The ultimate purpose of Buddhist-style meditation practices

[rockyysdt]

Please note I haven't personally been belittled but have observed.

That's what I thought, I didn't think I'd ever intentionally belittled you, you've contributed positively to this board for many years.

I know you've got good intentions but perhaps others would prefer to fight their own battles.

Thanks Bruce .

I've listed 6 instances before getting started but will drop this exercise.

I guess my main point is we are all Dharma brothers/sisters.

I'd hope disagreement should not be grounds to permit the dropping of rightful speech.

I'd like you to be nice or neutral to TRD.

You'll be surprised how genuine he is.

It's not disagreement which is the issue but how responses are framed.

I find framing a response in the form of a question puts forward your position whilst leaving onus on the other to overcome your objections.

Language/interpretation and habitual conditioning is our enemy.

Let's use this as a moment of truth in guarding against the fetters.

Perhaps someone can list the specific fetters currently involved.

[Brucenkhamen]

I'd like you to be nice or neutral to TRD.

You'll be surprised how genuine he is.

I don't really want to be talking about a third person.

However checking through my responses to the above over the last 6 pages of this thread as I suspected I haven't found any where I've gotten personal, as far as I can see I challenge the ideas or how they are expressed not the person, if anyone doesn't like having their ideas challenged perhaps posting them on a public forum is not a good idea.

While discussions on this board can get pretty bickery at times it's rare to find such a blatent personal attack as post #256.

I'll take your feedback under advisement though.

[sabaijai]

Sabaijai, here's a YouTube video that might help you cross a few barriers and prevent you from becoming a fundamentalist.

Nice teaching, but I do not see how it applies to your notion that Vedanta and Buddhism interpret reality - formulating 'truth' - in the same way. Yes, samatha is shared with the Vedantic tradition. Vipassana is not.

You've challenged my knowledge of meditation. Besides having practiced since 1977, I've written on meditation extensively in books, academic articles and popular periodicals.

Throwing around ad hominem terms such as 'fundamentalist' and making a fallacious strawman argument for 'censorship' does not support rational discussion.

Please refrain from personal attacks on others, trd.

[rockyysdt]

I'd like you to be nice or neutral to TRD.

You'll be surprised how genuine he is.

I don't really want to be talking about a third person.

However checking through my responses to the above over the last 6 pages of this thread as I suspected I haven't found any where I've gotten personal, as far as I can see I challenge the ideas or how they are expressed not the person, if anyone doesn't like having their ideas challenged perhaps posting them on a public forum is not a good idea.

While discussions on this board can get pretty bickery at times it's rare to find such a blatent personal attack as post #256.

I'll take your feedback under advisement though.

Much better I reply via pm.

We'll keep this thread going on topic.

[rockyysdt]

In terms of the ultimate purpose Ajahn Buddhadasa taught that it was about quenching of Dukkha in this life and Nibanna the Void Mind.

Life free from Dependent Origination.

[Brucenkhamen]

the Void Mind.

I hadn't heard it phrased like this before but I see there is a book with this title from Ajahn Buddhadhasa talks, it's very good http://www.suanmokkh.org/system/books/files/000/000/015/original/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_Void_Mind.pdf?1462866778

[rockyysdt]

I've just returned from my 5th retreat at Wat Suan Mokkh.

Their emphasis is the cessation of Dukkha in this life.

Although there are many methods and styles towards achieving this they teach that Anapanasiti is the original and more direct path.

Having said that they acknowledge that different methods may suit different travelers and paths loaded with ritual, chanting, and so forth are acceptable as long as the one achieves the same results (cessation of Dukkha).

[sabaijai]

the Void Mind.

I hadn't heard it phrased like this before but I see there is a book with this title from Ajahn Buddhadhasa talks, it's very good http://www.suanmokkh.org/system/books/files/000/000/015/original/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_Void_Mind.pdf?1462866778

The actual term Aj Buddhadasa used for this concept was จิตว่าง, literally 'empty mind' or empty citta.

Aj Buddhadasa's first published book on the subject was ความว่าง จิตว่าง, which I translated while staying with him at Wat Suanmok for three months in 1981. It was released as Emptiness -- Empty Mind. He agreed the proper translation for ว่าง was 'empty',

When referring to the Mahayana concept of void, he used the Pali word suññatā / สุญตา, or sometimes the hybrid Sanskrit-Thai ศูนย์เปล่า (sun-plao).

He used both terms in different contexts.

[rockyysdt]

the Void Mind.

I hadn't heard it phrased like this before but I see there is a book with this title from Ajahn Buddhadhasa talks, it's very good http://www.suanmokkh.org/system/books/files/000/000/015/original/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_Void_Mind.pdf?1462866778

The actual term Aj Buddhadasa used for this concept was จิตว่าง, literally 'empty mind' or empty citta.

Aj Buddhadasa's first published book on the subject was ความว่าง จิตว่าง, which I translated while staying with him at Wat Suanmok for three months in 1981. It was released as Emptiness -- Empty Mind. He agreed the proper translation for ว่าง was 'empty',

When referring to the Mahayana concept of void, he used the Pali word suññatā / สุญตา, or sometimes the hybrid Sanskrit-Thai ศูนย์เปล่า (sun-plao).

He used both terms in different contexts.

Hi S J.

The latest in the series, Void Mind, published 2015, was translated by Dhammavidu Bhikkhu.

Quote: The void mind is peaceful and complete and does everything in line with the law of nature.

Without the me or mine there won't be any suffering at all.

Nibanna is the ultimate voidness, free from suffering, void of self. There will still be feelings normal for the living who have senses, but as there is no clinging then there'll be no suffering, only the disturbances natural to a living being, but no clinging, no kilesa, no Dukkha, no suffering.

A life lived with Sunnata, abiding in the void, is a life in which defilements do not arise.

Overwhelmingly all translations refer to "in this life".

One speaker even referred to the idea of a permanent entity enduring beyond this life as relating to other religions.

[VincentRJ]

the Void Mind.

I hadn't heard it phrased like this before but I see there is a book with this title from Ajahn Buddhadhasa talks, it's very good http://www.suanmokkh.org/system/books/files/000/000/015/original/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_Void_Mind.pdf?1462866778

The actual term Aj Buddhadasa used for this concept was จิตว่าง, literally 'empty mind' or empty citta.

Aj Buddhadasa's first published book on the subject was ความว่าง จิตว่าง, which I translated while staying with him at Wat Suanmok for three months in 1981. It was released as Emptiness -- Empty Mind. He agreed the proper translation for ว่าง was 'empty',

When referring to the Mahayana concept of void, he used the Pali word suññatā / สุญตา, or sometimes the hybrid Sanskrit-Thai ศูนย์เปล่า (sun-plao).

He used both terms in different contexts.

The void or empty mind! Now those are confusing phrases from the start. I had to read Ajahn Buddhadhasa's talk to get a clarification.

I think most people would understand a 'void' as being a 'completely empty' space, not something that is partially empty.

If a jar contains peanuts it's not empty, in my view. However Buddhadhasa would seem to claim that it is empty if it doesn't also contain walnuts, or some other variety of nut.

I would describe a void or empty mind as a mind which is free of all thoughts, opinions, likes, dislikes, feelings, sensations of pleasure or pain, anger or worry and so on, but Buddhadhasa describes the void mind as a mind which (to quote) "still feels, so it’s not that there isn’t any thinking. At that time, there will still be feeling, so there will be some form of thinking too. The mind that is void, through the power of vipassanā, considers, investigates, penetrates, and intuits into the reality of things, so it isn’t ‘void’ in the way that a stone, for instance, would be."

That last part of the quote, "it isn't a void in the way that a stone would be", introduces more confusion. Who thinks that a stone is a void? A stone consists of trillions of small bundles of energy in a field. It's clearly not a void.

[rockyysdt]

the Void Mind.

I hadn't heard it phrased like this before but I see there is a book with this title from Ajahn Buddhadhasa talks, it's very good http://www.suanmokkh.org/system/books/files/000/000/015/original/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_Void_Mind.pdf?1462866778

The actual term Aj Buddhadasa used for this concept was จิตว่าง, literally 'empty mind' or empty citta.

Aj Buddhadasa's first published book on the subject was ความว่าง จิตว่าง, which I translated while staying with him at Wat Suanmok for three months in 1981. It was released as Emptiness -- Empty Mind. He agreed the proper translation for ว่าง was 'empty',

When referring to the Mahayana concept of void, he used the Pali word suññatā / สุญตา, or sometimes the hybrid Sanskrit-Thai ศูนย์เปล่า (sun-plao).

He used both terms in different contexts.

The void or empty mind! Now those are confusing phrases from the start. I had to read Ajahn Buddhadhasa's talk to get a clarification.

I think most people would understand a 'void' as being a 'completely empty' space, not something that is partially empty.

If a jar contains peanuts it's not empty, in my view. However Buddhadhasa would seem to claim that it is empty if it doesn't also contain walnuts, or some other variety of nut.

I would describe a void or empty mind as a mind which is free of all thoughts, opinions, likes, dislikes, feelings, sensations of pleasure or pain, anger or worry and so on, but Buddhadhasa describes the void mind as a mind which (to quote) "still feels, so it’s not that there isn’t any thinking. At that time, there will still be feeling, so there will be some form of thinking too. The mind that is void, through the power of vipassanā, considers, investigates, penetrates, and intuits into the reality of things, so it isn’t ‘void’ in the way that a stone, for instance, would be."

That last part of the quote, "it isn't a void in the way that a stone would be", introduces more confusion. Who thinks that a stone is a void? A stone consists of trillions of small bundles of energy in a field. It's clearly not a void.

Hi Vincent.

It's devoid of defilements.

Void of attachment to ego, I, self.

Ajn Buddhadasa said it is not nothingness.

But then, in this life, here and now, we are talking about a state not a place.

[rockyysdt]

The confusion lies in attachment to the idea of no thought.

The state of no thought (Samadhi) is the practice.

Once the fires are quenched, the end of Dukkha, there's everything.

There is pain, feeling, thinking, walking, illness, doing various things, but no one doing them or experiencing them.

The walker, the doer, the thinker, isn't a person but a stream of "Idappaccayata".

This is called seeing "Sunnata".

[VincentRJ]

Hi Vincent.

It's devoid of defilements.

Void of attachment to ego, I, self.

Ajn Buddhadasa said it is not nothingness.

But then, in this life, here and now, we are talking about a state not a place.

Hi Rocky,

I understand because I read the article. The point I'm making is that his use of the terms 'void' and 'empty' are not appropriate and are plain confusing.

If defilements are walnuts, and the clear, positive thoughts are peanuts, then the jar containing both walnuts and peanuts, is not empty or void if you remove only the walnuts.

[VincentRJ]

The confusion lies in attachment to the idea of no thought.

An attachment to any idea is still a thought. Are you trying to make a distinction between the thought and the attachment to the thought? I would describe an attachment to a thought as 'dogma' or 'religion', which I don't subscribe to.

There is pain, feeling, thinking, walking, illness, doing various things, but no one doing them or experiencing them.

Sounds a bit crazy to me. If we were standing, talking to each other, would I not be aware that my hand is my hand and not your hand, and vice versa for you? If I kick a big stone, am I not aware that it is my foot that hurts, and not yours?

There is a distinction to be made between identifying what is 'you' and 'yours', what you might legally own, such as books, computer, house etc, and the emotional clinging to such possessions which would cause grief and pain if you were to lose them.

I can understand the benefits of 'non-attachment', but one still needs some sense of 'self' for the purpose of identity.

[rockyysdt]

I can understand the benefits of 'non-attachment', but one still needs some sense of 'self' for the purpose of identity.

However this is the teaching.

Self or identification to self, I, ego is a construct.

You have illusion of self.

Insight reveals this.

Your consciousness is a procession of contact, becoming, craving, action, one after another, so quickly, as in a film, gives the illusion of self, as a movie brings characters to life.

Whether you think it is of value to have a sense of self or not, the reality is that it is simply illusion.

[rockyysdt]

Hi Vincent.

It's devoid of defilements.

Void of attachment to ego, I, self.

Ajn Buddhadasa said it is not nothingness.

But then, in this life, here and now, we are talking about a state not a place.

Hi Rocky,

I understand because I read the article. The point I'm making is that his use of the terms 'void' and 'empty' are not appropriate and are plain confusing.

If defilements are walnuts, and the clear, positive thoughts are peanuts, then the jar containing both walnuts and peanuts, is not empty or void if you remove only the walnuts.

Positive or negative, all are defilements if they prop the ego.

Both walnuts and peanuts are defilements.

Anything positive or negative is a defilement if it reinforces ego.

Example.

I promote Dharma because I want to be praised and I want to esacape suffering.

You see, this promotes ego.

The only true action is that of pure Dharma.

Untainted by defilements and void of Ego.

[sabaijai]

the Void Mind.

I hadn't heard it phrased like this before but I see there is a book with this title from Ajahn Buddhadhasa talks, it's very good http://www.suanmokkh.org/system/books/files/000/000/015/original/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_Void_Mind.pdf?1462866778

The actual term Aj Buddhadasa used for this concept was จิตว่าง, literally 'empty mind' or empty citta.

Aj Buddhadasa's first published book on the subject was ความว่าง จิตว่าง, which I translated while staying with him at Wat Suanmok for three months in 1981. It was released as Emptiness -- Empty Mind. He agreed the proper translation for ว่าง was 'empty',

When referring to the Mahayana concept of void, he used the Pali word suññatā / สุญตา, or sometimes the hybrid Sanskrit-Thai ศูนย์เปล่า (sun-plao).

He used both terms in different contexts.

Hi S J.

The latest in the series, Void Mind, published 2015, was translated by Dhammavidu Bhikkhu.

Quote: The void mind is peaceful and complete and does everything in line with the law of nature.

Without the me or mine there won't be any suffering at all.

Nibanna is the ultimate voidness, free from suffering, void of self. There will still be feelings normal for the living who have senses, but as there is no clinging then there'll be no suffering, only the disturbances natural to a living being, but no clinging, no kilesa, no Dukkha, no suffering.

A life lived with Sunnata, abiding in the void, is a life in which defilements do not arise.

Overwhelmingly all translations refer to "in this life".

One speaker even referred to the idea of a permanent entity enduring beyond this life as relating to other religions.

Aj Buddhadasa passed away in 1993. So this is not 'the latest'. It would have to be a re-translation of something published prior to that date.

I would have to see the original Thai to say for sure, but I've read pretty much everything by Aj Buddhasa ever published and do not recall him ever using the phrase 'void mind'.

Perhaps it's just semantics but 'empty' (ว่าง), in Thai (and in English as far as I'm concerned), implies a vessel. Emptiness is the condition of being empty, correlated with anatta. Aj Buddhadasa was an advanced Pali scholar who was exacting in his language. I once spent nearly a half day back and forth with him on a single Pali term, nibbida, trying various Thai and English translations until he was satisfied.

As a footnote, I believe Ven Dhammavidu came to Wat Suamonk 18 years ago, ie, well after Aj Buddhadasa's death.

[Brucenkhamen]

I think most people would understand a 'void' as being a 'completely empty' space, not something that is partially empty.

I have the same reaction to the word "void", to me it suggests nihilism. However if Ajahn Buddhadasa had used the word "emptiness" as the translation of sunnata I probably would have assumed he was using it in the Mahayana sense ie the lack of an intrinsic or essential nature.

Either way he clearly defines the sense in which he is using it, an adjective for the mind being void/empty of something.

[Brucenkhamen]

I once spent nearly a half day back and forth with him on a single Pali term, nibbida, trying various Thai and English translations until he was satisfied.

I wonder whether the way Ajahn Buddhadasa uses the word sunnata (void) in this talk nibbida (cassation) might have been more appropriate, the latter implies emptying out whereas the former implies being intrinsically empty

[rockyysdt]

I once spent nearly a half day back and forth with him on a single Pali term, nibbida, trying various Thai and English translations until he was satisfied.

I wonder whether the way Ajahn Buddhadasa uses the word sunnata (void) in this talk nibbida (cassation) might have been more appropriate, the latter implies emptying out whereas the former implies being intrinsically empty

Reading Buddhadasa's "Void Mind" translated by Ajn Dhammavidu, it's clear the the Mind is not empty nor void, but void of Ego, I, Self.

Whether you use empty or void you can become unstuck unless you quality.

Empty or empty of.

Void or void of.

It's indicated the aim is to establish the "void" or "free" Mind

Naturally the Void Mind is not emptiness for it is luminous, wise and natural.

[VincentRJ]

Hi Vincent.

It's devoid of defilements.

Void of attachment to ego, I, self.

Ajn Buddhadasa said it is not nothingness.

But then, in this life, here and now, we are talking about a state not a place.

Hi Rocky,

I understand because I read the article. The point I'm making is that his use of the terms 'void' and 'empty' are not appropriate and are plain confusing.

If defilements are walnuts, and the clear, positive thoughts are peanuts, then the jar containing both walnuts and peanuts, is not empty or void if you remove only the walnuts.

Positive or negative, all are defilements if they prop the ego.

Both walnuts and peanuts are defilements.

Anything positive or negative is a defilement if it reinforces ego.

Example.

I promote Dharma because I want to be praised and I want to esacape suffering.

You see, this promotes ego.

The only true action is that of pure Dharma.

Untainted by defilements and void of Ego.

Of course. I understand that, Rocky. My use of the word 'positive' was in the context of the Dhamma. If the walnuts represent thoughts which are defilements, then the peanuts represent the wholesome thoughts, in my analogy.

If the jar represents the mind, it seems, according to Buddhadhasa, that the purpose of meditation is to distinguish between the peanuts and the walnuts, and remove only the walnuts. If the peanuts are still inside the jar, then the jar cannot be described as being empty, period. There's where the confusion lies.

However, the term 'to empty the jar of walnuts' , or 'to empty the mind of defilements', does make sense, and after reading Bhuddadhasa's article I understand that this is what he meant by the 'void' or 'empty' mind.

What he writes makes sense from a practical point of view. A mind which is free of anxiety, worry, fear and anger etc, and a mind that is free of a sense of ego that causes one to be vulnerable to the effects of imagined insults, is a mind that can function more efficiently and understand more clearly. I have no criticism of such benefits, but I still wonder what the ultimate purpose is.

[rockyysdt]

Permanent end of Dukkha.

Extinction of Ego.

[Brucenkhamen]

If the jar represents the mind, it seems, according to Buddhadhasa, that the purpose of meditation is to distinguish between the peanuts and the walnuts, and remove only the walnuts. If the peanuts are still inside the jar, then the jar cannot be described as being empty, period. There's where the confusion lies.

However, the term 'to empty the jar of walnuts' , or 'to empty the mind of defilements', does make sense, and after reading Bhuddadhasa's article I understand that this is what he meant by the 'void' or 'empty' mind.

While I agree the title of the book is a bit confusing the content is quite clear, and that's the main thing.

The problem with your peanuts and walnuts analogy is that both are equally desirable and neither are integral with the jar.

If we said that if we removed pollution from water then we'd have "void water" it's still a bit counterintuitive but is closer to what he's saying about the mind.

What he writes makes sense from a practical point of view. A mind which is free of anxiety, worry, fear and anger etc, and a mind that is free of a sense of ego that causes one to be vulnerable to the effects of imagined insults, is a mind that can function more efficiently and understand more clearly. I have no criticism of such benefits, but I still wonder what the ultimate purpose is.

If the state of mind you describe is not dependant on conditions, is that not enough?

[trd]

I just finished reading the excellent little book of Ajahn Buddhadhasa. The most important statement he makes is that without sunnata there is no Buddhism. Otherwise what he is saying is very simple. What he calls voidness is a still mind free of kilesas. Without defilements is also a way of saying free of mentations. A still mind has an intrinsic clarity. The ego/I has dissolved into this so called voidness and there is only one pointedness. He defines it in terms of both samadhi and vipassana. The only thing I might disagree with is that he makes a distinction between voidness and a void mind. I think that's unnecessary when one considers the direct experience of samadhi as being one pointed without distinction.

What I also found interesting is that he says there is a reluctance in Thailand to teach lay people sunnata because these teachings are deemed to be too high for them. A good read that gets right to the essence of what I consider to be real Buddhism as opposed to scholastic Buddhism.

[trd]

The confusion lies in attachment to the idea of no thought.

The state of no thought (Samadhi) is the practice.

Once the fires are quenched, the end of Dukkha, there's everything.

There is pain, feeling, thinking, walking, illness, doing various things, but no one doing them or experiencing them.

The walker, the doer, the thinker, isn't a person but a stream of "Idappaccayata".

This is called seeing "Sunnata".

You have a very good understanding Rocky. Only a person can experience dukkha. So by repeatedly experiencing (not a good word since it's not an experience) the clarity of a still (empty) mind we loosen the bonds and identification with the personal self and subsequently the attachment and craving associated with "me" and "mine" that Ajahn Buddhadhasa repeatedly refers to. All very simple but so easy to lose sight of as the mind continually attempts to deceive.

[VincentRJ]

While I agree the title of the book is a bit confusing the content is quite clear, and that's the main thing.

The problem with your peanuts and walnuts analogy is that both are equally desirable and neither are integral with the jar.

All analogies break down at some point. For someone who doesn't like walnuts but does like peanuts, they are clearly not both equally desirable. I defined the walnut in my analogy as representative of defilements.

If the state of mind you describe is not dependant on conditions, is that not enough?

To continue living is to be dependent on conditions. No matter how pure one's mind, no matter how calm and serene, or joyful or insightful one is, continued existence is dependent upon conditions, such as the conditions of health and freedom from disease.

One is dependent upon food to continue living. If one eats too much one becomes fat, as Buddhadhasa well knows (judging by the photos of him ).

Whatever one's thoughts, whether good or bad, they are dependent upon the activity of neurons and synapses in the brain. People who have had a stroke due to a blood clot in the brain, for example, experience directly how dependent their thoughts and activities are on the functioning of the brain.

Here's a news item from 2012: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Monks-suffer-from-health-problems-study-30187366.html

and from Time Magazine: http://time.com/4260641/thailand-buddhist-monks-food-obesity/

"Forty five per cent of the monks (in Thailand) experience varying levels of obesity, while 40 per cent of them face such diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure and allergies, partly due to the rich, oily and sugar-laden foods offered to them by the Buddhist faithful."

There's something seriously wrong here.

[rockyysdt]

There's something seriously wrong here.

Not really.

All this tells you is that the majority of Monks live with Ego, I, Self, Me, Mine, as do most people.

A minority is without Ego.

Buddhadasa, well, let's just say he had a genetic issue.

[VincentRJ]

Not really.

All this tells you is that the majority of Monks live with Ego, I, Self, Me, Mine, as do most people.

That's what's seriously wrong. If those who are actually specialising in the teachings of the Buddha, by devoting their life full-time to the subject and supposedly practicing the teachings and following the rules, still 'live with Ego, I, Self, Me, Mine, as do most people', then surely that represents in some respect a serious failure of the monastic order in Thailand.

Buddhadasa, well, let's just say he had a genetic issue.

This is the usual, comforting fallacy of denialism, that most overweight people use. "I don't eat too much. It's just my genes."

If this excuse were based on reality, it would be an amazing opportunity for science to investigate how one can achieve greater than 100% efficiency. It would be like setting off on a journey by car, with half a tank of petrol, then discovering at the end of the journey that the tank is full, without having stopped on the way to fill the tank.

[rockyysdt]

Not really.

All this tells you is that the majority of Monks live with Ego, I, Self, Me, Mine, as do most people.

That's what's seriously wrong. If those who are actually specialising in the teachings of the Buddha, by devoting their life full-time to the subject and supposedly practicing the teachings and following the rules, still 'live with Ego, I, Self, Me, Mine, as do most people', then surely that represents in some respect a serious failure of the monastic order in Thailand.

Buddhadasa, well, let's just say he had a genetic issue.

This is the usual, comforting fallacy of denialism, that most overweight people use. "I don't eat too much. It's just my genes."

If this excuse were based on reality, it would be an amazing opportunity for science to investigate how one can achieve greater than 100% efficiency. It would be like setting off on a journey by car, with half a tank of petrol, then discovering at the end of the journey that the tank is full, without having stopped on the way to fill the tank.

Monks like all must battle entrenched conditioning.

I don't know percentages but Monks choose this life for many reasons.

In a poor country many use monkhood as their way out of having to labor for paltry earnings, some doing quite well out of it.

Others may have poor teachers and become called upon to officiate ritual and thus expend their time on non practice.

Others fall for the chanting, good luck in next life, pray to Buddha teaching and simply expend their resources fruitlessly.

Others simply can't shake monkey mind. It can be extremely challenging.

We must remember that Monks are humans and influenced by the same fetters as all others.

We have to cut Buddhadasa some slack as he personally wasn't the one who proffered the genetic line.

Also 227 precepts limits opportunities to exercise. Monks cannot partake in swimming, gym work, yoga, weights, running etc.

I personally think this is stone age stuff. Limiting exercise for supposed modesty.

[sabaijai]

I once spent nearly a half day back and forth with him on a single Pali term, nibbida, trying various Thai and English translations until he was satisfied.

I wonder whether the way Ajahn Buddhadasa uses the word sunnata (void) in this talk nibbida (cassation) might have been more appropriate, the latter implies emptying out whereas the former implies being intrinsically empty

Just a small correction: Nibbida does not mean 'cessation'. I used 'disenchantment with the world' when I translated the Buddhadasa lecture collection "Nibbana: Life's Destination" while at Wat Suanmok.

It was a big part of Aj Buddhadasa's discourse. The word didn't appear in the slim Pali-Thai dictionary I had at the time, and I never met a Thai layperson who was acquainted with the word even though there is sutta (Nibbida Sutta) devoted to the concept.

More modern and more comprehensive Pali dictionaries usually contain a nibbida entry. I've since seen it translated as 'disenchantment without aversion', among other alternatives.