[longrema]

I was watching this video of Ajahn Sujato and wondered if anyone knew the background information to what he's talking about.

[itsmycock]

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements."

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements."

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind."

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....049.than.html

[constanyiskancho]

Consciousness without feature,
without end,
luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.
Here long & short
coarse & fine
fair & foul
name & form
are all brought to an end.
With the quenching of consciousness
each is here brought to an end.'"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...11.0.than.html

[ChexEcodece]

The Original Mind or "Jit Daerm - Thai" that Ajahn Sujato said, is the teaching of Zen that many famous monks in Thailand did an explaination.
He refered to "Luang Boo Thate (Thate Desaransi) " , "Luang Boo Chah (Ajahn Chah)" , "Luang Ta Boowa (Maha Boowa)".

I can't find English version of above referring. But I find the teaching of another monks for the following :-

Single Mind

Please searching for THE CITTA IS BUDDHA

[MARMELADINA]

Maha Boowa is the most extreme & incorrect, saying this original mind is not anicca, dukkha or anatta.

Buddhadasa talked of chit wang or 'free mind'.

I like Sujato. He is a nice monk.

But, for me, he is taking intellectualism to an extreme.

Personally, I do not have a sense of ease regarding the direction he wishes to take Buddhist doctrine towards.

When Sumedho says the mind is 'unconditioned' he means unconditioned by defilement (rather than conditionality dependent in the body).

Often, Sujato is knit-picking at words for no reason.

The various teachers are trying to describe an essence of practise rather than a doctrine.

Sujato seems to be creating rigid doctrine.

Whilst I like to be exacting in my doctrine, this is not a reason to criticise teachers like Sumedho who are trying to describe a 'way of practise' in a Zen-like manner.

[effebrala]

In other words, once one finds this original mind, then they can decide afterwards whether it is impermanent or not; not-self or not.

[PNCarl]

Very interesting ! Thank you very much for the input Element and Sukitlek

[Avoireeideree]

from post #8

But for me, that is the issue.

Sujato takes such an intellectual approach to history, we regard what he states as 'fact'.

In Tibetan Buddhism, Atisha is reported to have studied in Java (where Borobador is). Java probably formed part of the Srivijaya Empire that extended to Southern Thailand (where Mahayana artifacts have been found such as Avalokitesvara).

However, without anything evidence to support me, I think to say that "Thailand was once Mahayana" and that formed part of 20th century meditation "culture" is going a bit too far.

These teachers are merely giving a simple language introduction to meditation, such as when HHDL states "the clear light mind is the mind of enlightenment".

In truth, clear light mind is just concentration (which is an excellent starting point).

To me, these teachers were simply describing their experiences rather than being influenced by culture.

[Sheefeadalfuh]

Avalokitesvara
Srivijaya (Chaiya), early 8c
National Museum, Bangkok

This exceptional sculpture, of the Bodhisattva of Compassion, demonstrates an extraordinary level of carving. The torso's flesh, set off against exquisitely rendered details of gems and costume, seems to pulsate with inner life. As a representative of the great pan-Asian tradition of Indianizing art, this figure would not seem out of place in Ajanta, or Dunhuang.

http://www.art-and-archaeology.com/s...kok/bnm08.html

[Liskaspexia]

Personally, I do not have a sense of ease regarding the direction he wishes to take Buddhist doctrine towards.

Hi Element,
Not knowing anything about the monk, how would you define the direction he is moving in? Just curious.

A good talk but heaps of speculation at the end I felt. I liked the analogy of the cup being moved and just needing a designation for where it had been.

[VarenHokalos]

We are talking about something that we never touch.
We use the thinking, logic, undirect experience, ...
We may talking to the same thing but difference name or Talking to the same name but difference thing.

Please consider Unconjecturable

[patuvammnogoo]

Please consider Unconjecturable

The Acintita Sutta.

Four sorts of contemplations that lead in endless and vexing loops of thought are described here. The origin of the world is one, and with it we get a sense of both how and why these contemplations lead on ad nauseum. Another has to do with the precise way that kamma works.

The other two are related, having to with the impossibility of delineating the range of powers of either a Buddha or a person in jhana. In this sense, it is only when 'experiencing jhana' that nothing can be said of citta. Much can usefully be said about the normal unlearned mind, make no mistake.

[leacturavar]

Not knowing anything about the monk, how would you define the direction he is moving in? Just curious.

Sujato is a prolific writer. One can find many essays here: http://sites.google.com/site/santipada/

But I sense these are setting up a very impressive foundation for some kind of dogma.

The Thai Forest Tradition was always Zen-like. Thailand is a Theravadin country with the same Sri Lankan (Commentary) doctrines and the Forest Tradition challenged those Commentary doctrines.

But the challenge was for the sake of facilitating insight rather than for setting up a competing doctrine or dogma.

For example, if I debate or challenge on a chatsite, my only intention is to facilitate a way of reading the suttas for the sake of insight.

Whilst Sujato is a very adept meditator and has excellent paramis (excellent metta practitioner), I cannot really put my finger on it but as I said my gut feeling about his extreme intellectualism is that.

[Kausilwf]

This essay REBIRTH AND THE IN-BETWEEN STATE IN EARLY BUDDHISM is an interesting example. Extreme intellectualism but definitely a contraversial interpretation of the Four Noble Truths and other suttas.

Personally, I would disagree with the interpretation of the suttas below, which are definitely not in accord with the meditative Forest Tradition.

In his first sermon, which is represented by at least 17 versions in all Buddhist languages, the Buddha presented the Four Noble Truths: suffering, its origin, cessation, and the path. The first term in the definition of suffering is jāti, which we translate as 'birth', although 'conception' might be more accurate. Note that birth is an existential problem, to be overcome, and hence cannot merely refer to one's birth in this life. It must refer, as the universal testimony of the Buddhist traditions affirm, to rebirth in saṁsāra, as part of an endless stream of lives.

However, it would be incorrect to claim that the Buddha simply absorbed the universal Indian belief in rebirth. In fact, the ancient Vedas speak little of rebirth, and it only slowly appears in the post-Vedic literature. Historically, the Āgama Suttas are the oldest texts that place this rebirth complex in a central position, and we could well argue that the Hindu belief in rebirth was conditioned by the Buddhist belief rather than the other way around. But the Saṁyutta tells us: 'Whatever ascetics or priests there are that recollect their manifold past lives, all of them recollect the five graspingaggregates or one of them'. This suggests that the aggregates are empirical realities that characterize not just this life, but past lives as well. Thus the Saṁyutta tells us that the unawakened individual runs and circles around these five aggregates from one life to the next. The two Samyuttas, namely, the Khajjaniya Sutta and Gaddula Sutta, are about clinging to the five aggregates as "I" and "mine".

In fact, the term "past lives" is literally "previous abodes, dwellings or homes". Further, the term "samsara" does not mean "transmigration" but "to cycle" or "spin". Further, the five aggregates do not cling. They are not the "five clinging aggregates" but the five aggregates that are the subjects of clinging.

Extreme intellectualism but replete with inaccuracies and not in conformity with the intention of those particular suttas.

Each of those suttas was spoken to diminish the "I" and "mine" rather than build it up.

The Buddha certainly taught rebirth but not in the three suttas above.

[pBiRXp8u]

However, it would be incorrect to claim that the Buddha simply absorbed the universal Indian belief in rebirth. In fact, the ancient Vedas speak little of rebirth, and it only slowly appears in the post-Vedic literature. Historically, the Āgama Suttas are the oldest texts that place this rebirth complex in a central position, and we could well argue that the Hindu belief in rebirth was conditioned by the Buddhist belief rather than the other way around.

Following the suttas, the above is a contraversial claim. For example, the quote below gives some insight into the prevailing views of Indian society at the time of the Buddha.

"What do you think, Dhanañjani? Which is better: hell or the animal womb?"

"The animal womb is better than hell, Master Sariputta."

"... Which is better: the animal womb or the realm of the hungry shades?"

"... the realm of the hungry shades ...."

"... the realm of the hungry shades or human beings?"

"... human beings ...."

"...human beings or the Four Great King devas?"

"...the Four Great King devas ...."

"...the Four Great King devas or the devas of the Thirty-three?"

"...the devas of the Thirty-three ...."

"...the devas of the Thirty-three or the Yama devas?"

"...the Yama devas ...."

"...the Yama devas or the Tusita devas?"

"...the Tusita devas ...."

"...the Tusita devas or the Nimmanarati devas?"

"...the Nimmanarati devas ...."

"...the Nimmanarati devas or the Paranimmitavasavatti devas?"

"...the Paranimmitavasavatti devas ...."

"...the Paranimmitavasavatti devas or the Brahma world?"

"Did Master Sariputta say, 'Brahma world'? Did Master Sariputta say, 'Brahma world'?"

Then the thought occurred to Ven. Sariputta, "These brahmans are set on the Brahma world. What if I were to teach Dhanañjani the brahman the path to union with the Brahmas?"

Dhanañjani Sutta This shows the 'Buddhist cosmology' was a pre-existing Hindu cosmology.

[traithJah]

Thanks Element. I have printed out the Bhikkhu Sujato article and will read it tomorrow. Coincidentally, I just bought this book about early Buddhism because it looked as though it might be interesting. Haven't started reading it yet though.

URL

[buchmausar]

These teachers are merely giving a simple language introduction to meditation, such as when HHDL states "the clear light mind is the mind of enlightenment".

In truth, clear light mind is just concentration (which is an excellent starting point).

I think there are people who just get stuck with their preliminary meditation experiences too and then just go on and on about 'emptiness' all the time like its an obsession.

[wooclosmercob]

In my new book mentioned above , I looked up 'sunyata' and found this:

" In the early centuries of the common era, there arose a trend or movement within the Buddhist community as a whole which gave rise to what was and still is called Mahayana Buddhism. 'Mahayana' means 'great way' and the name was used to indicate that the people who espoused this sort of Buddhism regarded themselves as having a better understanding or interpretation of the Buddhist teachings than did earlier Buddhists, who they collectively refered to by the derogatory (and no longer used) label Hinayana, indicating that theirs was a ' lesser way'.

One of the points on which Mahayana Buddhists claimed superiority was their understanding of what was meant by anatta. The way they refered to this was not as anatta -- not-self -- but as 'emptiness' or 'voidness' meaning that all things were empty or void (sunya) of independent existence, expressed as 'own being' (sva-bhava). Anatta was therefore referred to by Mahayana Buddhists as sunyata - emptiness. The impersonality of the term emptiness made, and still makes, it easier to understand that which is being indicated is the absence of independent existence of all things. As I have previously commented, one of the problems of understanding anatta is that the word 'self' is usually used so personally that it is perpetually difficult to understand that its reference is generic. "


My own understanding of these things is very limited. However my thoughts on the above passage were:

1. The term 'Hinayana' is still used in Tibetan Buddhism. (look around the internet for quotes which include it - there are many)

2. The term 'empty' and 'emptiness' can be found in the Pali Canon.

[CAxrrAYN]

Suñña Sutta
SN 35.85

Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?"
"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.
"The ear is empty...
"The nose is empty...
"The tongue is empty...
"The body is empty...
"The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the world is empty."
---

So, saying 'the world is emptiness' directly relates to the six sense bases, referred to often by the Buddha as "this fathom-length body". In this respect, emptiness might or might not be ontologically true about the cosmos, but the Buddha is only concerned with showing it in the case of the Self.

Using the word 'emptiness' instead of 'non-self' seems to me to be putting the importance of theory ahead of application and practice.

[Flefebleaft]

Using the word 'emptiness' instead of 'non-self' seems to me to be putting the importance of theory ahead of application and practice.

Absolutely. It only makes any real sense in the context of application and experience.