Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Mangy Dog-a teaching on Right View by Ajahn Chah
not1not2
Veteran
Some of the responses on the broken-heartedness thread got me thinking about something I had previously read in Ajahn Chah's book A Taste of Freedom. So, I thought I'd post it here. It's a little long, but it's worth the read, imo.
I hope you all find something of value in this teaching.
_/\_
metta
The Buddha once saw a jackal, a wild dog, run out of the forest where he was staying. It stood still for a while, then it ran into the underbrush, and them out again. Then it ran into a tree hollow, then out again. Then it went into a cave, only to run out again. One minute it stood, the next it ran, then it lay down, then it jumped up... That jackal had mange. When it stood the mange would eat into its skin, so it would run. Running it was still uncomfortable, so it would lie down. Then it would jump up again, running into the underbrush, the tree hollow, never staying still.
The Buddha said, "Monks, did you see that jackal this afternoon? Standing it suffered, running it suffered, sitting it suffered, lying down it suffered. In the underbrush, a tree hollow or a cave, it suffered. It blamed standing for its discomfort, it blamed sitting, it blamed running and lying down; it blamed the tree, the underbrush and the cave. In fact the problem was with none of those things. That jackal had mange. The problem was with the mange."
We monks are just the same as that jackal. Our discontent is due to wrong view. Because we don't exercise sense restraint we blame our suffering on externals. Whether we live at Wat Pah Pong, in America or in London we aren't satisfied. Going to live at Bung Wai or any of the other branch monasteries we're still not satisfied. Why not? Because we still have wrong view within us, just that! Wherever we go we aren't content.
But just as that dog, if the mange is cured, is content wherever it goes, so it is for us. I reflect on this often, and I teach you this often, because it's very important. If we know the truth of our various moods we arrive at contentment. Whether it's hot or cold we are satisfied, with many people or with few people we are satisfied. Contentment doesn't depend on how many people we are with, it comes only from right view. If we have right view then wherever we stay we are content.
But most of us have wrong view. It's just like a maggot! A maggot's living place is filthy, its food is filthy... but they suit the maggot. If you take a stick and brush it away from its lump of dung, it'll struggle to crawl back into it. It's the same when the Ajahn teaches us to see rightly. We resist, it makes us feel uneasy. We run back to our "lump of dung" because that's where we feel at home. We're all like this. If we don't see the harmful consequences of all our wrong views then we can't leave them, the practice is difficult. So we should listen. There's nothing else to the practice.
If we have right view wherever we go we are content. I have practiced and seen this already. These days there are many monks, novices and laypeople coming to see me. If I still didn't know, if I still had wrong view, I'd be dead by now! The right abiding place for monks, the place of coolness, is just right view itself. We shouldn't look for anything else.
So even though you may be unhappy it doesn't matter, that unhappiness is uncertain. Is that unhappiness your "self"? Is there any substance to it? Is it real? I don't see it as being real at all. Unhappiness is merely a flash of feeling which appears and then is gone. Happiness is the same. Is there a consistency to happiness? Is it truly an entity? It's simply a feeling that flashes suddenly and is gone. There! It's born and then it dies. Love just flashes up for a moment and then disappears. Where is the consistency in love, or hate, or resentment? In truth there is no substantial entity there, they are merely impressions which flare up in the mind and then die. They deceive us constantly, we find no certainty anywhere. Just as the Buddha said, when unhappiness arises it stays for a while, then disappears. When unhappiness disappears, happiness arises and lingers for a while and then dies. When happiness disappears, unhappiness arises again... on and on like this.
In the end we can say only this — apart from the birth, the life and the death of suffering, there is nothing. There is just this. But we who are ignorant run and grab it constantly. We never see the truth of it, that there's simply this continual change. If we understand this then we don't need to think very much, but we have much wisdom. If we don't know it, then we will have more thinking than wisdom — and maybe no wisdom at all! It's not until we truly see the harmful results of our actions that we can give them up. Likewise, it's not until we see the real benefits of practice that we can follow it, and begin working to make the mind "good."
If we cut a log of wood and throw it into the river, and that log doesn't sink or rot, or run aground on either of the banks of the river, that log will definitely reach the sea. Our practice is comparable to this. If you practice according to the path laid down by the Buddha, following it straightly, you will transcend two things. What two things? Just those two extremes that the Buddha said were not the path of a true meditator — indulgence in pleasure and indulgence in pain. These are the two banks of the river. One of the banks of that river is hate, the other is love. Or you can say that one bank is happiness, the other unhappiness. The "log" is this mind. As it "flows down the river" it will experience happiness and unhappiness. If the mind doesn't cling to that happiness or unhappiness it will reach the "ocean" of Nirvana. You should see that there is nothing other than happiness and unhappiness arising and disappearing. If you don't "run aground" on these things then you are on the path of a true meditator.
This is the teaching of the Buddha. Happiness, unhappiness, love and hate are simply established in Nature according to the constant law of nature. The wise person doesn't follow or encourage them, he doesn't cling to them. This is the mind which lets go of indulgence in pleasure and indulgence in pain. It is the right practice. Just as that log of wood will eventually flow to the sea, so will the mind which doesn't attach to these two extremes inevitably attain peace.
I hope you all find something of value in this teaching.
_/\_
metta
0
Comments
Metta and thank you....
You're very welcome. This metaphor is a very powerful one for me & is very good for cutting through my habitual escapism, so I thought others may find it helpful as well. Glad you liked it.
_/\_
metta
After a couple of months of discomfort, I have been diagnosed with a rather nasty dermatological condition as a result of immuno-suppression: I am a dog with mange!
Having been given strong antibiotics which knock me about something rotten, I know that the remedy can be hard work but, as my nails and head stop oozing (I told you it was nasty!) I realise that not all cures are comfortable at first but all contain the promise of improvement.
Thank you N1N2.
_/\_
metta
Simon, there are better alternatives than antibiotics for that. Better to take an immune booster like colostrum or Maitake mushroom. They won't kill every microorganism in your intestine!
Palzang
This is the teaching of the Buddha. Happiness, unhappiness, love and hate are simply established in Nature according to the constant law of nature. The wise person doesn't follow or encourage them, he doesn't cling to them. This is the mind which lets go of indulgence in pleasure and indulgence in pain. It is the right practice. Just as that log of wood will eventually flow to the sea, so will the mind which doesn't attach to these two extremes inevitably attain peace."
My post might find some unpopularity here. However, I just feel like sharing my thoughts on this subject. Firstly, I appreciate the idea of having balance. Certainly, it is not good to induldge in pleasure or pain. Nevertheless I cannot say that I believe love is only a feeling. I do not believe this at all. Physical attraction is an emotion or feeling but real love needn't appear and dissapear. I truly believe it is possible to constantly love others. Unconditional love. None of us are perfect and can mantain unconditional love constantly, but I try to do my best. I think that all of the feelings that were talked about are important. I don't think we should ignore any of these feelings-happiness/unhappiness and love/hate. How can we ignore feelings and say they aren't real or reality and expect to deal with them appropriately? I say that there is no way. Unless we acknowledge what we feel we cannot make a decision about that feeling. Also, I cannot agree that a "wise person doesn't follow or encourage them, he doesn't cling to them" because I certainly encourage love and truth and happiness. Maybe I am taking this in the wrong way. Also, I feel a negative reaction to the phrase "It is the right practice." That seems somewhat limiting and narrowminded in a sense. If everything changes then how can their only be ONE right view or practice? Also, if truth constantly changes then how is it ever truth? Real and actual truth is constant, that is how I see it anyways.
BTW, I noticed this as well, and was initially a bit put off myself.
_/\_
metta
Well, yes of course. Sati (Mindfulness/Awareness) is something we must cultivate for literally everything that comes up through the 6 sense bases. And of course, those little knee-jerk responses are very important to gain awareness of, especially when they hinder our ability to follow the advice of a teacher. However, that does not mean to judge it in a condemning way. Now, we do judge, or evaluate, these responses in regard to the 4 noble truths in order to see to what extent they are hindrances & what is at the root of them. Generally, I find there is some level of legitimate motivation at the root of these responses, and this particular one is no exception. And I think these moments of 'being put off' is exactly what Ajahn Chah was referring to when he said love/hate.
My previous response was generally one of sympathy towards what Becomethesignal expressed, as I have experienced similar confusion in the past. I have seen the craving/aversion dichotomy translated as love/hate. So I kept this issue in mind & found that this particular rendering of the word "love" is not referring to unconditional love. It was referring basically to desire or affection (aka craving). Love defined as 'the wish for someone to be happy' does entail desire, and, to that extent, can bring about suffering. Still, I think that this mind of goodwill can also be expressed without clinging, as an aspiration for buddhahood & through the practice of the perfections. In this sense, lovingkindness for oneself & others is definitely skillful/wholesome (kusala), as it prompts one to follow the noble 8-fold path. Additionally, there are suttas I have read which argue that the liberation of mind brought about through the cultivation of loving-kindness is well beyond the merit generated by most other practices (I can't find the specific suttas right now).
I say this not so much as a contradiction to what you say, Jason, but rather as a clarification of my understanding with intent of responding to Becomethesignal's concerns, which I feel raise a very important point. I think I do, in fact, agree with you. If I had not thoroughly investigated my feeling of 'put-off-ness' I might have missed what was actually being said, or possibly rejected Ajahn Chah (or even Buddhism) as a teacher. I feel very fortunate that this did not occur. Anyway, Jason, as your knowledge of the Suttas is beyond mine, I would be glad if you shared your thoughts of agreement or disagreement on this matter.
_/\_
metta
Thank you for caring enough to advise, Palzang-la. Staphylococcus aurea is pretty resistant, unfortunately (I shall spare you the unpleasant details) and has not responded to naturopathic, holistic immune-system boosting. I do, however, greatly appreciate your suggestions.
Too much thinking, not enough sitting.
Regards,
Jason
Well, did you know that bovine colostrum contains antibodies against S. aureus, as well as over 20 other dangerous bacteria? Might be worth a try! Certainly won't interfere with any treatments the witch doctors are giving you...
Palzang
I agree that it is good to be selfaware and reflective... and that is, in part, what I was doing. I feel like I asked some important questions and, I wonder why only one of them was answered? Also, how can a person think too much? If a person fills themself with vain thoughts that lead nowhere then I understand but, if a person focuses and searches for truth in their thoughts and evaluates them then I would encourage thinking. Real thinking, rather than just sitting and doing nothing. Please understand I am not angry or anything, at all. I am, rather, trying to express my views and, my questions aren't meant to be mocking. They are real questions. I did my best to think about the idea that Ajaan Chah presented and then I evaluated it for myself and asked questions. I did not merely reject the philosophy wholly. I think my statements were appropriate and I think I had a decent attitude toward what was stated by Ajaan Chah.
The reason I cannot answer all of your questions is in part that you might not understand my answers. I have learned that from past interactions, it is simply better to leave certain discussions alone until a more appropriate time. I am sure that others will be willing to answer your questions; however, I feel that you should read a little more about the five khandhas, the six sense-media, dependent co-arising, et cetera before jumping into trying to understand the point of view of undefiled minds such as Ajahn Chah's.
To be honest, I do not have the time to go through everything in order to explain my understanding of the mind and how it works. It can admittedly get very complex. As for thinking, you will not find truth in mere thinking. That is why the Buddha also taught meditation—to temporarily subdue the five hindrances because insight can only arise in a mind that is free from such obscurations. Our normal thought processes are actually a big part of the problem—as you can see, they falls under the Pali term sankhara.
Thinking is often useful, and it is certainly essential for functioning in the world, but it is also harmful if we are not mindful of its subversive ways. Our thoughts are not always our friends, and it is difficult to tell the difference between skillful and unskillful thinking without a solid foundation of concentration and mental training. On the one hand, the right types of thinking can lead to jhana (mental absorption); while the wrong types of thinking can lead to mental unrest, doubt, vexation, and obstruct discernment.
I hope this helps,
Jason
If I may, I shall endorse what you say here, Jason. This is a wise and helpful contribution. Thank you.
Too much thinking? Whether or not I think too much, I was asking for your understanding of the way 'love' is used here. So, while your advice is sound, my question remains unanswered.
As a related issue, here is a snippet from the article originally linked:
_/\_
metta
You sound unhappy about my reply, I am sorry. In truth, I do not know what he referring to when he spoke of love. I do not speak Thai, and even if I did, I am unaware of the exact word that he used. Nevertheless, it appears to me to be in reference to the common, everyday usage of the word such as, "I love Thai food", "I love my wife", "I love sandy beaches", "I love not having mange", et cetera.
Metta is quit different from this kind of love (which is essentially a varying degree of the mind's liking something or finding it pleasing), the loving-kindness that wishes for all beings to be free from suffering—for all beings to find true happiness. However, having loving-kindness for a being does not necessarily mean that you have to like that particular being, although that is quite another topic altogether.
As for the unconditional love you mentioned, I do not understand what you mean by that. Is there truly a love that is without conditions? Even metta is conditional, since it is based upon a wish or desire for true happiness, whether that happiness is ours or someone else's. As for you question, I admit that I still do not fully understand what it is, and I am sorry if my advice was not what you were looking for.
Regards,
Jason
Now, I have a better idea of what you mean. I think I mostly agree.
I am also a bit sketchy on the 'unconditional love' thing myself (becomethesignal is the one who posted that term & I was referring to it). I think the 'unconditional' part basically means that you want the best for the individual, regardless of who they are, how they treat you or what feelings they arouse in you. I do agree with you, though, that metta is, by definition, dependent upon conditions.
Anyway, thanks for your response. It confirms my understanding. BTW, the reason I asked for your opinion on the matter was because I didn't want to give an incorrect answer to Becomethesignal. Also, whether or not I was unhappy with your response, I was simply stating that my question was not answered. I wasn't really asking for personal advice when I asked the question, so I wanted to clarify the intent of my question. Now, the advice did sting a bit & you should have seen the protest staged in my mind to your statement.
take care
_/\_
metta
I apologize if the advice stung, because it certainly was not intended to—in fact, it was intended to be wise and humorous like the advice of Zen Masters who always seem to give great one-liners at the right time. Unfortunately, my timing seems to be a bit off. I simply meant to say that sitting is an important part of the practice. Whether or not we are able to find the time, the words are meaningless without a proper place to put them into practice.
As much as people might think that studying the words and understanding the concepts will give rise to insight, my experience has shown me that this is not the case. There still needs to be that solid foundation in order to turn those concepts into direct experience—and ultimately insight. As much as I love to help answer people's questions, I also love to help people understand that too much discursive thinking is a hindrance to their practice.
Regards,
Jason
Don't worry about it. The sting had nothing to do with you, Jason. This is something I am just defensive about (because it's true).
BTW, do you really think those one-liners from Zen masters didn't sting?
_/\_
meta
Well... not anymore.
Jason
I like this thread. I've learned a lot from it. Thanks for starting it.