About This Mind

[icy]

The original mind has pure pristine awareness that abides in bliss. How wonderful we can return to this state of original mind if we zealously go for it.



“About this mind... In truth there is nothing really wrong with it. It is intrinsically pure. Within itself it's already peaceful. That the mind is not peaceful these days is because it follows moods. The real mind doesn't have anything to it, it is simply (an aspect of) Nature. It becomes peaceful or agitated because moods deceive it. The untrained mind is stupid. Sense impressions come and trick it into happiness, suffering, gladness and sorrow, but the mind's true nature is none of those things. That gladness or sadness is not the mind, but only a mood coming to deceive us. The untrained mind gets lost and follows these things, it forgets itself. Then we think that it is we who are upset or at ease or whatever.

But really this mind of ours is already unmoving and peaceful... really peaceful! Just like a leaf which is still as long as no wind blows. If a wind comes up the leaf flutters. The fluttering is due to the wind -- the "fluttering" is due to those sense impressions; the mind follows them. If it doesn't follow them, it doesn't "flutter." If we know fully the true nature of sense impressions we will be unmoved.

Our practice is simply to see the Original Mind. So we must train the mind to know those sense impressions, and not get lost in them. To make it peaceful. Just this is the aim of all this difficult practice we put ourselves through.”

~ Ajahn Chah

[cookie]

"That the mind is not peaceful these days is because it follows moods. The real mind doesn't have anything to it, it is simply (an aspect of) Nature. It becomes peaceful or agitated because moods deceive it. '

These "moods" are caused by our attachments, impatience and ignorance. We are so focus on "self" that we develop moods; whether good moods or bad moods. We spent all of our time focusing internally whilst these moods arises changing from good to bad and vice versa. When these moods change due to impermanence we also create instability in our minds and emotions. Hence, we spent lots of time and energy daily managing these mind games which are being played. We should instead learn to create a state of equilibrium where we do not allow moods to crop up but instead keep the mind calm and not grasp at either extremes. Then only we will have the mind at its natural state of pureness with peace!

[MoMo]

I love Arjahn Chah teachings; it's simple and hilarious at time. Yes it was a waste of energy when we directed it at our afflictive emotions instead of being productive. Hence, we should always guard our sense door by being mindful and alert. Always recite  and remember the eight verses of thoughts transformation and the eight worldly dharma.

[RedLantern]

Ajahn Chah's simple style of teaching can be deceptive.It is often only after we have heard something many times that suddenly our minds are ripe and somehow the teaching takes on a much deeper meaning.
Not to be attached to things which are not inherently you. These thoughts and feelings are all emotional states that arise and cease in the mind,are separate to the mind itself.They are alien and foreign to you.They are not self.

[eyesoftara]

Ajahn Chah's words are simple and profound. It is so Zen and enlightening. Even though Ajahn Chah is from the Theravadan's Forrest Tradition, he is simply speaking about the Buddha Nature. To me, even though we may read that the Theravadan tradition is suppose to be the "medium" scope where the goal is "Self Liberation", as stated in the Lamrim, it is a scope SHARED with the Great scope and hence the concept of Buddha Nature is also applicable. Also the Theravadan tradition are also active in serving others ie altruistic.
Like it is said in the Lamrim, do not think other schools of Buddhism are not Buddhism or are lesser than Vajrayana. This is a fine example!

Thanks RedLantern.

[Matibhadra]

The original mind has pure pristine awareness that abides in bliss.

If the ”original mind” is so pure, how could it originate an impure mind? And if the non-original, originated mind is not impure, why would one need teachings about the ”original mind” anyway?

This self-contradictory idea of a ”pure origin” stinks of Judaism and its creator ”God”. According to Buddhism, samsara is beginningless, but can be stopped, which means, mind is not originally pure, but it can be purified.

How wonderful we can return to this state of original mind if we zealously go for it.

Again Judaism transvestite as Buddhism. Jews believe in an ”original purity” to which one should return. This has nothing to do with Buddhism.

The non-Buddhist, Jewish doctrine of an ”original purity” might have illegitimately entered Buddhism through the influence of Manichaeism (founded by the barbarian prophet Mani, born from a Jewish father) on Chinese Ch'an Buddhism in Central Asia, along the Northern Silk Route, then spreading to Tibet (through Ha-shang Mohoyen and others), where it infiltrated and prevailed in the Nyingma school, and to other Ch'an-influenced Buddhist countries or cultures.

While most likely Ajahn Chah did not fall himself under the spell of such un-Buddhistic influence, much of what is ascribed to him in Western popular culture came through the Jewish pseudo-Buddhist proselityzer Jack Kornfield, and thus is thoroughly unreliable as a representation of the actual thought of Ajahn Chah.

[Midakpa]

I like Ajahn Chah's teachings. He used simple language and made the Dharma easy to understand. I also like his humour. Usually, in his books, the term "original mind" is not used. The only time I find this term is in "Everything Arises, Everything Falls Away", Part one, under "Right View",  in the article "Understanding Mind".

Ajahn Chah said, "We are practicing to reach the mind - the "old" mind. This original mind is unconditioned. In it there is no good or bad, long or short, black or white. But we are not content to remain with this mind, because we don't look at and understand things clearly...." (p.4)

"The nature of the original mind is unwavering. It is tranquil. We are not tranquil because we are excited over sense objects, and we end up as slaves to the changing mental states that result. So, practice really means searching to find our way back to the original state, the "old thing". It is finding our old home, the original mind that does not waver and change following various phenomena. It is by nature perfectly peaceful; it is something that is already within us." (p. 5)

He could be talking about the "Buddha nature", which is pure in the beginning and pure in the end but in between, we experience the mistake. What is unclear is, how did the mistake happen in the first place?

[gbds3jewels]

The question remains if the original state of the mind is already unmoving and peaceful how did we lost that original state of mind to begin with? Since it's the original state, doesn't that mean that's how it's started, that our mind was once unmoving and peaceful? So how did we lost that?

If we can lose that original state once upon a beginning-less time, wouldn't that mean even we can get back to ther original state, there is a chance we will lose it again just as how we have lost it now? Then what is the point?

What is reality, what is nature, what is truth, what is origin? Perhaps reality is not as pretty as we think either. I'm sure many of us are familiar with the movie The Matrix. How many of us after discovering the truth about the real world may actually choose to be inserted back into The Matrix?

[Matibhadra]

"The nature of the original mind is unwavering. It is tranquil.

If so, how could it have originated anything? And, since it did not originate anything, how could it be ”original”? Again, the idea of an ”original mind” stinks to the Jewish idea of a ”Creator God”.

Nyingmapas also cherish this ridiculous chimera of an ”original mind”, which has nothing to do with Buddhism. No wonder so many Jews love and identify with Nyingma teachings!

It is by nature perfectly peaceful; it is something that is already within us.

If the imagined ”orginal mind” it is within us, but cannot overcome the afflicted mind, it is not an antidote to affliction. Therefore, it is afflicted, deceived, and peaceless itself.

He could be talking about the "Buddha nature", which is pure in the beginning and pure in the end but in between, we experience the mistake.

Buddha nature is always pure, in the beginning, middle and end, because it is just the emptiness, or lack of intrinsic reality, of mind.

Besides, we experience mistake from beginningless time, or from the beginning; in Buddhism there is no such thing as the Jewish-Zen-Nyingma ridiculous fancy of ”original purity”.

What is unclear is, how did the mistake happen in the first place?

W

[Matibhadra]

What is unclear is, how did the mistake happen in the first place?

With Eve eating the fruit from the forbidden tree, if you insist on following Jewish scriptures and foolish fantasies. Buddhists, however, reject the idea of an ”original purity”.

[Matibhadra]

I like Ajahn Chah's teachings. He used simple language and made the Dharma easy to understand. I also like his humour. Usually, in his books, the term "original mind" is not used. The only time I find this term is in "Everything Arises, Everything Falls Away", Part one, under "Right View",  in the article "Understanding Mind".

This book, ascribed to Ajahn Chah, was actually produced by Paul Breiter, a close collaborator of Jack Kornfield, who, together with Jon Kabat-Zinn and Sharon Salzberg, popularized Ajahn Chah and his purported teachings in the West.
 
Paul Breiter professes Zen and Nyingma teachings, both of which uphold the concept of an ”original mind”. Therefore, this solitary insertion of such extraneous concept in teachings ascribed to Ajahn Chah is highly suspicious, to say the least.

Meanwhile, the trio, Jack Kornfield, Jon Kabat-Zinn and Sharon Salzberg are better described as pseudo-Buddhist Judaizers, that is, professional ideologues intent on propagandizing Jewish tenets under the deceptive guise of ”Buddhism”.

Bottom line, there is likely little or nothing of ”Ajahn Chah”, or of Buddhism anyway, under such deceptive, Judaizing cover.

[Matibhadra]

The question remains if the original state of the mind is already unmoving and peaceful how did we lost that original state of mind to begin with?

If there were any unmoving and peaceful ”original state”, it could not not be lost; and if any ”original state” was lost, is was not not unmoving and peaceful to start with.

Bottom line, the Jewish and Nyingma teaching of an ”original state” is about bondage or samsara, while Buddhism is about liberation or nirvana.

Since it's the original state, doesn't that mean that's how it's started, that our mind was once unmoving and peaceful? So how did we lost that?

Again evidence that the non-Buddhist theory of an ”original state” is just a fanciful concoction, a vain and childish conceptualization.

If we can lose that original state once upon a beginning-less time, wouldn't that mean even we can get back to ther original state, there is a chance we will lose it again just as how we have lost it now? Then what is the point?

No point, just spinning around in samsara, deluding oneself with the idiotic theory of the ”original state”.

What is reality, what is nature, what is truth, what is origin? Perhaps reality is not as pretty as we think either. I'm sure many of us are familiar with the movie The Matrix. How many of us after discovering the truth about the real world may actually choose to be inserted back into The Matrix?

While the reality of samsara is indeed suffering, it does not help to delude oneself with distractions so as not to face such reality. This indulging, compromising, submissive attitude towards what Buddhists call samsara is otherwise known as ”Jewish optimism”, a renowned characteristic of the Jewish approach to life.

Buddhist practitioners have a different, fearless and courageous attitude. They stare directly at the reality of samsara, which is suffering and its causes. And, undaunted by such reality, they set out to do what has to be done, to conquer, vanquish and destroy samsara, with the realities of the cessation and of the path.

As to the ”Matrix” story, it is just cheap subliminar Judaizing propaganda. ”Zion” (standing for Israel) is the citadel of the ”free humans”, while any government opposing Zion, or Israel, just like in the Old Testament, is dehumanized (as ”sentient machines”), and depicted as an evil tyranny. Neo (anagram of ”One”) is just the ”prophesized” Jewish ”messiah”, and Trinity (Christianity, named after its main dogma) supports him, just as Jews expect Christians to support their own (Jewish) version of the ”messiah”.

Meanwhile, the lifleblood of the American people has been sucked by the Zion-friendly war industry and by Zion-friendly Wall Street bailed-out banksters together with their accomplices in the privately-owned, Zion-friendly Federal Reserve, while being deluded, and distracted from reality by the Zion-friendly corporate ”free” media, with their ceaseless barrage of lies, gossips about celebrities, movies such as the ”Matrix”, and other trivialities -- very much the situation of the enslaved humans in ”Matrix”!

[Midakpa]

This book, ascribed to Ajahn Chah, was actually produced by Paul Breiter, a close collaborator of Jack Kornfield, who, together with Jon Kabat-Zinn and Sharon Salzberg, popularized Ajahn Chah and his purported teachings in the West.

Thank you, jspitanga, for your explanation. Paul Breiter was the translator of Ajahn Chah's book, "Everything Arises, Everything Falls Apart." He also wrote the Translator's Preface. Jack Kornfield provided a remark about  the book on the cover page. The only way to verify whether Ajahn Chah used the term "original mind" is to look at the Thai version. I wonder if the teachings are available in Thai.

Personally, I think it is dangerous to take certain concepts from different religions and present them as similar. On the surface, they might sound similar but we must not lose sight of the fundamental differences. We should study the meaning of the concepts in the individual religions and understand the differences also.

[Matibhadra]

Paul Breiter was the translator of Ajahn Chah's book, "Everything Arises, Everything Falls Apart."

As the Italians often say, ”traduttore, tradittore”, or, in the languague of Shakespeare, ”translator, traitor”.

He also wrote the Translator's Preface. Jack Kornfield provided a remark about the book on the cover page.

Sure. They work in coordination, and support each other, so that in the end falsity prevails.

The only way to verify whether Ajahn Chah used the term "original mind" is to look at the Thai version. I wonder if the teachings are available in Thai.

They talk about ”original state”, but forget about the ”original text”.

Personally, I think it is dangerous to take certain concepts from different religions and present them as similar.

And even worse, as with the ”original mind”, to deliberately falsify one religion, such as Buddhism, so that people believe that it enshrines the tenets of another, such as Judaism, which the falsifiers want sneakly to promote, out of their own politico-ideological agenda.

Jews, while not attempting at integrating others into Jewry, which they want as an exclusive club, are often intent on converting others to their own world view, so that they are recognized by all as the ”chosen people”, and thus may implement their paranoia of world domination.

On the surface, they might sound similar but we must not lose sight of the fundamental differences. We should study the meaning of the concepts in the individual religions and understand the differences also.

So well said. Analysis is necessary in order to destroy ignorance. That's why falsifiers of Buddhism detest analysis, and obsessively promote a misguided idea of ”non-conceptuality”, usually associated with their ”original state”.