Comparing the styles of two prominent Thai Vipassana monks.
January 5, 2010 by wanderingdhamma
Ajahn Chah and Luangda Mahabua are two of the most well-known teachers of the forest tradition for Thais and English-speakers alike. They both come from the lineage of
Ajahn Man and yet their styles and teachings differ enough to affect lay international meditators who come to their monasteries.
In a recording of a Dhamma Talk on 27/9/09, Ajahn Martin of Wat Pa Baan That says that Mahabua focuses on formal practice. At this wat it is recommended that one does the small tasks needed to keep the monastery functioning quickly and quietly. After this is done one returns to formal practice. This formal practice consists of much walking meditation on one’s individual jongrom path, practicing sitting meditation, and being mindful when doing everything else. Because of this stress on formal meditation practice, Luangda Mahabua’s monastery does not have communal activities such as daily chanting....
Ajahn Chah, in contrast, wanted to develop community in his monasteries and found this was especially important for his Western disciples. Ajahn Pasanno (Co-Abbot of Abhayagiri Monastery), who I spoke with at Wat Pah Nanachat, has also stated that Ajahn Chah felt that face to face communication was very important. The Western sangha continues this through their World Abbots Meeting held every two years...
Ajahn Chah also stresses meditation and mindfulness in daily life, rather than formal practice, in contrast to Mahabua. My previous post about the ‘style’ of Ajahn Chah describes his chiding of those who think that meditation can only happen on a cushion or on the walking path. For Chah every aspect of monastic life was to be a part of one’s practice......
These emphases in each master’s teachings and the way each has established their monasteries affects the experiences of international meditators. Because of Mahabua’s focus on formal practice, a retreat for foreigners at Wat Pah Baan That consists of much solitary meditation in one’s kuti. There are no group activities to attend and no chores assigned except to clean inside and the surrounding areas of one’s kuti. Because Mahabua’s teaching style includes this battle against the kilesas and the defiled citta, the dhamma talks in English by Ajahn Martin contain these same ideas. Meditators are taught about these concepts and how they relate to one’s daily practice.
For Ajahn Chah’s monasteries, however, this tradition of communal activities and mindfulness in daily life, certainly continue at Wat Pah Nanachat. Foreign meditators participate in group chanting, before-meal ceremonies, meditation, question and answer sessions, as well as assist with assigned chores. These organized chores and other activities are part of the meditation practice, as Chah intended. As well, since Chah did not have a meditation ‘method’ but more of a ‘style,’ this is not a formal meditation retreat as one would receive at Wat Pa Baan That. There is no monk assigned to teach the foreigners and there isn’t a predominance of the goal to reach the pure citta that is so prevalent in Mahabua’s and Ajahn Martin’s teachings.
Thus the personalities, backgrounds, and styles of each forest meditation master affect how meditation instruction is presented to lay foreign meditators. The styles of Mahabua and Chah affect the setup of each monastery, the amount of instruction received, the hours available for formal practice and other activities, and one’s integration into daily life at the monastery.
The main point: the meditative styles of two teachers from closely related (or the same?) lineages appear to be radically different (are they?).
No comments:
Post a Comment