Skip to main content

Is it true that Maha Boowa was a smoker? Ajahn Mun, smoke, smoking, cigarettes

 

Re: Is it true that Maha Boowa was a smoker ?

Post by frank k » 

dpcalder wrote: Fri Aug 11, 2023 4:22 pm
Goofaholix wrote: Wed Aug 09, 2023 2:57 pm
dpcalder wrote: Wed Aug 09, 2023 12:54 pmReally! What is his rationale?
I don't recall. Looking at that book the only reference to smoking is of Ajahn Mun doing it.
Yeah, I just looked it up and found the same. Apparently Ajahn Mun smoked 4 cigarettes a day. That is certainly enough to be an addict, and nicotine addiction is physiological, so it's likely he was an addict. While the idea of a monk smoking is certainly not outrageous to me, being addicted to something doesn't sound like something we'd expect of an arahant, and if he was psychic to the extent that Maha Boowa claims, one would think he would have the intuition to know that something is unhealthy and addictive.
Smoking is highly addictive, but so are alcohol, food, sex, staring at a phone for hours endlessly looking for dopamine hits, etc.

When I was a kid, my friend's dad, not a meditator or religious as far as I know, was a long time addicted smoker, smoking like a pack a day or something.
One day he decided to give up, cold turkey, and succeeded.

So that's one data point, as addictive as tobacco is, even a non arahant can quit if they have strong enough desire.

Ajahn Mun did things in his daily practice that almost no one can match, as far as difficulty, such as eating only once a day in one session, sleeping 2-4 hours a night, eating very little in that single session,
having no fear of tigers, death, attachment to the body, etc., no other sign of craving for sensual pleasures.

Once someone is at the point where they're not afraid of anything, deathly pain or whatever, and aside from cigarettes have no sign of craving, then I'm likely to believe them if they say they're not addicted to cigarettes, because what they're doing is way more difficult and unusual.

I'm pretty sure Mun only used cigarettes as a stimulant for an energy boost.
Ajahn Chah told stories of sometimes their alms was so meager, just a few scoops of white rice to last a day walking through the jungle.
I hate cigarettes, but if I was a forest monk in those conditions struggling with energy level eating once a day, I'd consider smoking too if I thought it would help with drowsiness.

On the other hand, I'm extremely disappointed that those famous forest monks smoked, because it lessens people's confidence in them, and their practice.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Advice to younger meditators on jhāna, sex, porn, masturbation

Someone asked: Is porn considered harmful sexual.activity? I don't have a sex life because I don't have a partner and I don't wish to engage in casual sex so I use porn to quench the biological urge to orgasm. I can't see that's it's harmful because nobody is being forced into it. The actors are all paid well and claim to enjoy it etc. The only harm I can see is that it's so accessible these days on smart devices and so children may access it but I believe that this is the parents responsibility to not allow unsupervised use of devices etc. Views? Frankk response: In another thread, you asked about pleasant sensations and jhāna.  I'm guessing you're young, so here's some important advice you won't get from suttas   if you're serious about jhāna.  (since monastics are already celibate by rule)   If you want to attain stable and higher jhānas,   celibacy and noble silence to the best of your ability are the feedstock and prerequiste to tha

SN 48.40 Ven. Thanissaro comments on Ven. Sunyo's analysis

This was Ven. Sunyo's analysis of SN 48.40: https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2024/05/exciting-news-honest-ebt-scholars-like.html And here is Ven. Thanissaro's response to that analysis: I think there’s a better way to tackle the issue of SN 48:40 than by appealing to the oldest layers of commentarial literature. That way is to point out that SN 48:40, as we have it, doesn’t pass the test in DN 16 for determining what’s genuine Dhamma and what’s not. There the standard is, not the authority of the person who’s claiming to report the Buddha’s teachings, but whether the teachings he’s reporting are actually in accordance with the principles of the Dhamma that you know. So the simple fact that those who have passed the Buddha’s teachings down to us say that a particular passage is what the Buddha actually taught is not sufficient grounds for accepting it. In the case of the jhānas—the point at issue here— we have to take as our guide the standard formula for the jhānas, a

1min. video: Dalai Lama kissing boy and asking him to suck his tongue

To give more context, this is a public event,  * everyone knows cameras are rolling  *  it's a room full of children * the boy's mom is standing off camera a few feet away watching all of this * the boy initiated contact, he had already had a hug with Dalai Lama earlier and then asked Dalai Lama for another hug which triggered this segment  17 min. video showing what happened before that 1 min. clip and after, with some explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT0qey5Ts78 16min talk from Ajahn Acalo with his thoughts on Dalai Lama kissing boy, relevance to Bhikkhu monastic code, sexual predators in religion in general, and how celibate monastics deal with sexual energy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2m0TcUib0 The child's comments about the incident in a filmed interview later https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/world-news/2023/04/18/643eba5d46163ffc078b457c.html The child: It's a great experience It was amazing to meet His Holiness and I think it's a great ex