Ajahn Chah

[pj]

I am curious as to other's opinions on Ajahn Chah.  I have studied his works fairly deeply having read Food for the Heart and various online resources about him.  I have found his strong emphasis on meditation and coming to an understanding of the truth through analysis of one's own experience to be rather similar to the GWV's views.  While he does not explicitly state to focus on charisms, he has written about an OBE that he has experienced with the implication that such things are common to his meditation practice.  He is highly anti-traditional in that he believes anyone who tries to "follow" buddhism (that is clinging to the ceremony/tradition/views of Buddhism) rather than cultivate understanding through proper introspection will get absolutely nowhere in their practice.   Based on what I have read, he seems to have categorized different aspects of deep meditative states into vipassana and samadhi.  I disagree that this means he believed they were separate things, but rather that they occur concurrently.  I believe that the refutation or acceptance of the distinction between samadhi and vipassana is just a belief based on a conceptual view; that is that the argument about whether or not they are distinct entities appears entirely semantic to me.   He emphasizes that deeps states of meditation are fruits of the practice, and that they come about naturally through the cultivation of sila , samadhi  and panna.  One main view that seems to be in disagreement with the GWV  in my opinion is his belief that jhana (or deep states of samadhi) can be clung to.  In all honesty, I must agree with this, but with a rather large qualification (this is my view, I am not sure if Ajahn Chah believed this) :  jhana is in no way addictive while being experienced, however it can be clung when returning to normal consciousness since one can create a(n)  (inaccurate) conceptualization of the experience.  This incorrect conceptualization can then be desired and lead to the strengthening of self belief.  I do see how one could make the distinction that this conceptualization is not actually jhana and thus jhana cannot be clung to, which is  why I also view this argument as mostly semantic.

Opinions?
*Disclaimer:  I am human, therefore I could be misrepresenting Ajahn Chah's views (or lack thereof )  Also, please understand that if I have made an error, I am more than happy to admit I am incorrect, in fact I would appreciate it if any errors were pointed out to me.  Please excuse my grammar and awkwardly constructed sentences.

[Jhanananda]

I am curious as to other's opinions on Ajahn Chah.  I have studied his works fairly deeply having read Food for the Heart and various online resources about him. 

Thank-you PJ for posting something on Ajahn Chah. I did a Google search, and found a link to a PDF of the Teachings of Ajahn Chah, so I down loaded it.  I also found Food for the Heart.

I have found his strong emphasis on meditation and coming to an understanding of the truth through analysis of one's own experience to be rather similar to the GWV's views. 

It is always good to find someone's work similar to the GWVs.  What specific quote would you like to share with us that would reveal that similitude best?  Please do give us the book, page, link, etc.

While he does not explicitly state to focus on charisms, he has written about an OBE that he has experienced with the implication that such things are common to his meditation practice.  He is highly anti-traditional in that he believes anyone who tries to "follow" buddhism (that is clinging to the ceremony/tradition/views of Buddhism) rather than cultivate understanding through proper introspection will get absolutely nowhere in their practice.   

I would completely agree.  It would be great to have a quote to the effect.

Based on what I have read, he seems to have categorized different aspects of deep meditative states into vipassana and samadhi.  I disagree that this means he believed they were separate things, but rather that they occur concurrently.  I believe that the refutation or acceptance of the distinction between samadhi and vipassana is just a belief based on a conceptual view; that is that the argument about whether or not they are distinct entities appears entirely semantic to me.   

Well, I believe the difference between insight (vipassana) and ecstasy (samadhi) is more than semantical.  I find it is the bliss, joy and ecstasy of the religious experience that creates the conditions for intuitive, revelatory insight.  And, that neither are meditation techniques, or the product of meditation techniques; however, leading a contemplative life, which is more than just habitually performing the mind-games of meditation practice, does indeed lead to the bliss, joy and ecstasy of the religious experience as well as intuitive, revelatory insight. Perhaps you will agree some day.

He emphasizes that deeps states of meditation are fruits of the practice, and that they come about naturally through the cultivation of sila , samadhi  and panna. 

I completely agree.

One main view that seems to be in disagreement with the GWV  in my opinion is his belief that jhana (or deep states of samadhi) can be clung to.  In all honesty, I must agree with this, but with a rather large qualification (this is my view, I am not sure if Ajahn Chah believed this) :  jhana is in no way addictive while being experienced, however it can be clung when returning to normal consciousness since one can create a(n)  (inaccurate) conceptualization of the experience.  This incorrect conceptualization can then be desired and lead to the strengthening of self belief.  I do see how one could make the distinction that this conceptualization is not actually jhana and thus jhana cannot be clung to, which is  why I also view this argument as mostly semantic.

Well, I do agree here.  Some people have one great meditation experience and spend the rest of their life trying to repeat it and fail.  This is a classic example of craving, or clinging, to the religious experience (jhana).  However, those who experience jhana every day, as I, Michale Hawkins and others here, proves that leading a contemplative life that produced jhana ever day is a life that is not based upon craving for anything.

Opinions?
*Disclaimer:  I am human, therefore I could be misrepresenting Ajahn Chah's views (or lack thereof )  Also, please understand that if I have made an error, I am more than happy to admit I am incorrect, in fact I would appreciate it if any errors were pointed out to me.  Please excuse my grammar and awkwardly constructed sentences.

Giving us quotes, links, sources, etc.  makes it much easier to discuss the merits of a teachers teaching.

I would like to point out that if Ajahn Chah's teaching was so similar to mine, then why have his disciples made an effort to hijack my work?  Most notably the monks of Abhayagiri Buddhist Monastery. Surely his disciples would see the similitude, if there was one.

[pj]

I would like to point out that if Ajahn Chah's teaching was so similar to mine, then why have his disciples made an effort to hijack my work?

In what sense have they hijacked your work?  Also, the disciples of Ajahn Chah aren't necessarily following his teachings correctly.  In fact one cold expect the majority to attempt to avoid the path he describes since it is not easy.

Giving us quotes, links, sources, etc.  makes it much easier to discuss the merits of a teachers teaching.

If you have access to Food for the Heart, then I suggest reading The Key to Liberation chapter as that seems to give a fairly good summary of the book.  I dislike simply posting quotes for two reasons: 1. It can take a very long time to find a specific quote when one has a bad memory for specifics such as me (I have an excellent memory for structure/concepts, but I usually forget the details that I used to create them) and 2.  Often time simply pulling quotes out of context can easily make the author seem to be saying something they are not.

Th Key to Liberation chapter seems to contain most of the evidence for my original post.  Of course others may interpret it differently.

[Jhanananda]

In what sense have they hijacked your work? 

The Boycotting of a Jhana Retreat at Bell Springs Hermitage 14 Apr 2004

Also, the disciples of Ajahn Chah aren't necessarily following his teachings correctly.  In fact one cold expect the majority to attempt to avoid the path he describes since it is not easy.

That seems reasonable.

If you have access to Food for the Heart, then I suggest reading The Key to Liberation chapter as that seems to give a fairly good summary of the book.  I dislike simply posting quotes for two reasons: 1. It can take a very long time to find a specific quote when one has a bad memory for specifics such as me (I have an excellent memory for structure/concepts, but I usually forget the details that I used to create them) and 2.  Often time simply pulling quotes out of context can easily make the author seem to be saying something they are not.

Th Key to Liberation chapter seems to contain most of the evidence for my original post.  Of course others may interpret it differently.

Every one seems to have a favorite mystic, which I think is a good thing.  I could spend the rest of my life plowing through libraries of books that may contain some mystical writing or most likely not.  Instead, I prefer to spend most of my time in silent saturation in the charisms (jhana-nimitta); or writing my own books.  People are welcome to read my work and compare it to someone else's for their own inspiration.