Ingram, et al - "Hard Core Dharma" & claims of attainment

[gsteinb]

Rather than address those questions, nibs edited out his replies and announced his intention to withdraw from discussion.

He went back and edited out all of his msgs. A rather sad, childish act. Obviously he felt that his sacred ox had been gored, but he obviously had no problem with lecturing us about the errors of our ways without first trying to find out exactly what the range of beliefs and attitudes are here. His approach was evangelical, not dialogue. And when it was pointed that the "mushroom" business was not an accurate reflection of what is found in the real world of the Theravada meditations centers, it was as if it was never said.

But fortunately for the sake of dialogue much of what he wrote is quoted in other's msgs.

It's a disappointing turn. I thought the discussion had actually turned a corner and some things would be clarified.

[upekkha]

Something that is quite interesting to me is that, nowadays, Daniel Ingram is working under the guidance of a friend of his (tarin greco) who has claimed to eliminate all forms of craving and suffering what so ever. He says that emotions of all types do not arise for him at all, and that he lives in a constant state of harmlessness.

Tarin has claimed to have attained what Daniel calls 'arahatship' prior to this, and that his current way of being is permanent.

[gsteinb]

So the unrealistic eradication of harmful emotions isn't part of arahantship, but is possible with this other thing?

[upekkha]

Well I really can't give a comprehensive review of this whole issue but Tarin and Daniel had a long conversation about this at Daniel's ranch and recorded it for other people's benefit.
http://www.interactivebuddha.com/podcasts.shtml
Its called 'Tarin and Daniel on AF'

[BubbaBuddhist]

[tiltbillings]

Rather than address those questions, nibs edited out his replies and announced his intention to withdraw from discussion.

He went back and edited out all of his msgs. A rather sad, childish act. Obviously he felt that his sacred ox had been gored, but he obviously had no problem with lecturing us about the errors of our ways without first trying to find out exactly what the range of beliefs and attitudes are here. His approach was evangelical, not dialogue. And when it was pointed that the "mushroom" business was not an accurate reflection of what is found in the real world of the Theravada meditations centers, it was as if it was never said.

But fortunately for the sake of dialogue much of what he wrote is quoted in other's msgs.

It's a disappointing turn. I thought the discussion had actually turned a corner and some things would be clarified.

It is not unusual when doubts arise within a person to try flee from the cause.

[IanAnd]

The conditional phenomena of which it was, is and ever will be composed is rather much more limited and ponderable.

And this is part of the point that folks like Ingram/Folk are missing. Their focus has been lured, so to speak, toward the vastness/infinite possibilities of being and becoming, ignoring, for the moment, the very root of the problem of dukkha that Gotama was addressing. It's almost as though these people don't even get (fully comprehend) the first noble truth.

In respect to that immensity of available experience, my thought and attitude differs from Kenneth's inasmuch as I am focused on spiraling ever further out of the conditional universe, out of the deep and powerful currents of further ongoing experiential being and becoming and likewise away from and out of the various modes and forms of suffering that are bound up in it.

Precisely. Well stated. Although I would caution that the use of the term "conditional universe" could be taken ambiguously. Gotama's focus was not on universes per se, but rather about one's perception of phenomena. Best to leave out anything that might be taken to refer to the ontological and maintain focus on what matters in order to bring about the ending of personal suffering. Of course, I may be misreading what you have written, and what you meant to refer to were "conditioned dhammas" rather than a "conditional universe." This is not to play down any conditional forces at play (cultural or social) in the existential universe that one may have to deal with.

Most superficially this contrast is readily apparent in my complete lack of interest in 'integrating awakening with living in the world'. I haven't the slightest interest in finding 'my place' or 'a home' in this world or in any other.

Here is where I would caution people not to carry these ideas too far. Why do I say this? Been there, done that. It doesn't work. Period.

I realize that this can be a very subjective area. But when looked at with right view, one essentially has no choice but to "integrate awakening with living in the world." That is, unless one wants to end it right here, right now, after having achieved the highest realization. If this were the case, then Gotama never would have had a teaching career, and you and I might never have learned what we have learned from having been exposed to Buddhadhamma. I know that it can be an attractive idea, not to be ever bothered again by the existential in all its wide variety. But this doesn't mean that one should necessarily eschew the existential altogether. Just be careful to remain unattached. That is enough, and as well, that will be challenge enough for the rest of one's life.

This doesn't mean to imply that by doing so one might risk becoming re-attached to the existential. Only that unless one expects to end it all after having attained arahatta, one has no choice but to integrate his personal understanding with that of living in the world. In doing so, one becomes a model of the efficacy of the training and in that way assists others in the world to aspire to the same or similar accomplishment.

[nathan]

In respect to that immensity of available experience, my thought and attitude differs from Kenneth's inasmuch as I am focused on spiraling ever further out of the conditional universe, out of the deep and powerful currents of further ongoing experiential being and becoming and likewise away from and out of the various modes and forms of suffering that are bound up in it.

Precisely. Well stated. Although I would caution that the use of the term "conditional universe" could be taken ambiguously. Gotama's focus was not on universes per se, but rather about one's perception of phenomena. Best to leave out anything that might be taken to refer to the ontological and maintain focus on what matters in order to bring about the ending of personal suffering. Of course, I may be misreading what you have written, and what you meant to refer to were "conditioned dhammas" rather than a "conditional universe." This is not to play down any conditional forces at play (cultural or social) in the existential universe that one may have to deal with.

The use of conditional universe was intentional and I would prefer that the use is viewed as ambiguous as opposed to being drawn into an OT discussion of my sense of any or all of the full implications of the terms. You may correctly infer conditioned dhammas if you prefer.

Most superficially this contrast is readily apparent in my complete lack of interest in 'integrating awakening with living in the world'. I haven't the slightest interest in finding 'my place' or 'a home' in this world or in any other.

Here is where I would caution people not to carry these ideas too far. Why do I say this? Been there, done that. It doesn't work. Period.

I only interject to say that doesn't work applies to what I have said, as you understand it, in purely subjective terms, as follows.

I realize that this can be a very subjective area. But when looked at with right view, one essentially has no choice but to "integrate awakening with living in the world." That is, unless one wants to end it right here, right now, after having achieved the highest realization. If this were the case, then Gotama never would have had a teaching career, and you and I might never have learned what we have learned from having been exposed to Buddhadhamma. I know that it can be an attractive idea, not to be ever bothered again by the existential in all its wide variety. But this doesn't mean that one should necessarily eschew the existential altogether. Just be careful to remain unattached. That is enough, and as well, that will be challenge enough for the rest of one's life.

This doesn't mean to imply that by doing so one might risk becoming re-attached to the existential. Only that unless one expects to end it all after having attained arahatta, one has no choice but to integrate his personal understanding with that of living in the world. In doing so, one becomes a model of the efficacy of the training and in that way assists others in the world to aspire to the same or similar accomplishment.

As I understand it, the Arahant has extinguished all subjectively operative frames of reference or grown cold or become void in regards to the machinations inherent in delusion and ignorance both internally and externally. All of the attractions, aversions and clinging, bound up with any and all conditionality that might be said to pertain exclusively to the so called being, both internally and externally, in regards to further ongoing being and becoming have been extinguished. The Arahant therefore appropriately restrains all objective thought, speech and action apart from that which is demonstrably harmless, wholesome and beneficial in conformity to the wise and compassionate principles inherent in the universal and objective Dhamma visible both within and without.

Integration comes naturally together with the development and perfection of comprehensive understanding. As I initially indicated one who is at ease with its wandering nature is comfortable with any momentary so called home and remains at ease in any place or time in what is visibly and demonstrably a universe entirely formed up from fleeting and transient phenomena.

Most criticisms of my writing is fair, at times the omission, addition or replacement of a word or phrase would be an improvement and I appreciate most all of the criticism I receive when I post. I prefer to leave the posts with whatever flaws they contain rather than amend anything particularly if and when others have quoted or responded. However, the net result of all of many years of criticism, while immensely beneficial in general, has been the inclination towards ever more precise and cumbersome usages of the english language and sentence structures. On the one hand makes it more difficult for experts, scholars and philosophers to take issue with what I write but at the same time inordinately more difficult for most readers to effectively understand.

Bear with me, I make every effort to get a step closer each time I post to more appropriately meeting these frequently contrasting and occasionally conflicting objectives. But anyways, please let go of any and all concern about my musings on theoretical and applied Buddhadhamma in this thread, as these are already way far off topic!

[Alex123]

Please forgive me if this was posted before:

"[1] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to intentionally deprive a living being of life.
[2] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to take, in the manner of stealing, what is not given.
[3] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse.
[4] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to tell a conscious lie.
[5]It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to consume stored-up sensual things as he did before, when he was a householder.
[6] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on desire.
[7] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on aversion.
[8] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on fear.
[9] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on delusion.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

So according to the suttas, Arahatship is like that.

Furthermore even a stream enterer

"There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones is endowed with verified confidence in the Awakened One: 'Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy and rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed.'

"He/she is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma: 'The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves.'

"He/she is endowed with verified confidence in the Sangha: 'The Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples who have practiced well...who have practiced straight-forwardly...who have practiced methodically...who have practiced masterfully-in other words, the four types of noble disciples when taken as pairs, the eight when taken as individual types-they are the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples: worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of respect, the incomparable field of merit for the world.'

"He/she is endowed with virtues that are appealing to the noble ones: untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, leading to concentration.

"A disciple of the noble ones endowed with these four qualities is a stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

While none of us have the mind-reading ability to judge another one's attainments, and even Ven. Sariputta could misjudge another person's capabilities seeing him in person, there are certain signs that prove that one is NOT a stream-enterer or above.

If someone doesn't Believe what the Buddha has said, or s/he doesn't believe the suttas, or doesn't have confidence in arya-sangha, these are give away signs that one is not even a stream-enterer. Whoever transgressess 1-9 points (in AN9.7) cannot be an Arahant by definition.

One can certainly invent their own religion with their own critiria. But that ain't Buddha-Dhamma.

So in light of the above, the Dharma of Mr. Ingram MD, isn't Hard Core. It sounds more like Soft Core. It drastically lowers the Bar about what it means to be Awakened. Sure, there will be more people who are those Arahats... But that is delusion which will be seen soon enough...



With metta,

Alex

[tiltbillings]

. However, the net result of all of many years of criticism, while immensely beneficial in general, has been the inclination towards ever more precise and cumbersome usages of the english language and sentence structures. On the one hand makes it more difficult for experts, scholars and philosophers to take issue with what I write but at the same time inordinately more difficult for most readers to effectively understand.

Since you brought it up, being precise and cumbersome is a bit oxymoronic. What you end up with is a tendency towards over-written, long-winded windbagedness that is not, by your own admission, easy to read. Better to take your skills, which you obviously have, in the direction of clarity, concision and readability. The writings such as those of Buddhist scholar Edward Conze are a good example of clarity, concision and readability, and Herbert Guenther in his later works is a good example of what you seem to be trying to do. The question is: Who is the audience of your postings here on DW? "Experts, scholars and philosophers?"

[muddymick]

I cannot comment on his attainments/non-attainments . All answers and questions arising from these issues are speculative at best and will lead me away from meditation at the worst.

[tiltbillings]

I cannot comment on his attainments/non-attainments . All answers and questions arising from these issues are speculative at best and will lead me away from meditation at the worst.

Best not to let anything here stop you from your meditations.

[Cittasanto]

I cannot comment on his attainments/non-attainments . All answers and questions arising from these issues are speculative at best and will lead me away from meditation at the worst.

didn't joining solely to post a response for this specific discussion do that?

[Ben]

Hi Alex,

While none of us have the mind-reading ability to judge another one's attainments, and even Ven. Sariputta could misjudge another person's capabilities seeing him in person, there are certain signs that prove that one is NOT a stream-enterer or above.

One doesn't need superpowers.
To paraphrase Forrest Gump: Ariya is what Ariya does!
kind regards

Ben

[Alex123]

Hi Ben,

Hi Alex,

While none of us have the mind-reading ability to judge another one's attainments, and even Ven. Sariputta could misjudge another person's capabilities seeing him in person, there are certain signs that prove that one is NOT a stream-enterer or above.

One doesn't need superpowers.
To paraphrase Forrest Gump: Ariya is what Ariya does!
kind regards

Ben

But it is never clear unless some strong event happens to prove the contrary.

Even if one can read other person's mind, and see his mind's apparent purity, one can never be sure if the fetters are gone or are simply suppressed.

In some cases some people may act holy. But it is not due to eradication of fetters but suppression, or just circumstances.


In the suttas the famous monks had to ask the Buddha about level of such and such a person. Even Venerable Sariputta, a real Arhat with great wisdom, could misjudge the capabilities of other monks (MN97, MN144) seeing those monks IN PERSON. So it is not always clear, especially if that person is a stream-enterer and doesn't have extremely outstanding external signs. One may be a worldling and externally behave like a stream-enterer.

Some monks may appear (for a while, until some strong circumstance happens) to be Arahants and yet be good worldlings - whose negative qualities are just suppressed and there aren't challenging circumstances due to which one could judge them.


In Ptsm it clearly states that only the Buddha could judge other people's faculties. Disciples cannot, which is why even great Arahants living with the Buddha had to ask Him.

[Ben]

Hi Alex

I should have been clearer. My comment should really be read within the context of the subject matter of this thread and the claims by some of our visitors representing the "hardcore" movement.
kind regards

Ben

[manas]

Something has been on my mind for a while relating to this topic.

I can remember a time, not even a year ago, when I did not have as much confidence / conviction in the Buddha-Dhamma as I do now. I basically practiced meditation with the subconscious desire for ecstatic or blissful states of mind, with patchy and / or mixed results over the years. I followed the 5 precepts, not always perfectly though. One day, having been calming my mind quite successfully, I really reflected on how deceitful I was being in one area. I was not being completely honest about something, for the sake of a bit of extra money (musicians get lots of opportunities to participate in the 'black economy'). Now please understand, I really struggle to pay my bills sometimes, and am on a very low income. But all those arguments were challenged by the Buddha. In my heart I became aware, "You claim to be a follower of Truth, yet you tell a deliberate lie!"

So it came to this: I to'd and fro'd, with the voices of most of my friends in my head ("you'd be mad to declare all your income! the govt screws us, so why worry about them?") etc... but then I contemplated that a lie is a lie, plain and simple. If you tell a deliberate falsehood, you are not being a support for Truth, but are undermining it. It was a humbling and excruciating moment when I realized that I must declare every single cent I earn if I want to call myself the Buddha's follower. Otherwise, I am practicing something or other, but don't call it the Buddha-Dhamma if you think even a small lie is ok.

I have lost some of my govt benefit as a result, but I have gained more self-respect, not to mention avoidance of what was actually very unwholesome kamma. The strange thing was that looking at it now, it seems odd that I thought that was ok (to not declare every cent), yet now it all seems so obvious that there can be no compromise on truthfulness.

Ok, back to the topic: through my own experience, I am finding that meditation, and the states accessible therein, are only part of the story. Virtue is indispensible also. I feel a tangible transformation occurring in me, albeit slowly, by really taking to heart the precepts, not just following them to improve meditation practice (they do), but following them because they are an integral part of this Dhamma. Integral! So what I feel might be happening for some people maybe, is a tendency to take the Dhamma as a kind of conquest that can be achieved through acts of will (eg "I will go on retreats, follow the instructions, and gain stream-entry!"), rather than as something that, like a plant, grows at it's own sweet pace and just needs as much care and effort that you can muster (virtue, mental cultivation etc), but that can't be forced to grow.

I've been really honest here, and despite the embarrassment of what I revealed before, I wanted to use it as an example of how we cannot 'grab hold' of the Dhamma, rather we must surrender to it, and like real medicine, it will purify us over time. I hope what I am trying to express here is making sense.

[IanAnd]

Something has been on my mind for a while relating to this topic. . . .

. . . But all those arguments were challenged by the Buddha. In my heart I became aware, "You claim to be a follower of Truth, yet you tell a deliberate lie!"

I have lost some of my govt benefit as a result, but I have gained more self-respect, not to mention avoidance of what was actually very unwholesome kamma. The strange thing was that looking at it now, it seems odd that I thought that was ok (to not declare every cent), yet now it all seems so obvious that there can be no compromise on truthfulness.

Ok, back to the topic: through my own experience, I am finding that meditation, and the states accessible therein, are only part of the story. Virtue is indispensable also. I feel a tangible transformation occurring in me, albeit slowly, by really taking to heart the precepts, not just following them to improve meditation practice (they do), but following them because they are an integral part of this Dhamma. Integral! So what I feel might be happening for some people maybe, is a tendency to take the Dhamma as a kind of conquest that can be achieved through acts of will (eg "I will go on retreats, follow the instructions, and gain stream-entry!"), rather than as something that, like a plant, grows at it's own sweet pace and just needs as much care and effort that you can muster (virtue, mental cultivation etc), but that can't be forced to grow.

I've been really honest here, and despite the embarrassment of what I revealed before, I wanted to use it as an example of how we cannot 'grab hold' of the Dhamma, rather we must surrender to it, and like real medicine, it will purify us over time. I hope what I am trying to express here is making sense.

You're making all kinds of sense here, manasikara. In fact, what you've just shared with us is a major breakthrough in your practice. And if experience is any guide, it is likely that, with the correct direction in practice, you are in for many more breakthroughs in the not-too-distant future.

The practice can be reduced down to three simple accomplishments: sila, samadhi, and panna, or virtue, concentration, and wisdom. Yet, until people understand and get the first one, it can be difficult to accomplish and get the next two. First practice virtue, then develop concentration — on the way to gaining wisdom.

I had a similar experiential breakthrough to the one you described, and it was after that realization that my practice really began to take off and become truly meaningful. I would venture to say that you are the same point in your own practice. Keep up the good work.

[Reductor]

I've been really honest here, and despite the embarrassment of what I revealed before, I wanted to use it as an example of how we cannot 'grab hold' of the Dhamma, rather we must surrender to it, and like real medicine, it will purify us over time. I hope what I am trying to express here is making sense.

Perfect sense, actually. At about the same time that you were coming to this realization, I was also (1.5 years ago? About that). I concluded that saying I was 'something' was worth nothing if I didn't act in line with it. If I wanted to follow the Buddha to the end of suffering it would take more than mere identification as "Buddhist", or whatever.

Actually ending my bad practices was emotionally difficult, but everyday since has been progressively lighter. To me this reaffirms the value of restraint, of the training, and puts the meditative experiences in a context where they serve a purpose other than as an object of self-identification.

"We find here two salient characteristics of the Buddha's theory of kamma. Firstly, process substitutes for objects: instead of identifying with universal consciousness one is to think in a certain way; salvation is a matter of how one lives, not of what one is. Secondly, the process is ethicised: to be totally benevolent is to be liberated."

-Gombrich, "How Buddhism Began"

[tiltbillings]

"We find here two salient characteristics of the Buddha's theory of kamma. Firstly, process substitutes for objects: instead of identifying with universal consciousness one is to think in a certain way; salvation is a matter of how one lives, not of what one is. Secondly, the process is ethicised: to be totally benevolent is to be liberated."

-Gombrich, "How Buddhism Began"

This is key and is pretty much missed by the over emphasis on attainment of particular meditative states, which is a point i made early on in this discussion:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=5569&p=48308&hilit=stinker#p48308