Heretic teaching of Ajahn Sumedho?

[SarathW]

I understand it, but they all believe that Nibbana is an existing reallity.

You know what all Dhammayut monks believe?

Ajahn Thanissaro is one monk.

I don't know all, but I found some other few famous Dhammayutta Buddhist monks, they all seem to believe the same.

[Mr Man]

I understand it, but they all believe that Nibbana is an existing reallity.

You know what all Dhammayut monks believe?

Ajahn Thanissaro is one monk.

I don't know all, but I found some other few famous Dhammayutta Buddhist monks, they all seem to believe the same.

Have you spoken to any and asked them if they believe that "Nibbana is an existing reallity"?

[SarathW]

No.
I have only read their teachings.
I even have not spoken to Buddha except reading Sutta translations in English.

[DooDoot]

I understand it, but they all believe that Nibbana is an existing reality.

Similar to the Buddha, who declared: "Atthi, bhikkhave, ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ". Heretic teaching of SarathW .

MN 130

[SarathW]

I understand it, but they all believe that Nibbana is an existing reality.

Similar to the Buddha, who declared: "Atthi, bhikkhave, ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ". Heretic teaching of SarathW .

MN 130

I know that you also beleive Nibbana as an existing reality.
You want to go to Nibbana instead of heaven.

[DooDoot]

I know that you also beleive Nibbana as an existing reality.
You want to go to Nibbana instead of heaven.

Irrelevant. Buddha said Nibbana exists & is real.

[Zom]

that Nibbana is a type of permanent consciousness.

This is just an eternalism.

[SarathW]

that Nibbana is a type of permanent consciousness.

This is just an eternalism.

[SarathW]

I know that you also beleive Nibbana as an existing reality.
You want to go to Nibbana instead of heaven.

Irrelevant. Buddha said Nibbana exists & is real.

Exist to who? Real to who?

[DooDoot]

Exist to who? Real to who?

Irrelevant. Its like saying anatta is real because of a self.

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

Is he from Dhammayutta linage?

No, but what is the relevance.

Because Dhammayutta Nikaya monks believe in an objectified Nibbana.

My impression is: Different Thai ajahns used similar wordings; but with different shades of meanings.


Thanissaro Bhikkhu is Dhammayut. Of Mahanikaya, Ajahn Chah used the term original mind, while on direct questioning, categorically denied it as neither self, nor something else outside of the conventional body-mind (five khanda).

• Ajahn Chah (& Original Mind):
  • https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/tha ... steof.html

    • Our practice is simply to see the Original Mind.

    On the other hand:
    https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Ajahn ... HE_WAY.htm

    • 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, 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.

• Ajahn Chah & Ajahn Sumedo:
  • Yet, Ajahn Sumedho used the terms "permanent consciousness" and "universal consciousness on answering the questions very calm, may be even calmer than Ven. Ajahn Chah, according to the wordings used, imo. And, the Amaravati teachings are said to be "in the tradition of Ajahn Chah & Ajahn Sumedo".
    
    My question is "Are the views of the two venerables essentially the same, or essentially different, or differing only "on the surface"?"
    And, my answer is they are essentially the same, both are right, but not necessarily be complete, nor necessarily be in line with conventional academic Buddhist teachings. Furthermore, I believe, Ajahn Sumedo & some other Venerables of the monastery don't teach something that is fundamentally contradicted to Venerable Ajahn Chah's teachings.

• Ajahn Sumedho and Ajahn Buddhadasa (on "Chit wang" mentioned the video):
  • Another thing is, like Ajahn Sumedo, Ven. Buddhadasa used the term "Chit wang" for the "Freed-mind". However, Ven. Buddhadasa explicitly refuted the presense of "Self" or even "Soul" or "Atman"; there's no room for Soul, let alone Self, according to Ven. Buddhadasa.
    
    Chit wang, "freed-mind," is not the end; it denotes the state of mind which should be established if one is to attain Nibbana, according to Ven. Buddhadasa. I agree.

And, these points too lead to my former conclusion of: https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.p ... 30#p589430

[DooDoot]

original mind

pabhassara cittaṃ

, like Ajahn Sumedo, Ven. Buddhadasa used the term "Chit wang" for the "Freed-mind".

Like Ven. Buddhadasa, Ajahn Sumedo used the term "Chit wang" for the "Freed-mind".

[bpallister]

I am not trying to impress you, Paul, and I don't perceive a slightest bit of openness in your position, so I don't harbour any hope in convincing you of anything. It is just to tease out exactly where you stand in regard to a multitude of teachings by prominent modern Theravada teachers on this subject. And also to show that what this guy's saying is not at all unusual in modern Theravada.

Basically you hold that Ajahn Sumedho peddles distortions and foo foo, correct?

Just because he is Ajahn Sumedho doesn't mean he always has right view. The Buddha always had right view, so I would go to his words.

[Dan74]

I am not trying to impress you, Paul, and I don't perceive a slightest bit of openness in your position, so I don't harbour any hope in convincing you of anything. It is just to tease out exactly where you stand in regard to a multitude of teachings by prominent modern Theravada teachers on this subject. And also to show that what this guy's saying is not at all unusual in modern Theravada.

Basically you hold that Ajahn Sumedho peddles distortions and foo foo, correct?

Just because he is Ajahn Sumedho doesn't mean he always has right view. The Buddha always had right view, so I would go to his words.

This seems simplistic. The differences arise not because of choosing to follow a modern teacher over the Buddha, but because of a variety of interpretations of what the Buddha taught and his purpose. I am sure, Ajahn Sumedho, a monk of some 55 years, cares much more about the Buddha's words than you or me and would not want to lead people astray for one moment. If his teachings appear to deviate from the Buddha's, the chance is high it's because we are misinterpreting either the former or the latter.

[Ceisiwr]

If his teachings appear to deviate from the Buddha's, the chance is high it's because we are misinterpreting either the former or the latter.

How are we to interpret an eternal awareness? It seems to me the venerable really means there is such a thing, so either the Buddha taught this or Ajahn Sumedho is mistaken here. If he is correct, then other monks who have also spent 50 odd years meditating and keeping virtue yet hold a different view are wrong. They could of course be wrong, as could Ajahn Sumedho. I get of course why people feel uncomfortable criticising his views, but he is not the Buddhist Pope. It is possible that he has spent 50 years with good virtue and meditation, yet has tripped at the last hurdle. Or, to put it another way, got stuck on consciousness.