreted in many ways. Ajahn Ananâs Reflections from Emptiness do feature this quote that kind of left me scratching my head, especially considering he says the complete opposite a few pages earlier:
The mind is one thing, and feelings and
emotions are another. The mind isnât the five
aggregates; the five aggregates arenât the mind.
The mind isnât within the five aggregates either.
His direct disciple, fresh Thai citizen Ajahn Achalo, did say directly in his talk on compassion that the liberated mind does not perish after an arahantâs parinibbana. Then again, it is not necessarily Ajahn Ananâs view, as it may be actually more nuanced or it can be interpreted in many ways.
At the same time, I generally hold both Ajahn Anan and Ajahn Achalo in very high regard. Even if they do have eternalistic views, a lot of their Dhamma teachings and a lot of their meditation instructions really did help me a lot with my practicr, especially Brahnaviharas and body contemplation. Actually, much more so than most of the Western Ajahns. So, thank you very much for your advice! I think, it could be really helpful for anyone looking for good no-nonsense meditation instructions
1 Like
FYI both of them went away and gradually turned this book into a free audiobook during the whole Covid-19 lockdown and restrictions, which is very nice (I do like audiobooks 
):
Nick Scott would be one of the more prominent and popular teachers here in Ireland, and has his own centre up in Galway (with a lot going on over Zoom too during the pandemic):
2 Likes
I am bit late to the party, @Vstakan, but I thought I would still add a couple of observations.
The reality with any teacher, whether itâs the Buddha or Ajahn Chah or indeed anyone, is that we all have our own idea of who they were. We listen to their teachings with different proclivities; we remember the things that are more relevant to us; we retell what we think is most salient depending on the development of our minds. We then make biased translations of texts/talks we have chosen in a biased way. It is all so scarily subjective. We all have our own Buddha and our own Ajahn Chah.
We see this subjectivity in a number of ways. For instance, many of the first Ajahn Chah talks that were translated into English had very little to say about samÄdhi. As a result, many thought this was not part of Ajahn Chahâs teaching. Later, translation stated to appear of talks that had much more samÄdhi content. The reason for this difference appears simply to be that the early translators were not themselves adept at samÄdhi and so they did not really appreciate, or even hear, this part of Ajahn Chahâs teaching. We are blind to what we are not interested in.
This blindness becomes more and more troublesome the deeper the teaching is. At some point it is not just about a lack of interest, but about teachings that we resist at the very core of our beings. It is hard to overestimate the strength of the will to exist. It is to be expected that even the Buddhaâs teaching, or Ajahn Chahâs, will be distorted in the service of this will. For most people itâs a very powerful drive, and we underestimate it at our peril.
I am no longer surprised to see eternalist teachings cropping virtually everywhere. I have come to realise this is almost the default tendency of humans. And it is for this reason we should be very sceptical of such teachings. If we understand our own defilements properly, we become much better at spotting delusion, even at the deepest levels.
32 Likes
Thanks for your answer, Venerable! 
I guess my personal proclivities are rather on the annihilationist side. But then again when doing marananussati I sometimes come to realize what annihilation really means, and it is deeply scary, and then I almost naturally start grasping for eternalistic ideas as if drowning. Yet, I think that this scariness can be used in your practice as a sort of a sword disecting oneâs atta-esque ideas and conceptions of the Nibbana and the end goal of our practice.
9 Likes