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

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Ingram, et al - "Hard Core Dharma" & claims of attainmen

Postby tiltbillings » Thu May 29, 2014 8:35 am

Modus.Ponens wrote:
I've tried to answer both of these questions before. If you read the posts and still don't agree with my interpretation consider this: when an arahat remembers being angry in the past or, if he has psychic powers, he "reads the mind" of an angry person, what sensation arises in him due to mind contact? I think it's reasonable to answer this question with: the arahat experiences the vedana correspondent to anger, but is not in any way perturbed by it. There's nothing unreasonable in this line of thought, wrong as it may be. And this line of thought could be different than what Ingram is saying.
I know you tried to answer this before. I simply do not find Ingram's answers credible in terms of the Pali Canon, and he himself admits that his definition of arahant is different from the suttas @ 4:50 in this: https://soundcloud.com/daneilmingram/ta ... el-on-af-1

What interesting in this talk is that Ingram really has very poor understanding of what the texts say, but more interesting is that we now have the AF movement which goes even beyond arahantship. Again, this is the sort of stuff that comes out of the non-dual movement, and if that is what you want, fine, but it is not Buddha-Dhamma.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19584
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Ingram, et al - "Hard Core Dharma" & claims of attainmen

Postby Mkoll » Thu May 29, 2014 8:40 am

tiltbillings wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:
I've tried to answer both of these questions before. If you read the posts and still don't agree with my interpretation consider this: when an arahat remembers being angry in the past or, if he has psychic powers, he "reads the mind" of an angry person, what sensation arises in him due to mind contact? I think it's reasonable to answer this question with: the arahat experiences the vedana correspondent to anger, but is not in any way perturbed by it. There's nothing unreasonable in this line of thought, wrong as it may be. And this line of thought could be different than what Ingram is saying.
I know you tried to answer this before. I simply do not find Ingram's answers credible in terms of the Pali Canon, and he himself admits that his definition of arahant is different from the suttas @ 4:50 in this: https://soundcloud.com/daneilmingram/ta ... el-on-af-1

What interesting in this talk is that Ingram really has very poor understanding of what the texts say, but more interesting is that we now have the AF movement which goes even beyond arahantship. Again, this is the sort of stuff that comes out of the non-dual movement, and if that is what you want, fine, but it is not Buddha-Dhamma.

What is the AF movement?
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: Ingram, et al - "Hard Core Dharma" & claims of attainmen

Postby tiltbillings » Thu May 29, 2014 8:54 am

Mkoll wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:
I've tried to answer both of these questions before. If you read the posts and still don't agree with my interpretation consider this: when an arahat remembers being angry in the past or, if he has psychic powers, he "reads the mind" of an angry person, what sensation arises in him due to mind contact? I think it's reasonable to answer this question with: the arahat experiences the vedana correspondent to anger, but is not in any way perturbed by it. There's nothing unreasonable in this line of thought, wrong as it may be. And this line of thought could be different than what Ingram is saying.
I know you tried to answer this before. I simply do not find Ingram's answers credible in terms of the Pali Canon, and he himself admits that his definition of arahant is different from the suttas @ 4:50 in this: https://soundcloud.com/daneilmingram/ta ... el-on-af-1

What interesting in this talk is that Ingram really has very poor understanding of what the texts say, but more interesting is that we now have the AF movement which goes even beyond arahantship. Again, this is the sort of stuff that comes out of the non-dual movement, and if that is what you want, fine, but it is not Buddha-Dhamma.

What is the AF movement?
http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/library ... method.htm
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19584
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Ingram, et al - "Hard Core Dharma" & claims of attainmen

Postby Modus.Ponens » Thu May 29, 2014 12:37 pm

Mkoll wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:It only makes sense to interpret his opinions in the way I interpret them.


Did you really just say that? Am I reading that right?

:toilet:

~~~

Does it make sense to have the opinion that his opinions make no sense?

:tongue:


You're right. What I should have said is "The only way of making his words agree with the suttas is by interpreting them as I am interpreting." Obviously he could be deluded.

Reading more into his book the message seems to be that there is an unavoidable physical component to emotions. That physical component can either be dealt with ignorance, or with wisdom. This is reasonable, imo.

Saying the physical components of emotions can lead an arahat to do stupid things is more problematic. Depends on what exactly "stupid" means in this context. I certainly haven't seen him saying an arahat can smoke crack. And it seems that what he is conveying is that arahats are not beings of perfect wisdom and, by extension, of perfect morality. And that this might lead to confusion when the ideal of perfection is not met. Nevertheless, it is still problematic, imo.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
 
Posts: 2004
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Funchal, Portugal

Re: Ingram, et al - "Hard Core Dharma" & claims of attainmen

Postby Modus.Ponens » Thu May 29, 2014 12:57 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:
I've tried to answer both of these questions before. If you read the posts and still don't agree with my interpretation consider this: when an arahat remembers being angry in the past or, if he has psychic powers, he "reads the mind" of an angry person, what sensation arises in him due to mind contact? I think it's reasonable to answer this question with: the arahat experiences the vedana correspondent to anger, but is not in any way perturbed by it. There's nothing unreasonable in this line of thought, wrong as it may be. And this line of thought could be different than what Ingram is saying.
I know you tried to answer this before. I simply do not find Ingram's answers credible in terms of the Pali Canon, and he himself admits that his definition of arahant is different from the suttas @ 4:50 in this: https://soundcloud.com/daneilmingram/ta ... el-on-af-1

What interesting in this talk is that Ingram really has very poor understanding of what the texts say, but more interesting is that we now have the AF movement which goes even beyond arahantship. Again, this is the sort of stuff that comes out of the non-dual movement, and if that is what you want, fine, but it is not Buddha-Dhamma.


What I want is nibbana and supreme peace and happiness, as thaught by the Buddha. However, the suttas were written at least 3 centuries after they were spoken. There is an entire extra pitaka which I don't regard as the word of the Buddha. The suttas themselves have been corrupted here and there. And I don't know to what extent they were corrupted. Therefore I (all of us, actually) find myself in the position of the Kalamas. Obviously the suttas/agamas are the supreme authority. But I have to be aware that it's a bit like reading transcriptions of the telephone game. Highly skilled telephone game players, which memorised a huge amount of words. The vast amount contributes to mantaining coherence and error detection. But still, it's a telephone game.

So I try not to dismiss something imediatly, just because it doesn't agree with the distilled doctrine derived from an imperfect account of the teachings.

Can you explain how the fact that the Buddha allowing arahats to commit suicide is not a contradiction? If you interpret the dhamma rigidly, this is as flagrant a contradiction as it can be. Can you explain why one of the contentions in the schism was the view held by non theravadins that a supremely enlightened being couldn't emit semen? I'm not talking about sex or masturbation, just the biological function, which could perfectly be associated with orgasm. What do you think is the vedana that an arahat experiences when he remembers being an angry person?
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
 
Posts: 2004
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Funchal, Portugal

Re: Ingram, et al - "Hard Core Dharma" & claims of attainmen

Postby tiltbillings » Thu May 29, 2014 6:00 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote: . . . Can you explain . . .
If I cannot, does this open the door to Ingram's being an arahant? Why do you need him to be an arahant? Maybe DW is not the place for, but DharmaOverground is. I have above, at length, explained why I do not find Ingram, Folk and company convincing.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19584
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Ingram, et al - "Hard Core Dharma" & claims of attainmen

Postby waterchan » Thu May 29, 2014 6:07 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:[
Can you explain how the fact that the Buddha allowing arahats to commit suicide is not a contradiction? If you interpret the dhamma rigidly, this is as flagrant a contradiction as it can be.


How is it a contradiction?

Permitting any arahant to commit suicide as a shortcut to Nibbana would serve as a bad example for the Sangha, but these arahants were in agonizing pain. Would it not be uncompassionate to deny them the right to suicide? They had no ill will left, so suicide wouldn't land them in an unfavorable rebirth anyway.
quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
(Anything in Latin sounds profound.)
User avatar
waterchan
 
Posts: 456
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 7:17 pm
Location: Sereitei

Re: Ingram, et al - "Hard Core Dharma" & claims of attainmen

Postby Modus.Ponens » Thu May 29, 2014 7:05 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote: . . . Can you explain . . .
If I cannot, does this open the door to Ingram's being an arahant? Why do you need him to be an arahant? Maybe DW is not the place for, but DharmaOverground is. I have above, at length, explained why I do not find Ingram, Folk and company convincing.


Not necessarily. It opens the door to understand the teachings in a less rigid fashion. I get why most people dismiss him completely. I just don't want to do it that easily.

How many hundreds, and hundreds, of tibetan buddhist masters have spent years on end in solitary retreat? How about Zen masters? Do they speak in exactly the same way as theravadins do? Since they don't, does it mean that most of them didn't attain arahatship? Can we totaly dismiss these hundreds of masters, who express their experience in a different doctrinal framework? Just because I probably know what the suttas say better than, for example, Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, I don't want to assume that I am in position to evaluate his level of realisation accurately.

"Maybe DW is not the place for _____" . Did you mean to fill the blank with the word "you"?


Modus.Ponens wrote:
Can you explain how the fact that the Buddha allowing arahats to commit suicide is not a contradiction? If you interpret the dhamma rigidly, this is as flagrant a contradiction as it can be.



How is it a contradiction?

Permitting any arahant to commit suicide as a shortcut to Nibbana would serve as a bad example for the Sangha, but these arahants were in agonizing pain. Would it not be uncompassionate to deny them the right to suicide? They had no ill will left, so suicide wouldn't land them in an unfavorable rebirth anyway.


This is probably the most severe contradiction I have ever found in the buddhist teachings. The vinaya has only four rules that entail permanent expulsion from the monastic order. One of the ways you can be expelled is by praising suicide and your words resulting in actual suicide of another person. It's an indirect form of killing. Furthermore, killing an arahat is one of the only 5 actions that guarantee hell. They're called the henious crimes. So how could the Buddha, who was a bhikkhu, have have supposedly stated that a an arahat can take his life blamelessly? Although this doesn't seem like a breaking of the parajika, it's very problematic.

The only way of geting out of this contradiction is to be wary of taking the suttas too seriously. The suttas are still the supreme authority. But, as I've said above, how reliable is this authority?

Either the suttas that deal with "incapability" of some imoral actions were corrupted. Or the suttas that mention the Buddha as saying that an arahat can take his life blamelessly were corrupted. Or the situations are not clear cut, as is normal in such a complex world. The part that makes me say that the suttas were somewhat corrupted is the uniformization. For example, the standard jhana formula is repeated countless times in the exact same words. I find it hard to believe that the Buddha repeated that formula in those exact words hundreds and hundreds of times. Plus, there is a lot of repetition of paragraphs in order to facilitate memorisation. But, this repetition is a form of standardization.

The point is that trying to uniformize the teachings removes nuance from them. And that's the whole problem for me. There are parts that are easy to see that were corrupted. But the uniformization removed nuances we may never know of.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
 
Posts: 2004
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Funchal, Portugal

Re: Ingram, et al - "Hard Core Dharma" & claims of attainmen

Postby tiltbillings » Thu May 29, 2014 7:25 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote: . . . Can you explain . . .
If I cannot, does this open the door to Ingram's being an arahant? Why do you need him to be an arahant? Maybe DW is not the place for, but DharmaOverground is. I have above, at length, explained why I do not find Ingram, Folk and company convincing.


Not necessarily. It opens the door to understand the teachings in a less rigid fashion. I get why most people dismiss him completely. I just don't want to do it that easily.
Dismiss him easily? Not at all.

How many hundreds, and hundreds, of tibetan buddhist masters have spent years on end in solitary retreat? How about Zen masters? Do they speak in exactly the same way as theravadins do? Since they don't, does it mean that most of them didn't attain arahatship? Can we totaly dismiss these hundreds of masters, who express their experience in a different doctrinal framework? Just because I probably know what the suttas say better than, for example, Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, I don't want to assume that I am in position to evaluate his level of realisation accurately.
I have worked with both Tibetan teachers and Zen teachers. I don't dismiss them at all, but Ingram is supposedly working within a particular framework, but he then rejects the framework because it does not meet his experiences, redefining things to fit his experiences. It is no longer Buddhism he is talking about; it is Ingramism, which is, at best, a variation of the advaita non-dualism. In his approach, he is not honest.

"Maybe DW is not the place for _____" . Did you mean to fill the blank with the word "you"?
I need to give my proofreader a good talking to.

parts that are easy to see that were corrupted. But the uniformization removed nuances we may never know of.
And you can easily see these corruptions? And so there are these unknown nuances, and Ingram has found them?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19584
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Ingram, et al - "Hard Core Dharma" & claims of attainmen

Postby Mkoll » Thu May 29, 2014 7:34 pm

Modus,

I agree that the suttas are imperfect: the reciters, the standardizers, and the modifiers made mistakes and added things that didn't belong. But, IMO, the basic core of the teaching is clear in that it's repeated over and over again in many different forms, appearing in other recensions in different languages and locations.

One of those core teachings is refraining from the five cords of sensual pleasures. It's in the second noble truth, the non-returner has extirpated sensual desire, entire suttas are devoted to this theme, it's talked about in many other suttas, it makes sense in the context of the whole Buddhist path, etc. To me, this teaching is undeniable as a teaching of the historical Buddha by the weight of the evidence and by my understanding of the whole concept of the Buddhist path in its totality.

Mr. Ingram's teaching throws this teaching out the window. Moreover, he takes the word "arahant" and completely redefines it to suit his own habits and boldy proclaims and advertises his status to anyone who will listen. There is an appeal to this: honestly, when I first heard about the guy, I was very interested in what he had to say because of his claims. It's a good marketing strategy, if nothing else. This claim has led to a cult of personality and a group of his own followers who will defend his views. If he didn't claim he was an arahant, if he didn't apply that label to himself, he wouldn't have so many followers and wouldn't be so well known.

"Very good, Magandiya. Neither have I ever seen or heard of a king or king's minister — enjoying himself, provided & endowed with the five strings of sensuality, without abandoning sensual craving, without removing sensual fever — who has dwelt or will dwell or is dwelling free from thirst, his mind inwardly at peace. But whatever brahmans or contemplatives who have dwelt or will dwell or are dwelling free from thirst, their minds inwardly at peace, all have done so having realized — as it actually is present — the origination & disappearance, the allure, the danger, & the escape from sensual pleasures, having abandoned sensual craving and removed sensual fever."
-http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.075x.than.htmlMN 75
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: Ingram, et al - "Hard Core Dharma" & claims of attainmen

Postby Modus.Ponens » Thu May 29, 2014 8:20 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
parts that are easy to see that were corrupted. But the uniformization removed nuances we may never know of.
And you can easily see these corruptions? And so there are these unknown nuances, and Ingram has found them?


Most of them, no. But apparently schollars can detect them easily. Like a sutta which has a verbatim passage from the abhidhamma, out of context, but squeezed in there. But things like humans literaly having the devas as their ancestors; the delirious account of the appearence of the Buddha; the biography of the Buddha itself; the fishy story of the 8 garudhammas. These, to me, are clear cases of adulteration. (Maybe the 8 garudhammas case is not so clear) And the adulterations of the biography of the Buddha, or of how the bhikkhuni order came to be, are not on unimportant cases.

I don't know if Ingram has found them. But, for me, it's not as "out there" as it is for most people. For example: him saying that the physical components of the emotion of an arahat remains; ans that these can make an arahat make stupid things. It is problematic, no doubt about it. But what would lead an arahat to commit suicide?
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
 
Posts: 2004
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Funchal, Portugal

Re: Ingram, et al - "Hard Core Dharma" & claims of attainmen

Postby tiltbillings » Thu May 29, 2014 8:28 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
parts that are easy to see that were corrupted. But the uniformization removed nuances we may never know of.
And you can easily see these corruptions? And so there are these unknown nuances, and Ingram has found them?


Most of them, no. But apparently schollars can detect them easily. Like a sutta which has a verbatim passage from the abhidhamma, out of context, but squeezed in there. But things like humans literaly having the devas as their ancestors; the delirious account of the appearence of the Buddha; the biography of the Buddha itself; the fishy story of the 8 garudhammas. These, to me, are clear cases of adulteration. (Maybe the 8 garudhammas case is not so clear) And the adulterations of the biography of the Buddha, or of how the bhikkhuni order came to be, are not on unimportant cases.

I don't know if Ingram has found them. But, for me, it's not as "out there" as it is for most people. For example: him saying that the physical components of the emotion of an arahat remains; ans that these can make an arahat make stupid things. It is problematic, no doubt about it. But what would lead an arahat to commit suicide?
The biography of the Buddha is not part of the Tipitaka, but what interesting is you are really not pointing to anything of substance in terms of the core of the Dhamma. All of the stuff you are pointing to is peripheral. As for the arahant suicide, that has been addressed. You might like the answer the, but the arahant that is in intractable, blinding pain as the result of bone cancer, and having no pain killers, you tell me what is the answer. What other "stupid" things is Ingram pointing to?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19584
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Ingram, et al - "Hard Core Dharma" & claims of attainmen

Postby Modus.Ponens » Thu May 29, 2014 8:39 pm

Mkoll wrote:Modus,

I agree that the suttas are imperfect: the reciters, the standardizers, and the modifiers made mistakes and added things that didn't belong. But, IMO, the basic core of the teaching is clear in that it's repeated over and over again in many different forms, appearing in other recensions in different languages and locations.

One of those core teachings is refraining from the five cords of sensual pleasures. It's in the second noble truth, the non-returner has extirpated sensual desire, entire suttas are devoted to this theme, it's talked about in many other suttas, it makes sense in the context of the whole Buddhist path, etc. To me, this teaching is undeniable as a teaching of the historical Buddha by the weight of the evidence and by my understanding of the whole concept of the Buddhist path in its totality.

Mr. Ingram's teaching throws this teaching out the window. Moreover, he takes the word "arahant" and completely redefines it to suit his own habits and boldy proclaims and advertises his status to anyone who will listen. There is an appeal to this: honestly, when I first heard about the guy, I was very interested in what he had to say because of his claims. It's a good marketing strategy, if nothing else. This claim has led to a cult of personality and a group of his own followers who will defend his views. If he didn't claim he was an arahant, if he didn't apply that label to himself, he wouldn't have so many followers and wouldn't be so well known.

"Very good, Magandiya. Neither have I ever seen or heard of a king or king's minister — enjoying himself, provided & endowed with the five strings of sensuality, without abandoning sensual craving, without removing sensual fever — who has dwelt or will dwell or is dwelling free from thirst, his mind inwardly at peace. But whatever brahmans or contemplatives who have dwelt or will dwell or are dwelling free from thirst, their minds inwardly at peace, all have done so having realized — as it actually is present — the origination & disappearance, the allure, the danger, & the escape from sensual pleasures, having abandoned sensual craving and removed sensual fever."
-http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.075x.than.htmlMN 75


Maybe I should read more, but what I am repeatedly saying is that there is a difference between sensual pleasure and sensual desire. Of course that, for a person in training, indulging in sensual pleasures slows down the progress. One may even stop or regress. The point here is the arahat and his ability to have pleasant sensations, and prefering them to unpleasant ones. The Buddha sought seclusion sometimes _ after attaining nibbana. The arahats practiced jhana. The Buddha, iirc, recomended that an arahat practice mindfulness, for it leads to happiness. If these subtle pleasures are prefered to neutral vedanas or unpleasant vedanas, why is it so difficult to believe that the same preference applies to pleasant vedanas arising from contact through the 5 senses? Is there something inherently "dirty" or "unworthy" in pleasant vedanas born in the arahat's mind through contact of the 5 senses?

I am excited with the possibility of there being an arahat who speaks openly about it. Clearly not excited to the point of taking his word above other teachers. I am, however, trying to interpret what he is saying and see if it holds up when cross checked with the suttas. So far, imo, it holds up, but not very well. For all the reasons people have pointed out so far.

As far as I know he is a physician and makes his own money. He doesn't charge anything for his online version of the book. Nor does he charge for the website. I don't think he even asks for donations for the dharma overground site. I could be wrong, but that's what I gathered.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
 
Posts: 2004
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Funchal, Portugal

Re: Ingram, et al - "Hard Core Dharma" & claims of attainmen

Postby Mkoll » Thu May 29, 2014 8:56 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:I am excited with the possibility of there being an arahat who speaks openly about it. Clearly not excited to the point of taking his word above other teachers. I am, however, trying to interpret what he is saying and see if it holds up when cross checked with the suttas. So far, imo, it holds up, but not very well. For all the reasons people have pointed out so far.

You're saying yourself here that you have doubts. Yet you persist in defending him. Why? Again, I think it comes down to that one powerful label he is applying to himself: arahat. If he didn't call himself an arahat, making sure people knew that he was, would you give his teachings half the attention you've given to them? Would you be defending them?

Occam's Razor is needed here. What is the simplest explanation for why his teachings do not hold up very well against the suttas?

Modus.Ponens wrote:As far as I know he is a physician and makes his own money. He doesn't charge anything for his online version of the book. Nor does he charge for the website. I don't think he even asks for donations for the dharma overground site. I could be wrong, but that's what I gathered.

Then, clearly his motivation is not money. Here's one possible explanation (my emphasis):

"Monks, these eight worldly conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions. Which eight? Gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. These are the eight worldly conditions that spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions.

-AN 8.6
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: Ingram, et al - "Hard Core Dharma" & claims of attainmen

Postby Modus.Ponens » Thu May 29, 2014 9:00 pm

The 32 marks of the Buddha are canonical. I thought the story about prince Siddharta living in a palace, never seeing a sick or old person was canonical. I don't have time to search more than I have already have today. Nevertheless, even if it was just the 32 marks, it's a very big deal. To distort the truth about the Buddha and make him into an artificially divine man is a serious distortion to me. Especially when he didn't need any artificiality to be divine.

If, by stupid actions, he means unconvencional actions, or actions not well pondered, then yes, I think it's perfectly reasonable. In one of the previous posts, there was mention of the origin of the monastic rule against acumulating food for the next day. The person who was "in fault" was an arahat.

If, by stupid, he means that an arahat can, for example, easily kill someone that's nonsense. I give Ingram more credit than him literaly saying this. I don't take it at face value. He is not saying morality is arbitrary, afaik. Far from it.

Anyway, I'm done for today. I have to finish something I've been procrastinating today.

Be well. (no-smiley-faces-expressing-smile-allowed blank space)
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
 
Posts: 2004
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Funchal, Portugal

Re: Ingram, et al - "Hard Core Dharma" & claims of attainmen

Postby tiltbillings » Thu May 29, 2014 9:08 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:The 32 marks of the Buddha are canonical.
It is, but it has nothing to do with the FNT.

I thought the story about prince Siddharta living in a palace, never seeing a sick or old person was canonical.
It is not.

I don't have time to search more than I have already have today. Nevertheless, even if it was just the 32 marks, it's a very big deal. To distort the truth about the Buddha and make him into an artificially divine man is a serious distortion to me. Especially when he didn't need any artificiality to be divine.
Why should you be surprised by this? You want, it seems, Buddhism to fit your modern day assumptions about reality.

    If, by stupid actions, he means unconvencional actions, or actions not well pondered, then yes, I think it's perfectly reasonable. In one of the previous posts, there was mention of the origin of the monastic rule against acumulating food for the next day. The person who was "in fault" was an arahat.
Again, you are looking at this from a perspective that does not understand how many of the monastic rules were put into place. A lot of them had to do with how the Sangha was perceived by the laity.

If, by stupid, he means that an arahat can, for example, easily kill someone that's nonsense. I give Ingram more credit than him literaly saying this. I don't take it at face value. He is not saying morality is arbitrary, afaik. Far from it.
Again you can like Ingram, but he is redefining what it means to be an arahant, and I have yet to see from him any justifiable basis for his claim.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19584
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Ingram, et al - "Hard Core Dharma" & claims of attainmen

Postby robertk » Thu May 29, 2014 11:42 pm

waterchan wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:[
Can you explain how the fact that the Buddha allowing arahats to commit suicide is not a contradiction? If you interpret the dhamma rigidly, this is as flagrant a contradiction as it can be.


How is it a contradiction?

Permitting any arahant to commit suicide as a shortcut to Nibbana would serve as a bad example for the Sangha, but these arahants were in agonizing pain. Would it not be uncompassionate to deny them the right to suicide? They had no ill will left, so suicide wouldn't land them in an unfavorable rebirth anyway.

There has never been an arahat that committed suicide(according to classical Theravada).
User avatar
robertk
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Ingram, et al - "Hard Core Dharma" & claims of attainmen

Postby Denisa » Fri May 30, 2014 12:05 am

Found this "funny yet true to some" writing on page # 22 of this scribd book *(http://www.scribd.com/doc/64780914/The- ... ning-Robes). Thanks for the mod's assistance.

Being depressed by the modern cultural baggage, one seeker headed towards East. First, he went to Burma. There, under a rigorous systematic Sayādaw, he engaged in a long silent robotic retreat with prompted constrain. Within several weeks, having finished two cycles of insight knowledge (i.e. so-called once returner), he was blessed by the teacher: “Now, you can start teaching.” However, that striving was so dry and made him forget even how to smile, thus he headed towards Thailand to relax his stiff neck and nerves.

In Thailand, under a charismatic Ajāhn, he might start letting go all the dry stiffness slowly. However, since that process was so slow, after several years, his observer tended to get bored and might let go the robe and went back to lay life. On the way back to his home country, he paid a visit to India in order to retain some balance between East and West—hemispheres of his brain. In India, under an Advaita guru, his brain did achieve non-duality. Although he still had greed, hatred, and delusion in full flow, he learnt that they are not 'I-ME-MINE.' They belong to the 'doer' and 'I' am just the 'observer.' Under this guru, he even learnt how to sleep with his girl friend with mindfulness and a sense of vast aloofness. However, after this achievement, he went to Sri Lanka for a short while. And, having seen the spiritual bewilderment there, he quickly left the country within one week.

After returning to the West, his doer did need a wife for its loneliness. He got married, and started selling the so-called Dhamma, in order to support his family and his so-called Dhamma. He surrendered himself to engaged Buddhism, and started helping the society on how to be cool in the daily life. He was no longer attached to the doer by that time, but the doer was attached to the wife, children, students, clientele, money, etc., and samsara continues
Denisa
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 1:57 am

Re: Ingram, et al - "Hard Core Dharma" & claims of attainmen

Postby Denisa » Fri May 30, 2014 12:09 am

robertk wrote:
waterchan wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:[
Can you explain how the fact that the Buddha allowing arahats to commit suicide is not a contradiction? If you interpret the dhamma rigidly, this is as flagrant a contradiction as it can be.


How is it a contradiction?

Permitting any arahant to commit suicide as a shortcut to Nibbana would serve as a bad example for the Sangha, but these arahants were in agonizing pain. Would it not be uncompassionate to deny them the right to suicide? They had no ill will left, so suicide wouldn't land them in an unfavorable rebirth anyway.

There has never been an arahat that committed suicide(according to classical Theravada).


Yes, it's not "suicide", otherwise people might say Buddha also committed suicide when he gave up the "expectation to live" (if I get the words correctly).
Denisa
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 1:57 am

Re: Ingram, et al - "Hard Core Dharma" & claims of attainmen

Postby Jetavan » Fri May 30, 2014 2:34 am

Denisa wrote:Found this "funny yet true to some" writing on page # 22 of this scribd book *(http://www.scribd.com/doc/64780914/The- ... ning-Robes). Thanks for the mod's assistance.
....

I had initially thought this was a spoof.
User avatar
Jetavan
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:45 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests