The mind by Ajahn Chah

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
gavesako
Posts: 1794
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: The mind by Ajahn Chah

Post by gavesako »

DarwidHalim wrote:
gavesako wrote:Western readers see what they want to see in Ajahn Chah: this quote has been a bit "spiced up" in the English translation to sound like something out of Advaita teachings or similar (because the translators were into that). But if you read it in Thai and put it in the context of Ajahn Chah's teachings in general, there is nothing that strange about it, he is just talking about the way the mind gets conditioned to certain habits which is a normal Theravada explanation. And there are lots of references to Suttas and similes taken from Suttas all through his talks. He only came across Thai translations of some Zen masters at the end of his life.
Hi Bhante,

Is it possible that we have your translation as well, so we can see how far the things have been spiced up?

If you read the original Thai version then you will see how certain Pali words are used which have been given slightly different meaning in the Thai language. Also such expressions as "original mind" are idiomatic in the Thai forest tradition, but the Western translators related it to things they have read in Advaita books and Zen books which had no connection with this tradition.

Here is the revised translation which we have done some time ago (I am not sure which one was used for the latest "standard edition" though):

Training this Mind1

Training this mind... actually there's nothing much to this mind. It's simply radiant in and of itself. It's naturally peaceful. Why the mind doesn't feel peaceful right now is because it gets lost in its own moods. There's nothing to mind itself. It simply abides in its natural state, that's all. That sometimes the mind feels peaceful and other times not peaceful is because it has been tricked by these moods. The untrained mind lacks wisdom. It's foolish. Moods come and trick it into feeling pleasure one minute and suffering the next. Happiness then sadness. But the natural state of a person's mind isn't one of happiness or sadness. This experience of happiness and sadness is not the actual mind itself, but just these moods which have tricked it. The mind gets lost, carried away by these moods with no idea what's happening. And as a result, we experience pleasure and pain accordingly, because the mind has not been trained yet. It still isn't very clever. And we go on thinking that it's our mind which is suffering or our mind which is happy, when actually it's just lost in its various moods.
The point is that really this mind of ours is naturally peaceful. It's still and calm like a leaf that is not being blown about by the wind. But if the wind blows then it flutters. It does that because of the wind. And so with the mind it's because of these moods - getting caught up with thoughts. If the mind didn't get lost in these moods it wouldn't flutter about. If it understood the nature of thoughts it would just stay still. This is called the natural state of the mind. And why we have come to practice now is to see the mind in this original state. We think that the mind itself is actually pleasurable or peaceful. But really the mind has not created any real pleasure or pain. These thoughts have come and tricked it and it has got caught up in them. So we really have to come and train our minds in order to grow in wisdom. So that we understand the true nature of thoughts rather than just following them blindly.
The mind is naturally peaceful. It's in order to understand just this much that we have come together to do this difficult practice of meditation.
http://www.ajahnchah.org/book/Training_this_Mind1.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The point I am making is echoed in this article as well:

The most ludicruous calumny is committed against Ajahn Chah on this score: quotations from his lectures "Food for the Heart" are taken out of context as if they were a justification for voluntary ignorance. In the fourth chapter he remarks, "For the best practice, as I see it, it isn't necessary to read many books. Take all the books and lock them away. Just read your own mind." What is forgotten in reading such an excerpt is that the lecture was not given to laypeople, and definitely not western laypeople, but to Thai monks who had already completed many years of textual study, and, indeed, written examinations. This is obvious even in the next sentence of the quotation, "You have all been burying yourselves in books from the time you entered school. I think that now you have this opportunity and have the time, take the books, put them in a cupboard and lock the door. Just read your mind." I do not think that anyone could read this set of lectures as a whole and think that Ajahn Chah was endorsing the notion that westerners who already live in ignorance should continue to live in ignorance (I say this explicitly because I have both heard and read Ajahn Chah cited as an authority to this effect). The same set of lectures contains numerous statements about the importance of textual scholarship, and the monks (addressed as the audience) are all presumed to be studiously preparing for Thailand's system of exams throughout (some of the advice emphasizing practice is stated explicitly in terms of the monks' need to recover from the distraction of having memorized and recited so much text for the exams, etc.). Somehow, this is put into the blender of post-Christian western assumptions (along with unexamined assumptions inherited from 1960s American Zen) and an anti-textual (and anti-intellectual) doctrine comes out of the mix.

On the one hand, westerners insist on "the letter of the law" when it suits them, and then, on the other hand, they ignore a huge volume of text (and philosophical text at that) when it contradicts them.
http://a-bas-le-ciel.blogspot.com/2012/ ... odoxy.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Bhikkhu Gavesako
Kiṃkusalagavesī anuttaraṃ santivarapadaṃ pariyesamāno... (MN 26)

Access to Insight - Theravada texts
Ancient Buddhist Texts - Translations and history of Pali texts
Dhammatalks.org - Sutta translations
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: The mind by Ajahn Chah

Post by Mr Man »

Hi Bhikku Gavesako
Do you have a link to an audio file for this talk?
:anjali:
User avatar
gavesako
Posts: 1794
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: The mind by Ajahn Chah

Post by gavesako »

Not sure if an original audio file still exists, but I remember looking at the Thai text version.

In case you are interested, tomorrow 17th June is the anniversary of Ajahn Chah's birthday. I am sure he has realized the "original mind" that he spoke of...

:anjali:
Bhikkhu Gavesako
Kiṃkusalagavesī anuttaraṃ santivarapadaṃ pariyesamāno... (MN 26)

Access to Insight - Theravada texts
Ancient Buddhist Texts - Translations and history of Pali texts
Dhammatalks.org - Sutta translations
User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: The mind by Ajahn Chah

Post by DarwidHalim »

Thanks Bhante for the alternative.

By the way, what is the main issue or disagreement between the translation in the magazine and the one that you provide. Basically, I can't see the difference.

What is the complain or issue about this labeling "Original Mind"?
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
bodom
Posts: 7216
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: The mind by Ajahn Chah

Post by bodom »

Ajahn Chah talks about "original mind" here:
Q: Is this mind you are talking about called the 'Original Mind'?

A: What do you mean?

Q: It seems as if you are saying there is something else outside of the conventional body-mind (five khanda). 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...
Continued...

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Ajahn_ ... HE_WAY.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:anjali:
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: The mind by Ajahn Chah

Post by danieLion »

bodom wrote:Hi danieLion
Other candidates?


Within the Thai tradition Buddadasa Bhikkhu often mentions Zen in his writings

Larry Rosenberg and Gil Fronsdal come to mind as well, both vipassana teachers with extensive backgrounds in the Zen tradition and have a Zen flavor to their teachings.

Larry Rosenberg
http://www.cimc.info/teachers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gil Fronsdal
http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/teachers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If we trust the source (and I do), we should no be surprised at similarities. Right?


All the varied traditions of Buddhism have non clinging and liberation as the final goal. Whether one takes the Theravadin or Zen path matters not as they all have the same destination.

:anjali:
Can't believe I forgot GIl.
metta
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: The mind by Ajahn Chah

Post by ground »

All this mind talk is just reification of an idea and it provides conceptual support for those inclined to soul/mind theories and/or permanence. Being aware that all this thinking that entails those utterances is just consciousness and that consciousness arises and ceases and that its arising depends on the living body and that consciousness (3rd link) arises from not-knowing (1st link) mediated by formations (2nd link) may be helpful in this context.

Kind regards
User avatar
gavesako
Posts: 1794
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: The mind by Ajahn Chah

Post by gavesako »

DarwidHalim wrote:Thanks Bhante for the alternative.

By the way, what is the main issue or disagreement between the translation in the magazine and the one that you provide. Basically, I can't see the difference.

What is the complain or issue about this labeling "Original Mind"?

The problem that I see is the Western translators (who were probably not that well grounded in Theravada tradition themselves) tend to take things out of context in order to make certain teachings more palatable to an eclectic Western audience. Such concepts as "primordial purity" or "Original Mind" have their own place and history in other traditions, and I am sure Ajahn Chah was not familiar with all that, he would have used them within the context of standard Theravada teachings and related them to his own experience.

It is better to read more of his talks and put it into that context, for example here talking about the mind:
Contemplate this: whoever it is who knows is the one who has to take responsibility for your sīla. Bring that awareness to watch over your actions and speech. That knowing, that awareness is what you use to watch over your practice. To keep sīla, you use that part of the mind which directs your actions and which leads you to do good and bad. You catch the villain and transform him into a sheriff or a mayor. Take hold of the wayward mind and bring it to serve and take responsibility for all your actions and speech. Look at this and contemplate it. The Buddha taught us to take care with our actions. Who is it who does the taking care? The body doesn't know anything; it just stands, walks around and so on. The hands are the same; they don't know anything. Before they touch or take hold of anything, there has to be someone who gives them orders. As they pick things up and put them down there has to be someone telling them what to do. The hands themselves aren't aware of anything; there has to be someone giving them orders. The mouth is the same - whatever it says, whether it tells the truth or lies, is rude or divisive, there must be someone telling it what to say.
The practice involves establishing sati, mindfulness, within this 'one who knows.' The 'one who knows' is that intention of mind, which previously motivated us to kill living beings, steal other people's property, indulge in illicit sex, lie, slander, say foolish and frivolous things and engage in all the kinds of unrestrained behaviour. The 'one who knows' led us to speak. It exists within the mind. Focus your mindfulness or sati - that constant recollectedness - on this 'one who knows.' Let the knowing look after your practice.
http://www.ajahnchah.org/book/Path_Peace.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In another talk he says that we can't really trust this mind or the 'one who knows' because it knows wrongly, so it requires quite a lot of training to make it know things correctly. It is not just a matter of "dropping into primordial purity of our Buddha Nature".
Bhikkhu Gavesako
Kiṃkusalagavesī anuttaraṃ santivarapadaṃ pariyesamāno... (MN 26)

Access to Insight - Theravada texts
Ancient Buddhist Texts - Translations and history of Pali texts
Dhammatalks.org - Sutta translations
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The mind by Ajahn Chah

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
ground wrote:All this mind talk is just reification of an idea and it provides conceptual support for those inclined to soul/mind theories and/or permanence. Being aware that all this thinking that entails those utterances is just consciousness and that consciousness arises and ceases and that its arising depends on the living body and that consciousness (3rd link) arises from not-knowing (1st link) mediated by formations (2nd link) may be helpful in this context.
:goodpost:

:clap:

Bang on the mark.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: The mind by Ajahn Chah

Post by DarwidHalim »

gavesako wrote: Such concepts as "primordial purity" or "Original Mind" have their own place and history in other traditions, and I am sure Ajahn Chah was not familiar with all that, he would have used them within the context of standard Theravada teachings and related them to his own experience.
COmparing these 2 translations:
Magazine (3rd sentence):
[This mind] is intrinsically pure.

Other translation:
[This mind] is naturally peaceful.

I have a question here:
Can something naturally peaceful not intrinsically pure?
Can something intrinsically pure not naturally peaceful?
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
gavesako
Posts: 1794
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: The mind by Ajahn Chah

Post by gavesako »

See http://mettarefuge.wordpress.com/2010/0 ... ha-nature/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Concluding this week’s theme of iconoclasm and “outside the Buddha-box” insight, I offer this essay by one of my favorite dharma teachers, Thanissaro Bhikkhu. The provocative title says it all: Freedom from Buddha Nature.

What? A Buddhist teacher who says that there is no innate, inherent Buddha nature? Isn’t that a cornerstone of Buddhist teaching? No, actually, this concept of a Buddha nature is not universal in Buddhism. The term is not even found in the Pali canon, the earliest teachings attributed to the Buddha. Nor is the idea of an inherent Buddha nature part of the Theravadan understanding of what the Buddha taught as the way to Awakening.

From the Theravadan viewpoint, there are problems with the metaphysical assumption of a Buddha nature:

If you assume a Buddha nature, you not only risk complacency but you also entangle yourself in metaphysical thorn patches: If something with an awakened nature can suffer, what good is it? How could something innately awakened become defiled? If your original Buddha nature became deluded, what’s to prevent it from becoming deluded after it’s re-awakened?
Bhikkhu Gavesako
Kiṃkusalagavesī anuttaraṃ santivarapadaṃ pariyesamāno... (MN 26)

Access to Insight - Theravada texts
Ancient Buddhist Texts - Translations and history of Pali texts
Dhammatalks.org - Sutta translations
User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: The mind by Ajahn Chah

Post by DarwidHalim »

gavesako wrote:
If you assume a Buddha nature, you not only risk complacency but you also entangle yourself in metaphysical thorn patches: If something with an awakened nature can suffer, what good is it? How could something innately awakened become defiled? If your original Buddha nature became deluded, what’s to prevent it from becoming deluded after it’s re-awakened?
If that view is maintained, then this sentence ("THe mind is naturally peaceful") also has a problem.

Because if mind is naturally peaceful, how can it also become disturb and not peaceful?
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The mind by Ajahn Chah

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Darwid,
DarwidHalim wrote: If that view is maintained, then this sentence ("THe mind is naturally peaceful") also has a problem.
Who said the mind is naturally peaceful?

Are you thinking of this sutta? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements."
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements."
:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: The mind by Ajahn Chah

Post by Mr Man »

gavesako wrote:

The problem that I see is the Western translators (who were probably not that well grounded in Theravada tradition themselves) tend to take things out of context in order to make certain teachings more palatable to an eclectic Western audience. Such concepts as "primordial purity" or "Original Mind" have their own place and history in other traditions, and I am sure Ajahn Chah was not familiar with all that, he would have used them within the context of standard Theravada teachings and related them to his own experience.

With respect Bhante, In my opinion the original translators (of "A taste of Freedom") had a good grasp of the context of Ajahn Chah's teaching. They were there and lived with him. What was the context of Ajahn Chah's teaching? Was he teaching for prosperity or to be comply with Theravada orthodoxy? Or was it for the immediate? To some extent I'm sure we are all guilty of trying to re-write Ajahn Chah into what we would like him to be. Unfortunately he is no lomger here to pop the bubbles.
:anjali:
User avatar
gavesako
Posts: 1794
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: The mind by Ajahn Chah

Post by gavesako »

DarwidHalim wrote:
gavesako wrote:
If you assume a Buddha nature, you not only risk complacency but you also entangle yourself in metaphysical thorn patches: If something with an awakened nature can suffer, what good is it? How could something innately awakened become defiled? If your original Buddha nature became deluded, what’s to prevent it from becoming deluded after it’s re-awakened?
If that view is maintained, then this sentence ("THe mind is naturally peaceful") also has a problem.

Because if mind is naturally peaceful, how can it also become disturb and not peaceful?

There is no problem in the Ajahn Chah quote because he is not referring to some supposed metaphysical "original purity" that got defiled at a later stage. Instead, he is just reflecting on the present moment and how, when there is ignorance in the mind, mental fabrications are created which lead (following the sequence of dependent arising) to craving and grasping -- and how this whole structure can be disbanded when there is clear seeing and mindfulness watching over our consciousness.
Bhikkhu Gavesako
Kiṃkusalagavesī anuttaraṃ santivarapadaṃ pariyesamāno... (MN 26)

Access to Insight - Theravada texts
Ancient Buddhist Texts - Translations and history of Pali texts
Dhammatalks.org - Sutta translations
Post Reply