Is it true that Maha Boowa was a smoker ?

[Sam Vara]

Originally, I was posting in my capacity as someone capable of correcting your claim that smoking is encouraged in some monastic traditions as a means of aiding breath meditation via lung disease. That's caring about the truth, which is different from caring about people's personal habits.

I mean, the irony of this is just over the top. You say you care about the truth, but you care not to actually correctly quote what I said.

I'm happy for you to correct me where I have misquoted you, Radix.

[DNS]

By Google Translate:

Who will say you're crazy and don't care? Because of the power of Compassion is above everything. Too much to come Yom Kippur, he says so, he says so.

I think this must be lost in translation. Yom Kippur is a very important religious holiday in Judaism and don't see it's relevance here.

[Radix]

Whatever you want to call it - claim, speculation, hypothesis, alternative explanation, hunch, knowledge, possibility

Apples, oranges, black, white, near, far, it's all the same, why bother with words! Why don't we just grunt!!

- I'm happy to point out that it's plain daft.

It's more face-saving for the monks in comparison to suggesting that they smoke because they are just plain addicted -- to nicotine or sensual pleasures.


The idea that the monks who smoke (and those who defend monastic smoking) do so because they are addicted has far-reaching implications. If your teacher or his teacher smoke(d) and you suppose they do so because they are addicted, it means that they have not overcome sensual craving. If that is so, how can they correctly teach the Dhamma? Other than by incident?

[Radix]

I'm happy for you to correct me where I have misquoted you, Radix.

Unfortunately, I cannot correct your Humpty-Dumptyism.

[Sam Vara]

Whatever you want to call it - claim, speculation, hypothesis, alternative explanation, hunch, knowledge, possibility

Apples, oranges, black, white, near, far, it's all the same, why bother with words! Why don't we just grunt!!

Because grunting doesn't normally allow important distinctions to be made. The examples you give (apples, oranges, etc.) are different things which need to be differentiated. Nobody who knew what the words denoted could mistake them. But the words you used about monks and smoking are indeed a defeasible claim.

Have another look at you asking me why I was on this thread, unless as a moderator. At first, I made a point about your claim regarding COPD as a meditative aid. Then, I was merely praising a pun, but you seemed to think I needed to take a position on something which concerns you. I dont.

[Sam Vara]

I'm happy for you to correct me where I have misquoted you, Radix.

Unfortunately, I cannot correct your Humpty-Dumptyism.

If I have misquoted you, it should be easy enough. A simple juxtaposition of what you said and what I quoted you as saying.

[Radix]

Whatever you want to call it - claim, speculation, hypothesis, alternative explanation, hunch, knowledge, possibility

Apples, oranges, black, white, near, far, it's all the same, why bother with words! Why don't we just grunt!!

Because grunting doesn't normally allow important distinctions to be made. The examples you give (apples, oranges, etc.) are different things which need to be differentiated.

Except that to you, claim, speculation, hypothesis, alternative explanation, hunch, knowledge, possibility are apparently all the same.

Nobody who knew what the words denoted could mistake them. But the words you used about monks and smoking are indeed a defeasible claim.

Have another look at you asking me why I was on this thread, unless as a moderator. At first, I made a point about your claim regarding COPD as a meditative aid.

And it still wasn't and isn't a "claim". Because I clearly said:

There's an alternative explanation:

There appears to be something of a trend that the lineages that quietly (or even openly) approve(d) of smoking also focus heavily on breathing meditation. When such monastics smoke, it's not for the ordinary pursuit of intoxication the way ordinary people do, but in order to make breathing more difficult, so that it is then easier to consciously exert effort in "breathing meditation". Once the smoking leads to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (combined with tropical pulmonary diseases and the consequences of poor nutrition), the meditative process is set, and the person cannot breathe without exerting conscious effort, and eventually then said conscious effort becomes second nature.


And besides, exposing oneself to smoke (among other things) is an ancient ascetic practice:
https://franpritchett.com/00routesdata/ ... glife1.jpg

Perhaps our valued Buddhist monastics who smoke are trying to overcome their attachment to fresh air, and to the act of breathing itself, so as to transcend it, as it were.

Note how when you quoted me here, you left out the first line, which provided the context for what follows.

Then, I was merely praising a pun, but you seemed to think I needed to take a position on something which concerns you. I dont.

There, I expressed my view, and that was a claim, that you have low standards and lack ideals.

[Sam Vara]

Apples, oranges, black, white, near, far, it's all the same, why bother with words! Why don't we just grunt!!

Because grunting doesn't normally allow important distinctions to be made. The examples you give (apples, oranges, etc.) are different things which need to be differentiated.

Except that to you, claim, speculation, hypothesis, alternative explanation, hunch, knowledge, possibility are apparently all the same.

No, I've not said that. Merely that these could all equally apply to the point you made, whereas the word "apple" could not apply to an orange, and so on.

An "alternative explanation" is a defeasible claim. The claim is that it is another way of explaining the explanandum. In this case, it doesn't.

There, I expressed my view, and that was a claim, that you have low standards and lack ideals.

That's as may be, but having actually met monks I do have some corrective saving graces in this matter of smoking.

[learnMeditate]

Hello Dharma friends,

Thanks for your interest in Luangta Maha Boowa and of course even though I pay respect to Luangta many times everyday, I still could not represent or defend for him, either for anyone else, but basically I think your key point or question is that if anyone's habit equals to addiction or sensual enjoyment, especially for those highly respected monks or considered as having achieved the highest enlightenment Sages, do they still have this kind of addiction or sensual enjoyment? I think it's a very good point, you have touched the kernel of Buddhism practices.

Please allow me to put my personal answer first:
Yeah, Luangta Maha Boowa was a smoker; but, No way there is any kind of addiction or sensual enjoyment behind that behavior.

First of all, as I said before, in the Luangta's generation or earlier era in Thailand, smoking was very common, I even doubt they had that kind of knowledge that smoking would cause the health issue and harm other people's health, just look at the fact that Luangta entered into Nirvana at the age of 97, it's a long life even nowadays, and taking into account how tough the Forest monastery environment was for those pioneers, and please do not ever expect a monk can always get "nutritious or healthy" food from the Pindapata Alms round; From the other point, if you fully believe that an addicted smoker would definitely damage his health, then by most chances Luangta could not be an addicted smoker at all as he lived a very long life.

Second, I do not know how many of you had really practiced or are practicing in the Thai Forest lineage or only read some theories from books.

Please allow me to explain to you that the core of practice is to eliminate your attachment to any desire arose, then reach the level of equanimity, and this is actually not only practiced in the Thai Forest Theravada, same practices in the Mahayana, to fully eliminate your greedy, anger and ignorance.

Monk's practices do not mean that only sit there meditating as a stone, actually it starts from the very moment you opened your eyes in the morning until you slept in the evening.

For example, when monks are collecting the food, normally people would think that yeah it's time for monks to take food to feed the body to survive and there also might have some kind of sensual enjoyments even though they only take daily one meal, as they ate very fast and looks enjoyable.

Yeah, you are absolutely right, but do you really know what's the practicing behind this daily one meal? It's to destroy your taste preference, eliminate your desire for good or preferred or bad food, all those collected food should be mixed together to remove it's original shape and taste, and as long as you raised any desire or addicted to any kind of food, your mindfulness should immediately arise and stop that desire.

I can share with you my own story, I am from a traditional Chinese Buddhist background which means I am a vegetarian, even though not so strict as a vegan, so you can expect in the very beginning how many times my emotion of dislike or like would arise in the Pindapata Alms round when I was given the meat food which I did not really want or some vegetable food I liked very much, and immediately I had to remind myself to eliminate this differentiation, anger or greedy, and reflect that no matter it's meat or vegetable, actually there are only four elements inside: Earth, Fire, Water and Wind, same as human body, that's all. This is also the practices. Nowadays I still "prefer" the vegetable food but no issue for me if I was given the meat food. I am still practicing on fully eliminating this subtle differentiation.

Monks need to keep on practicing their mindfulness so that they can be alert fast enough and be able to fight against their desires or addictions or attachments whenever arise.

and Thai Forest monks need to practice Asubha by reflecting the corpse either human or animal's body to be able to eliminate the sexual desire, basically you will see through everyone including yourself no matter how charming or ugly, white skeleton only exist in your mind through your eyes. Actually smoking is not a big deal at all, sexual desire is the most difficult hindrance on the way to get enlightenment.

Luangta Maha Boowa is very strong in the meditation, he can absorb into the advanced Jhana level in very short period and as a high advanced Asubha master which means he can see everyone through as skeleton only, do you think he will be addicted into a cigarette?

I know people also questioned and challenged Luangta Maha Boowa when Luangta burst into tears during the sharing of his enlightenment experience, same kind of question was raised, how come an enlightened Arahant can still have the ordinary people's feeling and can not control it?

But for me, my first feeling is not questioning but I am very very much deeply touched and moved by Luangta's tears, I can sense how much his love to share with other people the joy to get enlightenment and how much his eagerness to teach other people the same way to attain the enlightenment.

As for me, I do not think a fully enlightened Arahant should behave like a stone or robot, as long as you are still holding this human form, you will definitely still have some human's feelings with you but you won't have any attachment to those feelings and your body in your mind which means equanimity, and you won't have any subtle greedy, anger and ignorance still exist in your mind which means pure emptiness.

You are not the body which is going to collapse one day for sure, but the mind.

Last, this will be my final response to this discussion related to the most respected Luangta Maha Boowa, I respect Luangta very much, not because he is my Grand Master in the lineage, but also because he is a great meditation Dharma Master, an enlightened Arahant.

Meanwhile I also respect everyone's right to question and challenge anyone, however I still wish that please do not only focus on one photo, you may listen to Luangta Maha Boowa's English Dharma teachings at:

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.

[santa100]

First of all, as I said before, in the Luangta's generation or earlier era in Thailand, smoking was very common, I even doubt they had that kind of knowledge that smoking would cause the health issue and harm other people's health, just look at the fact that Luangta entered into Nirvana at the age of 97, it's a long life even nowadays, and taking into account how tough the Forest monastery environment was for those pioneers, and please do not ever expect a monk can always get "nutritious or healthy" food from the Pindapata Alms round; From the other point, if you fully believe that an addicted smoker would definitely damage his health, then by most chances Luangta could not be an addicted smoker at all as he lived a very long life.

Unfortunately the above reasoning isn't very convincing. There're always outliers in the smoking/health spectrum. Winston Churchill, Britain's WW II-era prime minister, was a chain-smoker. And he didn't just smoke regular cigarettes, he smoked cigars, and worse, he drank a lot too! Guess at what age did he die? 90. Yep, heard that right, not too shabby for a chain-smoker and heavy drinker!

Luangta Maha Boowa is very strong in the meditation, he can absorb into the advanced Jhana level in very short period and as a high advanced Asubha master which means he can see everyone through as skeleton only, do you think he will be addicted into a cigarette?

Well, then the obvious question is, how would one know that if they themselves had not attained comparable meditation levels and/or above? Though to set the record straight, I do not know the Venerable personally, hence cannot say anything for or against the OP's topic and its implication regarding his personal attainment. I simply follow what the Buddha taught in AN 4.192

[Radix]

No, I've not said that. Merely that these could all equally apply to the point you made

No. I qualified my point with "alternative explanation". You ignore my qualifier, and instead impose yours.

No means no.

[Radix]

basically I think your key point or question is that if anyone's habit equals to addiction or sensual enjoyment, especially for those highly respected monks or considered as having achieved the highest enlightenment Sages, do they still have this kind of addiction or sensual enjoyment?
/.../
Please allow me to put my personal answer first:
Yeah, Luangta Maha Boowa was a smoker; but, No way there is any kind of addiction or sensual enjoyment behind that behavior.

Then what is it?

And why would a monk do it?

Luangta Maha Boowa is very strong in the meditation, he can absorb into the advanced Jhana level in very short period and as a high advanced Asubha master which means he can see everyone through as skeleton only, do you think he will be addicted into a cigarette?

I don't know, that's why I'm asking. (Besides, thinking of people in a materialistic way is quite common.)

The relevant bit about smoking here is this: If it is possible to smoke deliberately, but without craving, then that means that the Secondary Bodhisattva Vows from Mahayana/Vajrayana make sense. According to those vows, it is possible to deliberately kill, rape, pillage, and more, and to do so without greed, aversion or delusion.

If it is possible to deliberately pursue what usually look like activities born out of craving, and to do so blamelessly, then something is wrong. Then Theravada must be wrong, or at least redundant.

[Sam Vara]

No, I've not said that. Merely that these could all equally apply to the point you made

No. I qualified my point with "alternative explanation". You ignore my qualifier, and instead impose yours.

No means no.

An "alternative explanation" has a claim to truth, otherwise it has no relation to the explanandum. Your English probably isn't good enough for you to see this, but it hardly matters. As a "claim", "alternative explanation" or anything else, it's clearly daft.

[Dan74]

I guess what I'm going to say has already been said in this long thread, but perhaps bears repeating.

1. As the Venerable above mentioned, smoking had very different cultural connotations for Ajahn Maha Boowa than to most of us here. Would you judge a monk who chewed gum? As human beings, we form habits, do things in a repetitive manner. Would you equate that to addiction? Is a monk not allowed to enjoy taking a walk at sunrise, for example?

2. Some people believe Ajahn Maha Boowa to have been an arahat, others take him as a monk of great attainment. Yet others based on their understanding of what these imply, reject both these categorisations. Aren't these all imaginings? How do we know what they imply apart from going by the Teachings? The Buddha didn't say anywhere that a monk shouldn't smoke. We impose our understanding of this behaviour (smoking) on to the Ajahn and impute him addiction to sense pleasure. But for him, it could've just been a habit like chewing gum or taking walks at sunrise.

3. There is also a question of what standard a teacher should be in order to be able to teach the Dhamma, putting aside all claims to attainment. I'd say that the teacher should know some Dhamma in order to be able to teach, to pass it on faithfully and not actively harm people who come to him or her for teaching. That's all. Then it's already valuable since it provides an opportunity for people to learn. To be a good teacher, he or she should practice and have some insight into how the teachings work and again not harm others. It's unrealistic to expect that a teacher should be free of all hindrances, I've certainly not yet had such a teacher, and they've all freely admitted that they still have hindrances.

[AgarikaJ]

1. As the Venerable above mentioned, smoking had very different cultural connotations for Ajahn Maha Boowa than to most of us here. Would you judge a monk who chewed gum? As human beings, we form habits, do things in a repetitive manner. Would you equate that to addiction?

That is a good point!

I think there is indeed a fine line there, between habit and addiction. But is this line the same when a biologist looks at the science, or a Buddhist?

As in: is mental craving not already happening long before physical addiction? Are the two even related, according to Buddhist doctrine?

Could physical addiction be possibly independent of mental craving in a Buddhist sense? Let's not forget, any Arahant, or even the Buddha, were physically human, with a normal brain, a normal body, so as such surely would undergo physical cravings as any other human. They simply might not react to it in their mind as a normal person would.

And with regard to habits, which were deemed harmless in the past, but not so now: are we sure that our own habits are that pure and that future science would not also determine them to be addictions?

A personal example: for health reasons, I lived for a year on a very strict keto diet, eg. cutting out literally all carbohydrates (the body is perfectly fine taking all its energy from fats in a ketogenic state). I tell you, during that time, in the beginning I had phases of food craving which were close to delirious, literally severe psychological and physical withdrawal symptoms from sugar, but I stuck to it and came indeed out healthier than before -- my pre-diabetic symptoms were completely gone.

In this time, I read plenty of discussion that this prooves, that indeed all sugar is purely superfluous, actually damaging any healthy human body, and as such fits nicely into the definition of an addiction -- and actually an extremely dangerous one (from diabetes to cancer, cutting out all sugar would reduce mortality rates considerably).

To those that are convinced that any addiction should be avoided: do you allow any carbohydrates in your food? Or do you strictly discard rice, noodles, vread, chocolate and all other sugar strictly?

We know from the suttas, the Buddha ate rice on occasion, so definitely he did not avoid carbohydrates. What to think of that?

So, what is the reasoning to differentiate between carbohydrates and nicotine, where is this fine line according to you?