Another factor was the development of technology. Most of the recorded talks from Ajahn Chah come from the last years of his life, when he was largely addressing a general audience of often fairly new practitioners. The talks he gave at an earlier period were much more in-depth, but there are fewer on record. It’s not an unusual arc: see re. Ajahn Brahm’s talks from the 90s and today. Or indeed, the evolution of the Tipitaka texts from, say, Thera/theri-gatha to Thera/theri-apadana.
Same! It’s weird not only how persistent it is, but also how it frames itself as a counter-narrative. I mean, it’s hard to find a non-eternalist take on Nibbana, but they stake themselves as in opposition to a largely imaginary “mainstream”.
Actually, the more I think about Nibbana, the less problems I have with the actual “mainstream” idea of anupadisesa nibbana as the nibbana dhatu, i.e. some independent reality. In fact, if it exists, it is an independent reality that is utterly devoid of anything we have known or perceived or may know or perceive. It is completely inaccessible for any of our five khandhas. For all intents and purposes, viewed from the side of the five aggregates it is indistinguishable from simple non-existence. Sure, the Ockham’s razor would make us exclude such a nibbana dhatu, but the Ockham’s razor is a mere heuristical tool so it is prone to mistakes.
I mean, whether we think that the anupadisesa nibbana is the mere complete ending of the five aggregates or the nibbana dhatu as the classical interpretation says, is totally beyond the point. Empirically, there is, there cannot be and there will not be any difference between these two interpretations if we reach this state. In fact, even as arahants we will probably never be able to tell, which of them is correct. Maybe the Buddha could, but he didn’t tell us about it. Which, in its turn, means that in practical terms, if we do not adhere to the Original mind-like eternalistic theory of anupadisesa nibbana, there is no point in discussing its nature - that might be one of the reasons the Buddha declared the post-mortal fate of an arahant to be an unanswerable question. From that point of view, anything we know about Nibbana is quite literally what the Buddha said in the Suttas: we are the five aggregates, at the point of full Nibbana they stop existing. Two different possible natures of anupadisesa Nibbana can be added as an afterthought, footnote, and left at that to avoid any mental proliferation.
However, if we want the Nibbana to be the Original Mind or any another rebranded Brahman/Atman, that’s where mental proliferation starts for real… and this is where we have to start opposing the classical “mainstream” interpretation.
IMO, it might also be worth considering that if the meditative experience of Brahman/ Atman/ Pure Citta/ Original Mind did not exist, the Buddha would have had no need to point it out both as a landmark as well as a potential pitfall on the path to Nibbana. Nor would Sariputta have been able to teach a path to establish Dhananjani in the inferior Brahma realm.
So, IMO practitioners who encounter and describe Brahman/ Pure Citta should not be written off as being wrong- it is simply their experience, and is just as valid as Emptiness. Since these experiences exist, they bear the marks of Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta. Neither Brahman nor Emptiness are Self, though they can of course be grasped at as Self.
Concepts such as Eternalism and Annihilation exist only in reference to the illusion of Self. Once all I/ My making ceases, such questions become irrelevant.
Sure, but when these meditators like really teach that the True Citta 'exists in the supramundane world and is not touched by the Samsara" (I kid you not, it is literally what I read like four days ago in a Thai Ajahn’s Dhamma book), then we are having a problem. Things like this cannot be written off as ‘merely experiencing something’.
Having an experience of Emptiness or True Citta and making an honest mistake of confusing it with Nibbana is okay, and these experience are true and valid in themselves. They most certainly do not lie outside of the Buddhadhamma, are nicely mapped with arupajhanas and are exceedingly rare. E.g., I will most probably never experience anything even close to them in this lifetime. However, claiming these experiences are Nibbana is a wrong view that should be corrected or at the very least not followed by us.
A propos 'epxerience of eternal citta’and ‘crude eternalism’. Here is a fragment of Luang Pho Ruesi Lingdam’s mini-hagiography intended as a sales pitch for his teacher’s amulets:
ARAHANTSHIP ATTAINMENT
LP Luesie Lingdam regularly made his ultra meditation to Nipphan (Nirvana) celestial to pay high respect to Lord Buddha.
After LP Nak passed away in B.E.2514, he wondered where did LP Nak go.
One night, LP Luesie Lingdam meditated to the utmost state, Lord Buddha appeared HIMSELF before him and said:
“Exactly, without doubt. Now LP Nak is at Nipphan (Nirvana) Celestial - no rebirth for him again.”
Not long after that LP Luesie Lingdam made himself out-of-body to Nipphan Celestial.
And there, he saw and met LP Nak. Before leaving, LP Nak taught him some Dhamma tips for no rebirth.
Admittedly, Luang Po Lingdam was no forest monk, yet he was a highly popular and venerated monk, whose talks were even broadcast on Thai TV. The temple he led, Wat Thasung in Uthai Thani, remains a very popular and rich place of worhsip. To me, the description of his travel to the ‘Nibbana Celestial’ comes pretty close to what Ajahn Mun was alleged to have experienced: an audience by the Lord Buddha and lots and lots of arahants. I think this is probably where the Dhamma and teachings of some forest Ajahns meat the Thai folk religiosity. In fact, I believe, these - in my view - crude ideas about the Nibbana can in fact be the origin, distant progenitor of the True Citta, along the possible Yogacara influence. Cultural conditioning is a very powerful thing, so it would not be too much of a stretch to imagine a Thai master having some deep and fascinating meditating experience and mistaking it for the Nibbana.
It is very akin to an Orthodox Christian contemplative practicing Christian sati aka Jesus Prayer and reaching some kind of Samadhi and then interpreting it as experiencing God’s uncreated energies. Indeed, who would guarantee we would not do something similar in such a situation? So, the Right View is not that easy to maintain, after all.
Such accounts, in all honesty, put me in mind of Mahayana Buddhist accounts of meeting celestial Buddhas and Bodhisattvas - most notably the Yogacara Buddhist Asanga’s gaining not just “dhamma tips” but five treatises (!) from Metteyya. In such an environment, eternalism would be easy to fall into.
I really don’t get all this fuzz about anybody experiences, and the need for interpreting suchlike.
As I have understood it, the sense of self will be here until Arahant-ship!?
And even worse, in my experience of my personal mind, is to speculate that some monks may be driven by ignorance or ill will when they deliver teachings because that must surely draw some bad Kamma.
I really have fun with myself, and couldn’t care less, it’s just a big joke to see how it wiggles and bounces.
Wow, okay. To be honest, most Western Buddhists—and quite possibly Buddhists from other Theravadin countries—don’t really get how very weird a lot of Thai teachings really are. (Not just the Thais, of course—everyone is weird in their own way!)
I mean, look, as far as I’m concerned, good on ’em, if they’re happy, the weirder the better. It’s just, let’s not automatically assume that because something is said by a “Theravadin” monk that it is the same as what the Buddha taught.
Sidenote: if we define “Theravadin” according to the classical standard of the doctrines set out in the Kathāvatthu, then most Thai monks, certainly the forest monks, fail the test. So do I, incidentally, and for some of the same reasons (Thai forest monks usually believe in the antarabhava, for example, and so do I, but the Kathāvatthu does not).
In practice “Theravada” is defined by the self-identity of the community based on ordination lineage, history, and scripture, not primarily by doctrine (at least in Thailand). And that’s a good thing!
The point I’m making is simply this: modern “Theravada” is diverse, creative, and complicated, and while it is influenced by the doctrines in the Pali canonical and commentarial traditions, it is not defined by them.
Exactly my thought when I read about the ‘Nibbana Celestial’ reachable through ‘ultra meditation’. Accidentally, while visiting the Nibbana Celestial and conversing with the Buddha, Luang Phor Ruesi Lingdam had the good merit to have the Tathagata propose him a couple of corrections to the wealth gatha that the Venerable was known for. From then on, the gatha came to be known as ‘millionaire gatha’ since its wealth-generating qualities had been very much enhanced by the Buddha’s advice.
Apparently, the edited gatha has worked quite well for at least Venerable Lingdam, as Wat Thasung is still a very rich and impressively looking monastery, and the Venerable’s amulets are sold for rather impressive prices.
Very good advice indeed, thank you Venerable! Still, I find the similarities between the Venerable Lingdam’s story of meeting the Buddha and Ajahn Mun’s account of being congratulated with his arahantship by the Buddha and other arahants (even though only known from his biography by Ajahn Maha Bua) intriguing. Apparently, that is quite a thing in certain Thai Forest Tradition circles: Luang Pu Plien claimed to have talked to Ajahn Mun, the Buddha and other arahants on a more or less regular basis.
My point being that, given the similarities between these accounts as well as somewhat eternalistic rhethoric of certain Thai Forest ajahns, one can pretty easily make their own conclusions about the ultimate extent of these teachers’ spiritual attainment. As well as about how difficult the Right View is to come by even among very good Theravadin monks
@vstakan
Upon a closer reexamination of Ajahn Chah’s English translated talks it becomes completely apparent to me that every instance of “Original Mind” or “The Knower” is referencing the ‘existential-momentum that is the prime mover behind paṭisandhahati’ which lacks even a describing word in the Pali language found in the suttas and what the Abhidhamma would later classify as the “bhavaṅga”(which seems to also miss the point as well).
It is likely that this discrepancy relating to the absence of a precise single word expressing the mechanism of paṭisandhi to contrast with the more common and simplistic atta of saṅkamati is the genesis of this concern. This is clearly not a mistake in the elucidation of the Dhamma, either.
Seemingly more of a problem/limitation of language than an artifact of “eternalism” or something more nefarious.
Most of this discussion is beyond me (not familiar with the terms or the teachers), but the sentence above in the [Discuss & Discover] email that came today reminded me of a quote I came across a while back that has given me good food for thought:
So I thought I’d just drop it in here. Don’t know the provenance, haven’t gotten around to asking anybody about it.
From a Reddit page…I did not know this, or the meaning of antarabhava…
Antara: in-between
bhava: becoming
So there’s the notion of rebirth. After death a new life occurs. Antarabhava is the concept, suggested in Pali suttas but rejected in the Theravadin Abhidhamma, that there is a period of time between the end of one life and start of the next. That’s all. An intermediate stage.
What happens in that stage is described differently in different traditions.
This is what’s cool about Bhante Sujato, among other things. He has papers like this that are defining scholarship, and then we have Sujato’s Blog, which is a treasure trove. Thanks for posting this, Javier!
I’ve actually assembled binders of essays and published scholarship (eg Authenticity) of Bhante Sujato (and Ven. Brahmali) and brought these binders to some wats in Thailand that have farang meditators coming for retreat, Wat Pa Tam Wua being one of my favorites. I visited Wat Pa Tam Wua once, and looked through the English language bookshelves, and saw books from Eckhardt Tolle, some Zen books…I decided to make some binders of the “real stuff” for these folks that visit Wat Pa.
One day, someone’s going to make an anthology of the Sujato’s Blog and articles like the one you posted Javier, and it’ll be required reading for people that want to really get at the heart of the Dhamma, at least from the perspective of the honest and skilled scholarship of Vens. Sujato and Brahmali.
In the mid-1970s, Luang Por acquired, as it were, another arrow to his rhetorical bow. He was much taken with Ajahn Buddhadasa’s newly published translations of the works of the Chinese Zen Masters, Hui Neng and Huang Po[13]. He found these texts gave him a new and fresh vocabulary to express the Dhamma. Western monks who had practised in the Zen tradition added to his knowledge. The influence that these translated texts had upon the way he taught may be observed in a number of his later Dhamma discourses. There are, for example, a number of references to the mind (citta) in terms comparable to how the phrase ‘original mind’ is used in Zen texts. On one occasion, he compared the mind to a leaf that is naturally still but flutters about because of the wind of mental states:
If it understood the nature of thoughts, the mind would stay still. This is called the natural state of the mind. And why we have come to practise now is to see the mind in this pristine state.
And here:
Towards the end of his teaching career, Luang Por read and was impressed by the newly published Thai translations of Chinese Zen Masters such as Huang Po. This became apparent in the way in which he began to talk about the distinction between the mind itself[17] and mental states. He started to use terms like ‘original mind’, not as philosophical positions but as skilful means to be used for looking within. At the end of this talk, Luang Por emphasized that people make a mistake in complaining about their mind being in turmoil. He said that there’s nothing wrong with the mind itself, it’s naturally at ease. It’s the defilements, the craving which are the problem. It was important to separate the two.
This sort of thing would account for at least some of the Mahayana type concepts found in the Thai Forest Tradition. For example, in The Collected Teachings of Ajahn Chah (192):
Eventually the breath disappears all together and all that remains is that feeling of alertness. This is called meeting the Buddha. We have that clear, wakeful awareness called Bud-dho, the one who knows, the awakened one, the radiant one. This is meeting and dwelling with the Buddha, with knowledge and clarity. It was only the historical Buddha who passed away. The true Buddha, the Buddha that is clear, radiant knowing, can still be experienced and attained today.
This is a very mystical, Mahayana type of conception of the Buddha. The Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita is one of the early Mahayana sutras that has a concept of “perceiving the Buddha”. It pans the earlier practice of visualizing the 32 marks, replacing the practice with non-conceptualization and non-abiding. “Buddha” becomes shorthand for purity or the unconditioned.
There are many other Mahayana sutras that contain similar conceptions of the Buddha, and mindfulness of the Buddha, and linking them with realization of anatman, emptiness of self, emptiness of dharmas, etc. These are among the oldest themes in Mahayana sutras. Interesting that Ajahn Chah picked up these concepts quickly.
Honestly, this one was never Mahayana-like for me. I interpreted it as being about sati and samadhi and meaning that being the Buddha essentially means having clear and radiant, seeing the world as it is. Since there is only one ‘world’, this state of clearly knowing and seeing is one and the same for everyone, it was available to everyone before the Buddha, during His times and is still available now. While meditating we can temporarily suppress our evil roots and underlying tendencies and temporarily feel what it is like to see the world as an arahant or Buddha.
I have never felt any Mahayana like mystical undertones when it came to this part of Ajahn Chah’s teaching repertoire. I feel like it was more something that he picked up in Zen books to use as an alternative terminology, alternative useful and intuitive way of referring to the meditation experiance. Especially considering that quite a few of his Western students at the time (e.g. people as prominent as Ajahn Sumedho) had a substantial Zen backgrounds. He took Mahayana content, emptied it of the dogma and used the remaining terminological bare bones as a means to his ends - that is how I see this one.
Still, I find the similarities between the Venerable Lingdam’s story of meeting the Buddha and Ajahn Mun’s account of being congratulated with his arahantship by the Buddha and other arahants (even though only known from his biography by Ajahn Maha Bua) intriguing. Apparently, that is quite a thing in certain Thai Forest Tradition circles: Luang Pu Plien claimed to have talked to Ajahn Mun, the Buddha and other arahants on a more or less regular basis.
