Page 5 of 8

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:06 pm
by manas
A question for anyone who actually visits the Dh.O., has D. Ingram publicly renounced some of his (above-quoted) views about Arahants yet? He should either publicly admit he was wrong, or stop calling what he teaches 'Buddha-Dhamma'. Is he not worried about distorting the Doctrine, and potentially misleading many people?
tiltbillings wrote:ydnrc, it would seem.
wdymbt? :P

:anjali:

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:41 pm
by Alex123
IanAnd wrote:Alex, please pause long enough to put two and two together
I think you (and others) could be right. Anyhow, this issue is complex.

Personally, right now I am considering two different versions of arahantship.

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:42 pm
by Nyana
Alex123 wrote:So in the sense of gradual path, isn't it possible to use dislike of defilements and laziness in a positive way?
I think it is. Dislike, disenchantment, and revulsion don't require anger or any other unskillful mental qualities. The path does involve renouncing mental qualities and actions that are harmful and unskillful, but I'd suggest that your phrase "push away or reject something" might be phrased in a more nuanced way as "relax one's grip on something" in order to learn how to let it go.

I also think it's reasonable to differentiate between (i) the learner who is still developing the noble path and (ii) the non-learner who has completed the path and attained fruition. The non-learner likely no longer needs to develop disenchantment and revulsion in order to induce dispassion, whereas the learner does.

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:58 pm
by Alex123
Ñāṇa wrote:
Alex123 wrote:So in the sense of gradual path, isn't it possible to use dislike of defilements and laziness in a positive way?
I think it is. Dislike, disenchantment, and revulsion don't require anger or any other unskillful mental qualities. The path does involve renouncing mental qualities and actions that are harmful and unskillful, but I'd suggest that your phrase "push away or reject something" might be phrased in a more nuanced way as "relax one's grip on something" in order to learn how to let it go.

I also think it's reasonable to differentiate between (i) the learner who is still developing the noble path and (ii) the non-learner who has completed the path and attained fruition. The non-learner likely no longer needs to develop disenchantment and revulsion in order to induce dispassion, whereas the learner does.
I think you are right.

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 12:12 am
by nibs
Hi Taintless,

We may have crossed path before, no? ;-)
taintless wrote: [*]The hardcore dharma movement places too much emphasis on experience as a validator, as opposed to faith and gradual practice.
Perhaps, but some of us within the movement, do not so much anymore. It's a mixed bag. Also,it seems no-one except those with opinions against seem to use the word 'hardcore' anymore. Doesn't fit the evolution of many of its past practitioners. It's now often referred to as the 'pragmatic dharma movement', though no doubt this term may irk some still.
[*]The hardcore dharma movement renders the path "goal-less" and useless. At least for myself and others (who may not be as public as they once were) it is the end of all mental dissatisfaction/stress as subtle and refined as it gets.
Some seem to adhere to this idea. I know of others who don't. I certainly don't.
[*]The hardcore dharma movement establishes bizarre and incorrect criterion for Awakening.
Yeh, it's a mixed bag these days. Not everyone agrees on interpretations for this and that concept, and some of us openly and non-aggressively disagree with Daniel as well. We still get along though.
[*]The hardcore dharma movement demoralizes and secularizes the path.


Not my experience. But it may be yours, so may be a valid argument. What it has primarily done for myself is forced much experimentation and results and made further progress in discernment, dispassion, and letting go of much mental dissatisfaction possible.
[*]The adherents of the hardcore dharma movement are method and technique obsessed.
Yeh, a little. But it is a movement, and often movements start with a big bang then start dispersing causing different projectiles going this way and that. Not everyone is 'obsessed'.

Concerning sila, though it may not be talked openly about as other aspects of practice, it is a part of many participants' practice within the movement. I personally have always found sila to be at first a vital support for calming and establishing the mind in a practice towards more discernment. And with progress has simple become more so the default mode of the current baseline. It does need more of the spotlight though, and as the movement is still moving, shifting, changing, sila is starting to become more relevant to people's practice. Thenagain, it was always my understanding form speaking with many yogis over the past number of years, that sila was already simply a part of our practices from the beginning and it was simply more practical to talk of technique and methods.Many of us were already well established in other traditions where sila was already part and parcel of what we were taking as a given.

Nibs

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 12:53 am
by SamKR
Hi nibs,

It seems that the main emphasis of this movement is "enlightenment" , and not purification (from defilements), and not liberation (from suffering).
Perhaps this is where the main difference lies between this movement and "orthodox theravada".
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Actually I do not criticize the movement, and actually I enjoy reading your posts as well as the other followers of this movement.

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 1:45 am
by Modus.Ponens
tiltbillings wrote:Dipa Ma never claimed to be an arahant, and I never claimed it of her. Show me where Dipa Ma claimed, as did Ingram, that, to quote Ingram:
Here are a number of bogus myths and falsehoods about arahats, each of which violates one of more of the First Principles in addition to simply being untrue:
1.Arahats cannot lie.
2.Arahats cannot have erections or have sex.
3.Arahats would never do drugs or drink.
4.Arahats cannot kill anything ever.
5.Arahats cannot state they are arahats.
6.Arahats must ordain within 7 days of becomming an arahat in the Buddhist order of monks or they will die.
7.Arahats cannot think the thought "I am an arahat."
8.Arahats cannot feel the following emotions: lust, hatred, irritation, restlessness, worry, fear, pride, conceit, desire for the formless realms, desire for the formed realms, or any other "bad" emotion.
9.Arahats cannot like music or dance.
10.Arahats love forests.
11.Arahats cannot have jobs or normal relationships.
12.Arahats do not really exist today.
13.Arahats must work hard to maintain their understanding, and it is this that makes them unable to do so many things. http://ww.morpheusrising.com/arahats.shtml );return false;
ydnrc, it would seem.
I didn't recall correctly that she atained 4th path. She claimed to attain 2nd path, but we can conclude from this interview that she attained 3rd path, because Munindraji stoped her from talking about 3rd path, which can only mean that she attained it and Munindraji thought it wouldn't be wise to speak about it. About 4th path, I don't have information. But I believe the "emotions" mentioned in that list, if felt by the non returner, are felt by the arahat (with the exception of conceit, I believe), so the part about the emotions is true. In the interview you can find this dialog:

Do you experience anger at all? As soon as it comes, at the very start, I’m aware of it. It doesn’t get any nourishment.

What do you do when you begin to feel irritation or anger? Anger is a fire, but I don’t feel any heat. It comes and dies right out.


I have to leave imediatly, but you can find the interview here: http://www.tricycle.com/interview/enlig ... e?page=0,0

EDIT: Resuming my post.

In another part of the interview we can read:

Do you still find yourself acting against the precepts sometimes? After First Path, I found I couldn’t intentionally do something which grossly violated the Five Precepts [the precepts lay practitioners agree to follow: to refrain from lying, stealing, improper sexual conduct, killing, and taking intoxicants]. If I did, it was usually a reflex action out of habit. I knew it right away, and I acknowledged it and asked forgiveness. After Second Path, right action became second nature. It seems natural to me now.

I think both views regarding the precepts are compatible, if we interpret the statements by both persons in a conciliatory manner. The bold was added by me and is the crucial word in compatibilizing both views of the precepts.

So points 1, 3, 4 and 8 are, in my opinion, compatible if we interpret what Ingraim is saying as denyig that the arahat is absolutely incapable of doing these things. 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 are just things that are traditional myths about arahats; I think we can agree on that.

In another excerpt of the interview it is said:

Sense-desire comes up a lot in people’s practice. Does it come up for you still? It is important to distinguish between sense-pleasure and sense-desire. There is nothing wrong with sense-pleasure. Pleasure and pain are part of our human experience. Sense-desire, on the other hand, is the grasping at pleasure or the avoidance of pain. This is what creates suffering—grasping and avoidance. Sense-desire comes up for everyone. It came up for me, too. When it arose, I knew it—and that’s the way to overcome it. I don’t feel sense-desire anymore. Sense-desire and anger don’t go away after First Path. They are weakened after Second Path and completely go away after Third Path

From this we can conclude two things. One is the confirmation that she attained at least 3rd path. The other is that "There is nothing wrong with sense-pleasure. Pleasure and pain are part of our human experience." This could conciliate points 2 and 9. 10 is not important. And 11 has two parts. The job part I think we can agree that it is a myth. The relationship part is possible if we accept point 2. Although it would be normal for an arahat to prefer solitude. I think that the spirit of this declaration of Ingraim is to state that the arahat is not absolutely incapable of doing these things, even though they naturaly tend not to do it.

Do you find common ground here?

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:13 am
by tiltbillings
Modus.Ponens wrote: . . . Do you find common ground here?
No. Simply, there is a world difference between what Ingram (only one eye) has said and what Dipa Ma has said.

Ingram said: Here are a number of bogus myths and falsehoods about arahats, each of which violates one of more of the First Principles in addition to simply being untrue:
1.Arahats cannot lie.
2.Arahats cannot have erections or have sex.
3.Arahats would never do drugs or drink.
4.Arahats cannot kill anything ever.
. . . .


Q: What do you do when you begin to feel irritation or anger? Dipa Ma: Anger is a fire, but I don’t feel any heat. It comes and dies right out.

Ingram is saying that an arahant can lie and that it is untrue to say that an arahant cannot lie or kill anything, which is vastly different from what Dipa Ma has said.

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:23 am
by Nyana
tiltbillings wrote:Ingram is saying that an arahant can lie and it untrue to say that an arahant cannot lie or kill anything, which is vastly different from what Dipa Ma has said.
In addition, as far as I know, Dipa Ma never claimed to be an arahant nor did she claim that an arahant can experience lust, hatred, irritation, etc.

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:25 am
by IanAnd
kirk5a wrote:
IanAnd wrote: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?
No, I don't see that at all. The suttas say that passion, aversion, and delusion are not subject to arising for an arahant.
"And how is a monk well-released in discernment? There is the case where a monk discerns, 'Passion is abandoned in me, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.' He discerns, 'Aversion is abandoned in me, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.' He discerns, 'Delusion is abandoned in me, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.' This is how a monk is well-released in discernment.
A distinction without a difference. No accounting for differences in perception (meaning perhaps you misperceive my description). I guess you'll just have to practice real hard and find out for yourself.

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:28 am
by tiltbillings
Ñāṇa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Ingram is saying that an arahant can lie and that it is untrue to say that an arahant cannot lie or kill anything, which is vastly different from what Dipa Ma has said.
In addition, as far as I know, Dipa Ma never claimed to be an arahant nor did she claim that an arahant can experience lust, hatred, irritation, etc.
I would seriously doubt that Dipa Ma would ever claim such.

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:31 am
by tiltbillings
manas wrote:A question for anyone who actually visits the Dh.O., has D. Ingram publicly renounced some of his (above-quoted) views about Arahants yet? He should either publicly admit he was wrong, or stop calling what he teaches 'Buddha-Dhamma'. Is he not worried about distorting the Doctrine, and potentially misleading many people?
tiltbillings wrote:ydnrc, it would seem.
wdymbt? :P

:anjali:
You do not recall correctly. These abbreviations are a pain in the tookus.

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:34 am
by kirk5a
IanAnd wrote: A distinction without a difference.
A distinction with a clear difference. You say aversion can arise even in an arahant, the suttas deny that is the case.

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:04 am
by Modus.Ponens
Modus.Ponens wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Dipa Ma never claimed to be an arahant, and I never claimed it of her. Show me where Dipa Ma claimed, as did Ingram, that, to quote Ingram:
Here are a number of bogus myths and falsehoods about arahats, each of which violates one of more of the First Principles in addition to simply being untrue:
1.Arahats cannot lie.
2.Arahats cannot have erections or have sex.
3.Arahats would never do drugs or drink.
4.Arahats cannot kill anything ever.
5.Arahats cannot state they are arahats.
6.Arahats must ordain within 7 days of becomming an arahat in the Buddhist order of monks or they will die.
7.Arahats cannot think the thought "I am an arahat."
8.Arahats cannot feel the following emotions: lust, hatred, irritation, restlessness, worry, fear, pride, conceit, desire for the formless realms, desire for the formed realms, or any other "bad" emotion.
9.Arahats cannot like music or dance.
10.Arahats love forests.
11.Arahats cannot have jobs or normal relationships.
12.Arahats do not really exist today.
13.Arahats must work hard to maintain their understanding, and it is this that makes them unable to do so many things. http://ww.morpheusrising.com/arahats.shtml );return false;
ydnrc, it would seem.
I didn't recall correctly that she atained 4th path. She claimed to attain 2nd path, but we can conclude from this interview that she attained 3rd path, because Munindraji stoped her from talking about 3rd path, which can only mean that she attained it and Munindraji thought it wouldn't be wise to speak about it. About 4th path, I don't have information. But I believe the "emotions" mentioned in that list, if felt by the non returner, are felt by the arahat (with the exception of conceit, I believe), so the part about the emotions is true. In the interview you can find this dialog:

Do you experience anger at all? As soon as it comes, at the very start, I’m aware of it. It doesn’t get any nourishment.

What do you do when you begin to feel irritation or anger? Anger is a fire, but I don’t feel any heat. It comes and dies right out.


I have to leave imediatly, but you can find the interview here: http://www.tricycle.com/interview/enlig ... e?page=0,0

EDIT: Resuming my post.

In another part of the interview we can read:

Do you still find yourself acting against the precepts sometimes? After First Path, I found I couldn’t intentionally do something which grossly violated the Five Precepts [the precepts lay practitioners agree to follow: to refrain from lying, stealing, improper sexual conduct, killing, and taking intoxicants]. If I did, it was usually a reflex action out of habit. I knew it right away, and I acknowledged it and asked forgiveness. After Second Path, right action became second nature. It seems natural to me now.

I think both views regarding the precepts are compatible, if we interpret the statements by both persons in a conciliatory manner. The bold was added by me and is the crucial word in compatibilizing both views of the precepts.

So points 1, 3, 4 and 8 are, in my opinion, compatible if we interpret what Ingraim is saying as denyig that the arahat is absolutely incapable of doing these things. 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 are just things that are traditional myths about arahats; I think we can agree on that.

In another excerpt of the interview it is said:

Sense-desire comes up a lot in people’s practice. Does it come up for you still? It is important to distinguish between sense-pleasure and sense-desire. There is nothing wrong with sense-pleasure. Pleasure and pain are part of our human experience. Sense-desire, on the other hand, is the grasping at pleasure or the avoidance of pain. This is what creates suffering—grasping and avoidance. Sense-desire comes up for everyone. It came up for me, too. When it arose, I knew it—and that’s the way to overcome it. I don’t feel sense-desire anymore. Sense-desire and anger don’t go away after First Path. They are weakened after Second Path and completely go away after Third Path

From this we can conclude two things. One is the confirmation that she attained at least 3rd path. The other is that "There is nothing wrong with sense-pleasure. Pleasure and pain are part of our human experience." This could conciliate points 2 and 9. 10 is not important. And 11 has two parts. The job part I think we can agree that it is a myth. The relationship part is possible if we accept point 2. Although it would be normal for an arahat to prefer solitude. I think that the spirit of this declaration of Ingraim is to state that the arahat is not absolutely incapable of doing these things, even though they naturaly tend not to do it.

Do you find common ground here?
Tilt,

Please read my post carefuly. You didn't understand it correctly.

Let me quote the part where she almost directly admits she attained 3rd path (after directly admiting to have atained 1st and 2nd path):

Sense-desire comes up a lot in people’s practice. Does it come up for you still? It is important to distinguish between sense-pleasure and sense-desire. There is nothing wrong with sense-pleasure. Pleasure and pain are part of our human experience. Sense-desire, on the other hand, is the grasping at pleasure or the avoidance of pain. This is what creates suffering—grasping and avoidance. Sense-desire comes up for everyone. It came up for me, too. When it arose, I knew it—and that’s the way to overcome it. I don’t feel sense-desire anymore. Sense-desire and anger don’t go away after First Path. They are weakened after Second Path and completely go away after Third Path

So we may safely deduce that she was a non returner. Regarding the point 8 (about the emotions an arahat can feel) apart from conceit, which a non returner still has, the remaining emotions she doesn't have, acording to the traditional interpretation. So when she says:

Anger is a fire, but I don’t feel any heat. It comes and dies right out.

It can only mean one of two things: the traditional interpretation of non returner (and arahat) is too restrictive, or Dipa Ma wasn't a non returner.

Before proceeding with the rest of the discussion, which is the option, if any, you think is more likely?

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:09 am
by Nyana
Modus.Ponens wrote:About 4th path, I don't have information. But I believe the "emotions" mentioned in that list, if felt by the non returner, are felt by the arahat (with the exception of conceit, I believe), so the part about the emotions is true.
The arahant has eliminated outflows, underlying tendencies, and fetters that the non-returner has not eliminated. This is what differentiates the third path and fruition from the fourth. The non-returner path terminates the secondary fetters of desire for sensual pleasure (kāmacchanda) and aversion (vyāpāda/byāpāda). The arahant path terminates the fetters of passion for form [existence] (rūparāga), passion for formless [existence] (arūparāga), conceit (māna), restlessness (uddhacca), and ignorance (avijjā).
Modus.Ponens wrote:So points 1, 3, 4 and 8 are, in my opinion, compatible if we interpret what Ingraim is saying as denyig that the arahat is absolutely incapable of doing these things.
Just considering Ingram's eighth point:
  • Here are a number of bogus myths and falsehoods about arahats, each of which violates one of more of the First Principles in addition to simply being untrue:

    8. Arahats cannot feel the following emotions: lust, hatred, irritation, restlessness, worry, fear, pride, conceit, desire for the formless realms, desire for the formed realms, or any other "bad" emotion.
This is a dismissal of the very criteria that establish the arahant path and fruition. SN 38.2:
  • "Friend Sāriputta, it is said, 'arahantship, arahantship.' What now is arahantship?"

    "The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this, friend, is called arahantship."
Or again, in terms of the ten fetters the arahant path and fruition terminates the fetters of passion for form existence, passion for formless existence, conceit, restlessness, and ignorance (the first five fetters having already been eliminated on the lower paths). If such emotions could still arise after the arahant fruition, the underlying tendencies would still have to be intact. And if the underlying tendencies are still intact, one is still fettered and not fully liberated.