?Dan74 wrote:I agree. It just seems that he didn't have the same dismissive attitude to Buddha-nature as is sometimes seen on this forum.PeterB wrote:We could of course quote and counter quote all day. What however we would be quoting are remarks made to specific individuals on specific days for specific reasons. Which have then been edited.
Ajahn Chah Zen Theravada?
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Ajahn Chah Zen Theravada?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Ajahn Chah Zen Theravada?
Try telling those Forest Ajahns that Luang Por Chah set any store by concepts like " Buddha Nature. "Dan74 wrote:I agree. It just seems that he didn't have the same dismissive attitude to Buddha-nature as is sometimes seen on this forum.PeterB wrote:We could of course quote and counter quote all day. What however we would be quoting are remarks made to specific individuals on specific days for specific reasons. Which have then been edited.
As any good teacher would.PeterB wrote:To other people he would reply in terms of the Refuges and precepts, and Sila.
Maybe one day. In the meantime I go and hear them whenever they come here.PeterB wrote:If we want to know about Luang Por Chah we need to sit at the feet of his Dhamma heirs.
Test it out for yourself. I am reasonably confident that you will hear that he had little truck with ANY abstract concepts to build an identity around.
We are not talking about a legendary figure here. We are talking about someone who many of us still breathing sat with. And walked with, and ate with, and passed in the corridor on the way to the lavatory.
Re: Ajahn Chah Zen Theravada?
Why test it out - the quote above is very clear. I don't think he was talking about a concept though, rather about reality as he knew it.PeterB wrote:Try telling those Forest Ajahns that Luang Por Chah set any store by concepts like " Buddha Nature. "Dan74 wrote:I agree. It just seems that he didn't have the same dismissive attitude to Buddha-nature as is sometimes seen on this forum.PeterB wrote:We could of course quote and counter quote all day. What however we would be quoting are remarks made to specific individuals on specific days for specific reasons. Which have then been edited.
As any good teacher would.PeterB wrote:To other people he would reply in terms of the Refuges and precepts, and Sila.
Maybe one day. In the meantime I go and hear them whenever they come here.PeterB wrote:If we want to know about Luang Por Chah we need to sit at the feet of his Dhamma heirs.
"abstract concepts to build an identity around" have nothing to do with Buddha-nature as it is seen in Mahayana.PeterB wrote: Test it out for yourself. I am reasonably confident that you will hear that he had little truck with ANY abstract concepts to build an identity around.
Good for you. But what's that got to do with the matter at hand?We are not talking about a legendary figure here. We are talking about someone who many of us still breathing sat with. And walked with, and ate with, and passed in the corridor on the way to the lavatory.
_/|\_
Re: Ajahn Chah Zen Theravada?
Ok as clearly a wink is not enough, it relates to the matter in hand in so much as I and many others have heard him dismiss "Buddha Nature" and similar concepts roundly.
But dont take my word for it.
We are all free of course to reinvent someone we never knew once they are safetly dead.
Which is why I suggest that if you want to know about Luang Por, ask the Ajahns who trained with him...we are fortunate that there are many of them left.
Dont approach him through edited highlights of books that he did not author and project onto them meaning which suits our preexisting view.
But dont take my word for it.
We are all free of course to reinvent someone we never knew once they are safetly dead.
Which is why I suggest that if you want to know about Luang Por, ask the Ajahns who trained with him...we are fortunate that there are many of them left.
Dont approach him through edited highlights of books that he did not author and project onto them meaning which suits our preexisting view.
Re: Ajahn Chah Zen Theravada?
How is "the original mind" (more of a Zen expression) different, in your view, to Buddha-nature (a more Indian Mahayana way of saying the same thing)?
He says "original mind" and Ajahn Dune Atulo says Buddha-nature (which is a very familiar concept in Thai Buddhism by the way) but they mean the same thing.
I am not trying to reinvent anything here just seeing Thai Forest master pointing to the same thing as Zen and other Mahayana masters, using strikingly similar language, adjectives and similes.
Incidentally Ajahn Chah said this about the Sixth Patriarch of Chan, Huineng, reputed to be the author of the Platform Sutra, which is basically a treatise on the Buddha-nature:
There will of course be many differences as well.
He says "original mind" and Ajahn Dune Atulo says Buddha-nature (which is a very familiar concept in Thai Buddhism by the way) but they mean the same thing.
I am not trying to reinvent anything here just seeing Thai Forest master pointing to the same thing as Zen and other Mahayana masters, using strikingly similar language, adjectives and similes.
Incidentally Ajahn Chah said this about the Sixth Patriarch of Chan, Huineng, reputed to be the author of the Platform Sutra, which is basically a treatise on the Buddha-nature:
Like I've said before - I agree with Tilt that Theravadins don't need to worry about the Platform Sutra, Zen or Mahayana in general. And I am not trying to convince anybody here that Mahayana is so great or even offers something that Theravadins must have (both of these claims lie outside my knowledge and experience). There is just the fact that outstanding Thai Forest masters have on occasion taught in remarkably similar ways to Zen (Chan) masters and also had some healthy appreciation of their work.Hui Neng's wisdom is very keen. It is very profound teaching,not easy for beginners to understand. But if you practise with our discipline and with patience, if you practise not-clinging, you will eventually understand. Once I had a disciple who stayed in a grass-roofed hut. It rained often that rainy season and one day a strong wind blew off half the roof. He did not bother to fix it, just let it rain in. Several days passed and I asked him about his hut. He said he was practising not-clinging. This is not-clinging without wisdom. It is about the same as the equanimity of a water buffalo. If you live a good life and live simply, if you are patient and unselfish, you will understand the wisdom of Hui Neng.
There will of course be many differences as well.
_/|\_
Re: Ajahn Chah Zen Theravada?
As it clearly matters to you I leave you to have the last word.
Re: Ajahn Chah Zen Theravada?
My impression is that when Chah spoke of things that sound like a Buddha nature concept he was usually speaking colloquially and specifically about taking a particular attitude and strategy towards meditation. He would have known more than anybody that there is no Buddha-nature concept in the Pali Canon and he did not refer to it in an abstract sense. I've found no talks where he talks about Buddha nature or anything like that as an abstraction.
Native English speakers also have to keep in mind that a lot of these talks have been translated from Thai and some of these translations might be questionable, including the use of the word "Original Mind" (with capital letters). To the extent that the english speaking world is Buddhist it has a Mahayana bias which shows up in translations of even Theravada works.
It is really a problem of talking something that was meant as a here-and-now discourse to a specific group of people and writing it down and now here we are talking about it as if it's some sort of doctrine, which it isn't. My sense is that he would be very much disturbed to see this kind of debate over his talks.
-M
Native English speakers also have to keep in mind that a lot of these talks have been translated from Thai and some of these translations might be questionable, including the use of the word "Original Mind" (with capital letters). To the extent that the english speaking world is Buddhist it has a Mahayana bias which shows up in translations of even Theravada works.
It is really a problem of talking something that was meant as a here-and-now discourse to a specific group of people and writing it down and now here we are talking about it as if it's some sort of doctrine, which it isn't. My sense is that he would be very much disturbed to see this kind of debate over his talks.
-M
Re: Ajahn Chah Zen Theravada?
I strongly suspect that you are correct on all points meindzi.
Re: Ajahn Chah Zen Theravada?
( except the minor point that many of them have been translated from the Lao, Luang Por was Kon Isan, they are Lao speakers. )PeterB wrote:I strongly suspect that you are correct on all points meindzi.
Many of the talks have been edited by Jack Kornfield who was a monk for a relatively short time in the Forest Sangha and is a key player in the " Pan Buddhist" movement...
Re: Ajahn Chah Zen Theravada?
Hello meindzai,meindzai wrote: It is really a problem of talking something that was meant as a here-and-now discourse to a specific group of people and writing it down and now here we are talking about it as if it's some sort of doctrine, which it isn't. My sense is that he would be very much disturbed to see this kind of debate over his talks.
Just as an aside, weren't the Suttas originally "here-and-now" discourses for "a specific group of people?" Ultimately, a teacher can only teach "here-and-now" to "a specific group of people." Otherwise the teacher would be more of a philosopher, no? In the end, it's all about getting down to the root of this "birth and death" thing, no?
(My apologies if "necor-posting" is frowned upon here)
Metta and Anjali,
Saijun
Re: Ajahn Chah Zen Theravada?
Good points, the tendency to "reify", to see it as doctrine and then hold on to it, is strong. But to start with, it's OK I think. There is much that we hold on to that would be great to replace with "Buddhist dogma" for a while!Saijun wrote:Hello meindzai,meindzai wrote: It is really a problem of talking something that was meant as a here-and-now discourse to a specific group of people and writing it down and now here we are talking about it as if it's some sort of doctrine, which it isn't. My sense is that he would be very much disturbed to see this kind of debate over his talks.
Just as an aside, weren't the Suttas originally "here-and-now" discourses for "a specific group of people?" Ultimately, a teacher can only teach "here-and-now" to "a specific group of people." Otherwise the teacher would be more of a philosopher, no? In the end, it's all about getting down to the root of this "birth and death" thing, no?
(My apologies if "necor-posting" is frowned upon here)
Metta and Anjali,
Saijun
_/|\_
Re: Ajahn Chah Zen Theravada?
That is a good point Dan...I think we can be too hard on ourselves , thinking that we have to launch into sunnata before next tuesday.
I think I may have over egged the pudding earlier in this thread. In emphasising Ajahn Chah's distancing himself from reliance of concepts I may have made some concepts more worthy of distance that others..And in terms of utility that may not have been skillful.
If the raft floats....
I think I may have over egged the pudding earlier in this thread. In emphasising Ajahn Chah's distancing himself from reliance of concepts I may have made some concepts more worthy of distance that others..And in terms of utility that may not have been skillful.
If the raft floats....
Re: Ajahn Chah Zen Theravada?
Seems pretty simple to me. They (zen and forest tradition) are reporting the same experience so it sounds similar. Check the sig.
“The truth knocks on the door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes away. Puzzling.” ― Robert M. Pirsig
Re: Ajahn Chah Zen Theravada?
-A Tree in the ForestMany people contend that since the mind is inherently pure, since we all have Buddha nature, it's not necessary to practise. But this is like taking something clean, like this tray, for example, and thenI come and drop some dung on it. Will you say that this tray is originally clean, and so you don't have to do anything to clean it now?"
May you be happy. May you be a peace. May you be free from suffering.
http://www.everythingspirals.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.everythingspirals.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 12:29 am
Re: Ajahn Chah Zen Theravada?
He had a lot of respect for Huineng. His words were, "his dhamma was very keen."