Thai tradition teachers who has right view on Nibbāna

[Paññādhammika]

In general, the thai tradition seems to have the eternal citta view after arahant died. As this is a wrong view, it would be good to list down the perhaps few Thai teachers who has the right view on nibbāna and thus allow for some safe space for people who wishes to ordain or place faith in any teacher to be clear on who’s safe and who’s not safe.

So far as I know, Ajahn Brahm (although no longer affiliated with the Ajahn Chah tradition) is the one rare monk trained in Thailand who has right view on nibbāna. It goes without saying for the monks associated with him, Eg. Bhante Sujato, Ajahn Brahmāli etc.

Who else do you know?

[Zans]

Thank you for this post, Venerable. I hope it receives some good replies because I have long lamented the broad acceptance of eternal consciousness Buddhism and have looked for teachers who reject it.

The strangest thing is that eternal consciousness Buddhism is extremely underdeveloped because it is brand new and a facade superimposed on actual Buddhism. Yet people pick this new, immature fraudulent “Buddhism” over Samkhya, Yoga, Mimamsa, and all the other traditions which teach the exact same thing. Like down to the terminology being nearly identical. They’re simply, literally the same position.

This, while they could choose one of the traditions that have been maturing and marinating into wonderfully developed positions over thousands of years.

Instead they take the Theravada school that is utterly incompatible with their ideas. Then they painfully, awkwardly superimpose their unrelated eternalist ideas onto it. To the Theravada school which has for thousands of years been the polar opposite of their position! It’s wild.

[RobertK]

@Paññādhammika

the one rare monk trained in Thailand who has right view on nibbāna. I

Although I thought I read somewhere he believes in an intermediate state after death..like the Pubbaseliya and Sammitiya sects of the Katthavathu.

[Paññādhammika]

Intermediate state doesn’t imply self/soul. Whatever being which is in the intermediate state still has bhava, still is impermanent, suffering and not self, although they might not have birth yet. There’s a sutta which says that there are beings with bhava but not birth. AN4.131

Idha pana, bhikkhave, ekaccassa puggalassa orambhāgiyāni saṃyojanāni pahīnāni honti, upapattipaṭilābhiyāni saṃyojanāni pahīnāni honti, bhavapaṭilābhiyāni saṃyojanāni appahīnāni honti.

One individual has given up the lower fetters and the fetters for getting reborn, but not the fetters for getting a continued existence.

Anyway. This is the early Buddhism doctrine thing, it would not be conducive to debate here.

[bksubhuti]

@Paññādhammika

So far as I know, Ajahn Brahm (although no longer affiliated with the Ajahn Chah tradition) is the one rare monk trained in Thailand who has right view on nibbāna. It goes without saying for the monks associated with him, Eg. Bhante Sujato, Ajahn Brahmāli etc.

These “scholars” would object or be offended at being called Orthodox or Classical Theravāda. Ajahn Brahm is flat out against the Abhidhamma and vocal about it.
I think they do not qualify to be listed here:

However, these monasteries would be happy to be called Orthodox Theravāda.:

• Wat Khao Sanamchai
• Wat Phra That Nong Sam Muen
• 10 or so monasteries in Thailand (including Pa-Auk)

Are they themselves happy to be called “Orthodox Theravāda”? That would be the first test. The second test would be to the right views expressed in the commentaries and Abhidhamma.

[RobertK]

@Paññādhammika

Intermediate state doesn’t imply self/soul.

Antarabhava - Intermediate beings

This topic can be used to discuss and refute the idea of ‘intermediate beings’.

[Paññādhammika]

@bksubhuti

These “scholars” would object or be offended at being called Orthodox or Classical Theravāda.

I didn’t claim that they are. I only ask for right view on Nibbāna. There’s many things that they can disagree with Classical Theravada, but this is not the focus of this post. The focus is the things they agree with Classical Theravada.

[bksubhuti]

Christians have right view on certain things. They are not discussed nor promoted here.
Please read the FAQ. Just because one of them might criticise those who promote the Citta, does not mean they have right view on Nibbāna. We cannot be certain. It is best to just be clear on who follows the full and complete Orthodox Theravāda Pāḷi texts to an acceptable degree.

[renaldo]

@Paññādhammika

I only ask for right view on Nibbāna.

Right view on nibbāna was explained to you nearly two weeks ago. You chose to ignore that answer.

@renaldo

We have to understand that nibbāna is real, at least in the functional sense (and it has its own sabhāva). That is to say, it becomes the real object of lokuttara cittas. It also acts as object condition for lokuttara cittas to contact it. Those lokuttara cittas uproot real defilements when they do contact it. But it’s tricky because nibbāna does not arise, change, or pass away, making it unique among paramattha dhammas. But this does not mean that Arahants “enter” some kind of nibbāna when they pass away. It isn’t like that at all. Nibbāna is simply a paramattha dhamma, and it is contacted by lokuttara cittas when they perform their function. For Arahants, there are no more conditions for the arising of any nāma or rūpa again after they pass away. At parinibbāna, there is no “entering” some kind of nibbāna.

“Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;
The deed is, but no doer of the deed is there;
Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters it;
The path is, but no traveler on it is seen.”

—Vism. XVI

And from The Dispeller of Delusion:

(“Herein, which is the unformed element? It is the destruction of greed, the destruction of hate and the destruction of delusion”) is this: the unformed element is nibbāna, whose nature (sabhāva) is unformed. But because greed and so on are destroyed on coming to this (etaṃ āgamma), it is therefore called “the destruction of greed, the destruction of hate and the destruction of delusion”. This is the agreed commentary of the Teachers.

252. But a controversialist (vitandavādin) said: There is no independent nibbāna; nibbāna is just the destruction of the defilements.

R

[Paññādhammika]

The way sometimes it’s presented makes parinibbāna sounds like ontologically positive thing, which is basically like eternal citta stance already.

Anyway, I accept the view of parinibbāna according to Ajahn Brahm, Ajahn Brahmali, etc and some people say ajahn brahmali’s view on Nibbāna agrees with Classical Theravada on that topic (and didn’t get blasted with a warning), so I can just trust that it’s language misunderstanding rather than conceptually we are at different places on Nibbāna.

Query about Nibbāna as an Independent Dhamma

See “What the Nikayas Say and do not Say about Nibbāna” by Bhikkhu Brahmali This is an authoritative work on the topic and its conclusions are generally in line with the Classical Theravada position. The abstract from the paper: “Abstract The only way of moving towards consensus on the controversial subject of the nature of Nibbāna is by appealing to the sole source of authority common to practically all Buddhists: the Nikāyas/Āgamas. In the present paper I will first give an overview of th…

[renaldo]

@Paññādhammika

The way sometimes it’s presented makes parinibbāna sounds like ontologically positive thing, which is basically like eternal citta stance already.

The way that who presents it?

R

[Paññādhammika]

[quote=“renaldo, post:16, topic:2274”]

Nibbāna is one of the four types of *paramattha dhammas*—ultimate realities.

*Paramattha dhammas* have *sabhāva*, or own-nature. Essentially they exist, and have their own nature.

R

[/quote]

It could be from Mahayana influence that no self means no self nature as well. Anyway, if you’re just saying Nibbāna is empty, permanent, happy, not arising etc, all those adjectives used to describe the ultimate nothingness, then I can understand that nibbāna can be described. If that’s just the way of phrasing thing.