Is it true that Maha Boowa was a smoker ?

[learnMeditate]

This discussion reminds me what Ajahn Chao Khun Keng described when the Most Respected Luang Puu Jia visited Singapore, half participants left the meditation hall when Luang Puu Jia started smoking,

Cited from page 93 of Ajahn Chao Khun Keng's biography book at https://santiforestmonastery.org/books/ ... -flipbook/:

"That year when Luang Puu Jia went to Singapore, he taught meditation, and each session was a three hour sit. That impressed many, as such an old monk could sit and lead the class without talking much. Luang Puu Jia was a smoker and was not aware of the anti-smoking stand the majority of Singaporeans held. On one occasion, he started to smoke in the sala after the meditation session. He was puzzled when the sala became half emptied of meditators, but he did not mind as large attendance numbers were of no importance to him."

I am afraid that for most Thai Patriarch monks including my Grand Master Luangta Maha Boowa, smoking or consuming Betel-nut were very common at their generation, while among the young generation Thai forest monks around me, none of them was a smoker, and during the Pindapata Alms round, I have never seen any cigarette had been offered by the laity so far.

So I would rather say this might be more related to the culture and generation difference, for example tattoo is still very common in the new generation of Thai monks, however having body-tattoo can still be labelled as a "not good-person" sign in the traditional Chinese community.

Personally if I would like to address one more culture or society difference, I have to say that it's the usage of plastic bags which has been considered as pollution and gets banned in many developed countries, while it's not the case in Thailand, thousands of plastic bags have been used in the Pindapata Alms round daily morning while nobody cares or realizes this issue of pollution, I do wish one day the Pindapata Alms round can also be "green" with environmental health to Earth our mother land.

And of course above are my personal observations only, which could not represent other Thai monasteries and other Thai forest monks.

[zerotime]

So I would rather say this might be more related to the culture and generation difference

indeed. In example, today we damage our health with phone microwaves classified like a 2B carcinogen class, and also we pollute the people around us. And also it has a global problematic with serious illnesses, addictions, therapies, and the rest.
Very similar, although nobody cares.

Just social beliefs on health in different times.

On one occasion, he started to smoke in the sala after the meditation session. He was puzzled when the sala became half emptied of meditators, but he did not mind as large attendance numbers were of no importance to him."

funny. Maybe it was useful to filter those interested in Dhamma

[Sam Vara]

funny. Maybe it was useful to filter those interested in Dhamma

If that's an intended pun, it's a good one!

[Radix]

funny. Maybe it was useful to filter those interested in Dhamma

If that's an intended pun, it's a good one!

Well, what then? Are we supposed to believe that the monks who smoke do so because -- gasp -- they are addicted? That after decades of committed Dhamma practice, they still haven't overcome the craving for sensual pleasures?

[santa100]

Well, what then? Are we supposed to believe that the monks who smoke do so because -- gasp -- they are addicted? That after decades of committed Dhamma practice, they still haven't overcome the craving for sensual pleasures?

It's a matter of perspective, decades of committed Dhamma practice seems pretty long within a human's lifespan, but it's literally a blink of an eye or even shorter compared to gazillion of lifetimes of committed sensual pleasure practice, which most humans have been doing, lay and monastics alike!

[Radix]

It's a matter of perspective, decades of committed Dhamma practice seems pretty long within a human's lifespan, but it's literally a blink of an eye or even shorter compared to gazillion of lifetimes of committed sensual pleasure practice, which most humans have been doing, lay and monastics alike!

But that means that monks* are being viewed as hardly much different than ordinary people!


*Monks as in "people who have decided they are willing to invest all they have in the pursuit of the Dhamma and to live at the mercy of other people (and other beings)". Ordinary people are not like that.

[santa100]

It's a matter of perspective, decades of committed Dhamma practice seems pretty long within a human's lifespan, but it's literally a blink of an eye or even shorter compared to gazillion of lifetimes of committed sensual pleasure practice, which most humans have been doing, lay and monastics alike!

But that means that monks* are being viewed as hardly much different than ordinary people!


*Monks as in "people who have decided they are willing to invest all they have in the pursuit of the Dhamma and to live at the mercy of other people (and other beings)". Ordinary people are not like that.

Well, can you provide proof that monks are automatically better than ordinary people?? Also, how would you know that a particular monk has decided they are willing to invest "ALL" they have in the pursuit of the Dhamma??

[Sam Vara]

funny. Maybe it was useful to filter those interested in Dhamma

If that's an intended pun, it's a good one!

Well, what then? Are we supposed to believe that the monks who smoke do so because -- gasp -- they are addicted? That after decades of committed Dhamma practice, they still haven't overcome the craving for sensual pleasures?

I was really only commenting on the intentional or unintentional pun. Your "gasp" bit is quite creditable too.

I don't know what you mean by "Well, what then?" I've no idea as to whether the monks in question have overcome craving for sensual pleasures, or are addicted. I've no strong feelings about it either way. If you have, it's not something I can help with.

[Joe.c]

Luang Puu Jia was a smoker and was not aware of the anti-smoking stand the majority of Singaporeans held. On one occasion, he started to smoke in the sala after the meditation session. He was puzzled when the sala became half emptied of meditators,."

Well i guess the one who left are very smart.

From human science perspective, smoking is bad for the person who smoke and for one who close to smoker (2nd hand smoker), it causes cancer.

From dhamma perspective, how can one who taught a meditation can still stuck with enjoying 5 senses. When one has attained jhana, the pleasure of jhana is higher than smoking or even eating for sure.

There is also no satisampajanna for sure.

This teaching is about total experience/phenomena of one’s life. Not merely just for couple hours of seating. But 24/7 observation and gain wisdom similar to Buddha and other Ariyas.

but he did not mind as large attendance numbers were of no importance to him

This means he can’t reflect on his act. Still no wisdom yet.

Can you Imagine if Buddha or his true disciples teach about let go the 5 senses, but they are still eating a lot or chewing when talking or smoking after meditation? Totally in conflict with whatever they teach, you probably will left right away.

That is not vijjacaranasampano btw.

[AgarikaJ]

I've no idea as to whether the monks in question have overcome craving for sensual pleasures, or are addicted. I've no strong feelings about it either way.

An interesting position from Ajahn Sumedho in his book The Wheel of Truth, p.315.

He seems to warn that such value judgements, which others in this discussion have provided quite freely, are not productive for ourselves.

Maybe an interesting dilemma to meditate on: observing behaviour which we deem 'disappointing' in others leads us into moral judgements, thereby betraying (or, formulated less aggressively, offer insight into) our automatic reactions of the ongoing conditioned state of our own mind.

Which one is better for our own practice: retreating from moral judgement of others (but thereby maybe accepting such behaviour, even in our suppposed teachers), or going on to judge (in acceptance that we are still helplessly conditioned with little discernable progress towards releasing our own mind)?

I find it very interesting, that the participants in this thread seem to be split very distinctly into those two groups, without much overlap in opinion or a middle ground.

It’s interesting to see how some Westerners who become Theravada monks or nuns can be very intelligent and well-educated but, because of the way their minds have been conditioned, they tend to interpret the holy life in terms of personal attainment – of becoming somebody special.

There is a rule within our monastic tradition that prohibits us from going around announcing our attainments. But in Thailand everyone said that Ajahn Chah was an arahant – though he never said so. Then people would see him smoking a cigarette and they’d think: ‘Arahants wouldn’t smoke cigarettes, so he couldn’t be an arahant!’

The conditioned mind tends to hold on to a fixed idea of an [arahant] as an absolutely, totally refined, goody-good person who’d never do anything coarse but is always perfect in what they say and how they live. We want them to be perfect according to our ideal, so when we see any kind of flaw we become critical, disappointed, disillusioned and doubtful about them.

It’s a function of our mind; we are creating our own arahants. And whatever we create in our own mind can easily become the opposite.

What we can do is to observe this whole process of projection: of our creation of an ideal person, the ideal teacher. We begin to see how it’s just an ideal. The perfect ideal is always the same, like a marble image. If a teacher does something which is totally opposite to what we think should be done, to what we imagine is perfect, we can feel quite upset or disappointed.

So we may feel that somehow we have to deal with it, to justify it: ‘He can behave like that because he is an enlightened being.’ We are willing to overlook crude or bad manners or worse than that. We won’t allow doubt to arise in our mind with regard to that person. Or at the other extreme, we think: ‘That person is a bad person, they couldn’t be enlightened.’

We dismiss them, but if we keep to this practice of mindfulness we see that it’s not really up to us to make a categorical moral judgement about other people. It’s not our business to judge them as good or bad. What we can always do is to listen and be aware of our own conditioned reactions to anything that we’re experiencing.

[Meormineisnotreal]

Luangta Maha Boowa talks about monks being addicted to cigarettes. Why?!

[AgarikaJ]

Luangta Maha Boowa talks about monks being addicted to cigarettes.

Thank you for finding this great video.

I find it clear and logical what Ajahn Maha Bua was saying here.

But I accept the likelihood that opinions, once fixed, are difficult to change... this is true for me and surely others as well.

[Radix]

Luangta Maha Boowa talks about monks being addicted to cigarettes. Why?!

Can somebody translate, please?

[Radix]

Well, can you provide proof that monks are automatically better than ordinary people??

They should be better, otherwise what's the point in ordaining??

Also, how would you know that a particular monk has decided they are willing to invest "ALL" they have in the pursuit of the Dhamma??

Ideally, they should.

I don't know what you mean by "Well, what then?" I've no idea as to whether the monks in question have overcome craving for sensual pleasures, or are addicted. I've no strong feelings about it either way. If you have, it's not something I can help with.

You and your dismally low standards and lack of ideals!

[Radix]

He seems to warn that such value judgements, which others in this discussion have provided quite freely, are not productive for ourselves.

It depends on how comfortable one is with having (high) standards and ideals.

Some people, esp. the politically correct Buddhists, seem to think that whenever someone makes moral judgments or is disappointed in others, this inevitably looks and feels something like

.

I think this just speaks of the moral and intellectual poverty of those politically correct Buddhists.

Maybe an interesting dilemma to meditate on: observing behaviour which we deem 'disappointing' in others leads us into moral judgements, thereby betraying (or, formulated less aggressively, offer insight into) our automatic reactions of the ongoing conditioned state of our own mind.

Which one is better for our own practice: retreating from moral judgement of others (but thereby maybe accepting such behaviour, even in our suppposed teachers), or going on to judge (in acceptance that we are still helplessly conditioned with little discernable progress towards releasing our own mind)?

If one is not confident about one's standards and ideals, or if one is not even confident in the very notion of having standards and ideals (it's extremely politically incorrect to have standards and ideals), then, sure, whatever judgment might come up in one's mind is likely going to be very burdensome and hindersome.

It’s interesting to see how some Westerners who become Theravada monks or nuns can be very intelligent and well-educated but, because of the way their minds have been conditioned, they tend to interpret the holy life in terms of personal attainment – of becoming somebody special.

There is a rule within our monastic tradition that prohibits us from going around announcing our attainments. But in Thailand everyone said that Ajahn Chah was an arahant – though he never said so. Then people would see him smoking a cigarette and they’d think: ‘Arahants wouldn’t smoke cigarettes, so he couldn’t be an arahant!’

The conditioned mind tends to hold on to a fixed idea of an [arahant] as an absolutely, totally refined, goody-good person who’d never do anything coarse but is always perfect in what they say and how they live. We want them to be perfect according to our ideal, so when we see any kind of flaw we become critical, disappointed, disillusioned and doubtful about them.

It’s a function of our mind; we are creating our own arahants. And whatever we create in our own mind can easily become the opposite.

What we can do is to observe this whole process of projection: of our creation of an ideal person, the ideal teacher. We begin to see how it’s just an ideal. The perfect ideal is always the same, like a marble image. If a teacher does something which is totally opposite to what we think should be done, to what we imagine is perfect, we can feel quite upset or disappointed.

So we may feel that somehow we have to deal with it, to justify it: ‘He can behave like that because he is an enlightened being.’ We are willing to overlook crude or bad manners or worse than that. We won’t allow doubt to arise in our mind with regard to that person. Or at the other extreme, we think: ‘That person is a bad person, they couldn’t be enlightened.’

We dismiss them, but if we keep to this practice of mindfulness we see that it’s not really up to us to make a categorical moral judgement about other people. It’s not our business to judge them as good or bad. What we can always do is to listen and be aware of our own conditioned reactions to anything that we’re experiencing.

I think this kind of thinking just shows a lack of proper criticial thinking, a lack of love for wisdom. And, of course, a commitment to quietism. "If you can just find a way to always blame yourself, then all will be well!"