There are a number of Buddhist practices which include developing revulsion toward things that induce craving and clinging. E.g. the list of perceptions described in AN 7.46 (AN 7.49 in NDB). If developing dislike and revulsion in this way required developing anger, then these practices would be unskillful and never result in liberation.Alex123 wrote:Dislike and anger both push away or reject something.
A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.
Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.
Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.
Then there is the Unnabha paradox.
Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.
Maybe revulsion to counteract craving is equal in force to craving so that net result is zero.Ñāṇa wrote:There are a number of Buddhist practices which include developing revulsion toward things that induce craving and clinging. E.g. the list of perceptions described in AN 7.46 (AN 7.49 in NDB). If developing dislike and revulsion in this way required developing anger, then these practices would be unskillful and never result in liberation.Alex123 wrote:Dislike and anger both push away or reject something.
Example: Lets say that craving is 5 units of force to the left. If one develops 5 units of force to the right (anger) then the net result is zero.
Or to put it in another way: -5 + 5 = 0
Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.
If you're referring to SN 51.15, it's hardly a paradox. Rather, it's a matter of differentiating between what is skillful and what is unskillful. Chanda (desire) in the context of developing the noble path is skillful.lojong1 wrote:Then there is the Unnabha paradox.
Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any recommendations for developing anger or aggression as a practice or as part of the path in the Nikāyas. Anger is regarded as unskillful, and unskillful mental qualities don't lead to liberation. For example, the well known verse from Dhammapada 1.5:Alex123 wrote:Maybe revulsion to counteract craving is equal in force to craving so that net result is zero.
Example: Lets say that craving is 5 units of force to the left. If one develops 5 units of force to the right (anger) then the net result is zero.
- Hatred never ends through hatred.
By non-hate alone does it end.
This is an ancient truth.
Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.
Hi Alex,Alex123 wrote:Maybe revulsion to counteract craving is equal in force to craving so that net result is zero.Ñāṇa wrote:There are a number of Buddhist practices which include developing revulsion toward things that induce craving and clinging. E.g. the list of perceptions described in AN 7.46 (AN 7.49 in NDB). If developing dislike and revulsion in this way required developing anger, then these practices would be unskillful and never result in liberation.Alex123 wrote:Dislike and anger both push away or reject something.
Example: Lets say that craving is 5 units of force to the left. If one develops 5 units of force to the right (anger) then the net result is zero.
Or to put it in another way: -5 + 5 = 0
I think it is important to distinguish between 1. a mind overcome by aversion, which is clearly unskilful, and 2. intentionally bringing forth a fabrication - the perception of foulness - with the wholesome underlying intention of abandoning sensual desire. Both the state of mind, and the motivation are different here, aren't they?
So it's not through aversion that we counter greed, it's through seeing the object of our greed in a different way.
(The above was according to my current understanding; someone kindly correct it if there is any inaccuracy.)
KInd regards
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.
Stop and listen to Ñāṇa, and contemplate what he is saying here.Ñāṇa wrote:I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any recommendations for developing anger or aggression as a practice or as part of the path in the Nikāyas. Anger is regarded as unskillful, and unskillful mental qualities don't lead to liberation. For example, the well known verse from Dhammapada 1.5:Alex123 wrote:Maybe revulsion to counteract craving is equal in force to craving so that net result is zero.
Example: Lets say that craving is 5 units of force to the left. If one develops 5 units of force to the right (anger) then the net result is zero.
- Hatred never ends through hatred.
By non-hate alone does it end.
This is an ancient truth.
Put in the language of Zen, anger presupposes someone to be "angry," at some thing or someone else. Yes? An act of the ego. Yes?
Better to replace the anger in your equation with dispassion (for example, non-hate) through insight into "things as they are."
Dispassion implies allowing things to be and not minding that they are (that they exists).
"The gift of truth exceeds all other gifts" — Dhammapada, v. 354 Craving XXIV
-
- Posts: 10186
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.
Thanks Dave, useful references. "Unperturbed" does seem to be significant.daverupa wrote:SN 1.38 & SN 4.13 discuss this.porpoise wrote:I'm still not clear about whether the 1st arrow ( physical pain ) is dukkha for a Buddha.
"Unperturbed" seems to be the key term here.I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha at the Maddakucchi Deer Reserve. Now at that time his foot had been pierced by a stone sliver. Excruciating were the bodily feelings that developed within him — painful, fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable — but he endured them mindful, alert, & unperturbed.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.
I think that while anger and dislike are similar in some degree (both push away or reject something), dislike is less harmful than anger. So in the sense of gradual path, isn't it possible to use dislike of defilements and laziness in a positive way?Ñāṇa wrote:I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any recommendations for developing anger or aggression as a practice or as part of the path in the Nikāyas.
Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.
What about disliking? What about choosing? Doesn't it presupposes someone to "dislike" at some thing or someone else.IanAnd wrote:Put in the language of Zen, anger presupposes someone to be "angry," at some thing or someone else.
Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.
It doesn't seem to, no.Alex123 wrote:Doesn't it presuppose
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
- Prasadachitta
- Posts: 974
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
- Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
- Contact:
Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.
Hi Alex,Alex123 wrote: I think that while anger and dislike are similar in some degree (both push away or reject something), dislike is less harmful than anger. So in the sense of gradual path, isn't it possible to use dislike of defilements and laziness in a positive way?
It is possible that using the word "dislike" is meant to convey some degree of affective "rejection" or "pushing away" but this is not necessarily so. The words we use are created within the context of an unenlightened mind so that "dislike" is necessarily associated with some degree of aversion. We can imagine that the Buddha has preference without aversion attraction or apathy. I think we can say that it is a new category which unenlightened humanity has not had the opportunity to name except with the term Nibbana. For us painful pleasant and neutral experience is almost always conjoined with some degree of aversion, attraction, or apathy.
Take Care
Prasadachitta
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
- Modus.Ponens
- Posts: 3853
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
- Location: Gallifrey
Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.
This is a very interesting discussion.
If I interpret correctly, the critics of Daniel Ingraim say his definition of arahatship is wrong because it includes "emotions" that an arahat isn't suposed to have. And, again if I interpret correctly, what Daniel Ingraim says is that although these "emotions" arise, they don't cause suffering, they are not clung to or pushed away.
One thing that's interesting is that, in light of my interpretation of the contention, and iirc, there are people who criticise Daniel Ingraim's suposed awakening (idk if he did awake or not) and on the other hand tend to believe Dipa Ma was an arahat. And what Dipa Ma said in an interview to Jack Engler, is basicaly what Ingraim says about arahatship. She says something like: the "emotions" arise but they don't burn.
I believe Tiltbillings is one of the persons who is in this dilema. If you are indeed in this dilema, can you explain why you believe one is an arahat and the other is not?
PS: I'm not trying to pick a fight. On the contrary, I'm trying to learn. I mentioned you because you're the only person that I remember being on this situation publicly. However, if I didn't think you were representative of a good portion of people in this dilema, I wouldn't bring it up. Please don't take this the wrong way.
If I interpret correctly, the critics of Daniel Ingraim say his definition of arahatship is wrong because it includes "emotions" that an arahat isn't suposed to have. And, again if I interpret correctly, what Daniel Ingraim says is that although these "emotions" arise, they don't cause suffering, they are not clung to or pushed away.
One thing that's interesting is that, in light of my interpretation of the contention, and iirc, there are people who criticise Daniel Ingraim's suposed awakening (idk if he did awake or not) and on the other hand tend to believe Dipa Ma was an arahat. And what Dipa Ma said in an interview to Jack Engler, is basicaly what Ingraim says about arahatship. She says something like: the "emotions" arise but they don't burn.
I believe Tiltbillings is one of the persons who is in this dilema. If you are indeed in this dilema, can you explain why you believe one is an arahat and the other is not?
PS: I'm not trying to pick a fight. On the contrary, I'm trying to learn. I mentioned you because you're the only person that I remember being on this situation publicly. However, if I didn't think you were representative of a good portion of people in this dilema, I wouldn't bring it up. Please don't take this the wrong way.
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.
With apologies to the OP of this thread (which has been temporarily hijacked). Hopefully to get back on track soon.Alex123 wrote:What about disliking? What about choosing? Doesn't it presupposes someone to "dislike" at some thing or someone else.IanAnd wrote:Put in the language of Zen, anger presupposes someone to be "angry," at some thing or someone else.
Alex, please pause long enough to put two and two together (for your own benefit, if for no one else). The following seems to have gone over your head: "Dispassion implies allowing things to be and not minding that they are (that they exists)." And daverupa's contribution, in reference to the Buddha and how he responded to physical pain (something that we all have an aversion toward): ". . . but he endured them mindful, alert, & unperturbed."
It is not so much that the arising of disliking or aversion can take place (as it most assuredly can, even in an arahant, who is confronted by a conventional situation which may seem to be unjustified, in the mind). It is about not taking it personally (i.e. remaining unperturbed that it has arisen; in other words, not minding that it has arisen, thus not causing one dukkha!). Through insight into "things as they are" one simply observes the arising of conventional reactions (mental processes) without becoming part of the reactions. In other words, one observes: "Oh, look! A reaction has arisen! How quaint. In the meantime, I remain unperturbed [by its arising]!" See?
"The gift of truth exceeds all other gifts" — Dhammapada, v. 354 Craving XXIV
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.
I really do not know what you are saying here about me, nor do I know iirc and idk mean. If this is text msg speak, it should be banned outright.Modus.Ponens wrote:This is a very interesting discussion.
If I interpret correctly, the critics of Daniel Ingraim say his definition of arahatship is wrong because it includes "emotions" that an arahat isn't suposed to have. And, again if I interpret correctly, what Daniel Ingraim says is that although these "emotions" arise, they don't cause suffering, they are not clung to or pushed away.
One thing that's interesting is that, in light of my interpretation of the contention, and iirc, there are people who criticise Daniel Ingraim's suposed awakening (idk if he did awake or not) and on the other hand tend to believe Dipa Ma was an arahat. And what Dipa Ma said in an interview to Jack Engler, is basicaly what Ingraim says about arahatship. She says something like: the "emotions" arise but they don't burn.
I believe Tiltbillings is one of the persons who is in this dilema. If you are indeed in this dilema, can you explain why you believe one is an arahat and the other is not?
PS: I'm not trying to pick a fight. On the contrary, I'm trying to learn. I mentioned you because you're the only person that I remember being on this situation publicly. However, if I didn't think you were representative of a good portion of people in this dilema, I wouldn't bring it up. Please don't take this the wrong way.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723