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

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation
vesak2014
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:04 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

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

Postby vesak2014 » Fri May 30, 2014 2:49 am

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.

Arahats are inclined to seclusion. It is impossible for them to live lay-person life.

:anjali:

User avatar
Jetavan
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:45 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

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

Postby Jetavan » Fri May 30, 2014 3:31 am

vesak2014 wrote:It is impossible for [Arahats] to live lay-person life.

:anjali:
Is this a statement from the suttas?

User avatar
waterchan
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 7:17 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Sereitei

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

Postby waterchan » Fri May 30, 2014 7:55 am

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

Denisa wrote: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).


How do you account for Ven Channa taking his own life, then?

MN 144 makes it clear that Ven Channa was an arahant who committed suicide:

Venerable Sariputta and venerable Mahcunda having advised venerable Channa, in this manner got up from their seats and went away. Soon after they had gone venerable Channa took a weapon and put an end to his life. Then venerable Sariputta approached the Blessed One, worshipped, sat on a side and said.’Venerable sir, venerable Channa has put an end to his life, what are his movements after death?’

‘Sariputta, wasn’t the faultlessness of the bhikkhu Channa declared in your presence?’

‘Venerable sir, in Pabbajira, the village of the Vajjii’s, the families of venerable Channa’s friends, well -wishers and earlier relations live.’

‘Sariputta, there may be the families of venerable Channa’s friends, well-wishers and earlier relatives, I say, there is no fault to that extent. Sariputta, if someone gives up this body and seizes another, I say it is a fault. In the bhikkhu that fault is not apparent. Bhikkhu Channa took his life faultlessly.’


If we're talking Classical Theravada then the commentaries also support this.
quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
(Anything in Latin sounds profound.)

User avatar
waterchan
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 7:17 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Sereitei

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

Postby waterchan » Fri May 30, 2014 8:01 am

Modus.Ponens wrote: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.

In the examples you provide here, I see nothing that specifically prohibits an arahant from taking his own life. So again, where is the contradiction?
quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
(Anything in Latin sounds profound.)

User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Gallifrey

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

Postby Modus.Ponens » Fri May 30, 2014 1:45 pm

Hello

I'll try to make this my last post on this subject. I feel like I'm repeating myself too much. This is just my opinion.

Exclusively regarding the nature of the arahat.

In a previous thread there was a quote of a sutta mentioning that an arahat can experience pleasant and unpleasant sensations arising from contact with all of the 6 senses. That includes unpleasant sensations due to mind contact. Confronting this with the core teaching of the Buddha, saying that craving (for sensual pleasures) causes suffering, I can only arrive at one conclusion: an arahat experiences pleasantness but doesn't crave it; an arahat experiences unpleasantness but does not have aversion to it.

Imagine, for example, that an arahat was injected with adrenaline by some mad scientist. His whole body would react. That includes his brain. Unless there's something in the arahat's brain that makes it impossible for it to process chemmical substances like any other brain, his mental state is afected. This does not mean he is suffering. Just that his experience is conditioned by the body. The same could be said of any other chemmical. The same could be said of big differences in the ages of the arahats. So, although the mind of the arahat is not conditioned by suffering, it is clearly conditioned by the experiences he is having. Another example is an arahat in jhana and an arahat out of jhana.

So an arahat is not exactly the same as another arahat. The Buddha was an expert in the different paths to enlightenment. Sariputta was chief in wisdom. There was an expert on jhanas and another expert on psychic powers _ neither of which I remember the name. Thus, the suttas support this view.

So, given these conditionings, it's not absurd to consider that the arahat's experience may be conditioned by his brain structure. And the brain structure is never the same between different human beings. The brain is shaped by genetics and aquired past experience. I think the only aquired experience that is truly universal among arahats is the complete wisdom regarding the nature of reality: impermanent, unsatisfactory, without self. The wisdom that knows the 4 Noble Truths. The rest of the arahat's behaviour is, in my opinion, conditioned by contigencies of the body _ including the brain.

Since there were arahats with different degrees of mastery of the jhanas, or different degrees of wisdom (Sariputta being the supreme among them), it's not that unreasonable to consider that arahats have different degrees of mastery of morality. This makes it possible for different arahats to act in different ways when faced with the same situation. And this difference in behaviour might dispoint our expectations of what an arahat does.

An example of this was the suicide of Channa. If there are arahats who go as far as to commit suicide, it's not difficult to imagine that the behaviour of an arahat is considerably conditioned by his body and brain.

Finaly, on this point, I think it's absurd to believe that an arahat has to ordain in 7 days. What happens if he is 9 days away from an opportunity to ordain? He melts? He explodes? He has a stroke? What about Pacceka Buddha? Does he ordain himself? If anybody can give me a rational explanation to this, I would be pleased.

On the reliability of the suttas.

I find the suttas to be imperfect accounts of the Buddha's words. There's a whole new pitaka that was added later. There are evidences of corruptions here and there of the suttas. There is a standardization of the suttas to facilitate memorization. This is likely to come at cost of some nuances in the dhamma.

It is not exactly because of my modern expectations that I find it serious that the Buddha is depicted as having 32 marks _ plus 80 secondary marks. It's the lying that I find serious. If some of the people who passed the teachings along generations lied about how the Buddha is, then why should I expect that their account of the teachings is completely reliable on other subjects? The Buddha is one of the three jewels _ no less. I find that troubling.

Again, to me the suttas/agamas are the most reliable source of information on buddhism. But, even so, it's not that reliable to me.

On Daniel Ingram

I don't have a firm belief that Ingram is an arahat. He might be, that's all I'm saying. Assume for a moment that he is an arahat. If you assume he is, have you seen the amount of ill will directed at him? Isn't that a gigantic amount of bad karma? That's not something I want to be a part of, in case it is true.

It's true that the label alone is suficient for me to be defending this possibility more than usual. But the opposite is also true. I clearly am not an arahat. Yet, I bet you read my interpretations above with less aversion than in Ingram's case. Why? Because there's a strong taboo against speaking of attainments. An exagerated one, in my opinion. So the dismissal of Ingram is very easy if you have the impulsive reaction against the breaking of this taboo. So yes, I am partial because I like the idea that it is possible that an arahat is just a click away. And yes, you are partial because of a simple break of a taboo. Yes, I don't think this breaking of taboo is a big deal.

Charicatures of his words are very easy, as seen above. This, to me, is a sloppy analysis of his words. Plus, as far as I know, he doesn't charge money for his teachings. I never read something credible saying that he did.

Finaly, if what Ingram means, when he says that an arahat can be lustful, and can act based on it, is what I said above, then I find his words compatible with the dhamma. This alone doesn't make him an arahat, obviously. It does deem him as very imprecise with language. In order to properly use Occam's Razor, Ingram's words have to be read in context. When read in context, I find it hard to believe that someone would afirm that an arahat can feel lust in the exact same way as every other being, and at the same time agree that the 4 Noble Truths are correct. That doesn't make any sense to me. So using Occasm's Razor to state this is not just choosing the simplest explanation. It's choosing the simplified explanation.


Metta
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

Denisa
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 1:57 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

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

Postby Denisa » Fri May 30, 2014 2:58 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:...I don't have a firm belief that Ingram is an arahat. He might be, that's all I'm saying. Assume for a moment that he is an arahat. If you assume he is, have you seen the amount of ill will directed at him? Isn't that a gigantic amount of bad karma? That's not something I want to be a part of, in case it is true....

"amount of ill will directed at him." IF you are talking about this thread, then how you know the intentions of those who wrote opposing Ingram's ideas? Some members are straight forward and use sharper words, that doesn't mean they have ill will.

I heard that an Arahant addressed people as "outcast", this is something Brahmins used when addressing low class people. When people questioned, Buddha said that habit is due to 500 previous births as a Brahmin, not due to pride or ill will.

Labeling people as ill willed when they don't agree with you COULD BE due to unhappiness.

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 4163
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: California, USA

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

Postby Mkoll » Fri May 30, 2014 6:20 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:Finaly, on this point, I think it's absurd to believe that an arahat has to ordain in 7 days. What happens if he is 9 days away from an opportunity to ordain? He melts? He explodes? He has a stroke? What about Pacceka Buddha? Does he ordain himself? If anybody can give me a rational explanation to this, I would be pleased.
Here's a guess: It's not a hard and fast number. For example, I think the 84,000 teachings (Thag 17.3) just means "a lot" of teachings in that context. In this context, 7 days means "as soon as he can harmlessly divest himself of all his acquisitions" or similar.

Modus.Ponens wrote:On the reliability of the suttas.

I find the suttas to be imperfect accounts of the Buddha's words. There's a whole new pitaka that was added later. There are evidences of corruptions here and there of the suttas. There is a standardization of the suttas to facilitate memorization. This is likely to come at cost of some nuances in the dhamma.

It is not exactly because of my modern expectations that I find it serious that the Buddha is depicted as having 32 marks _ plus 80 secondary marks. It's the lying that I find serious. If some of the people who passed the teachings along generations lied about how the Buddha is, then why should I expect that their account of the teachings is completely reliable on other subjects? The Buddha is one of the three jewels _ no less. I find that troubling.

Again, to me the suttas/agamas are the most reliable source of information on buddhism. But, even so, it's not that reliable to me.
My strategy is to set aside what is unreliable and focus on what is reliable, as I talked about in my post about sensual pleasures. I don't nitpick about "7 days and ordain", "suicide of the arahant", or "32 marks of the great man". Those have very little to do with what the Buddha taught, namely suffering, it's origin, its cessation, and the way to its cessation. It's been traditionally said that all of the Buddha's teachings can be connected with the Four Noble Truths. I think this is a good way to approach the understanding of the Dhamma because it puts your attention where it belongs. What doesn't connect with the Truths can be set aside.

Modus.Ponens wrote:Finaly, if what Ingram means, when he says that an arahat can be lustful, and can act based on it, is what I said above, then I find his words compatible with the dhamma.
This is where my interpretation of the Dhamma differs from yours. I don't think an arahant has lust or hate or delusion. Why? Because it is repeated endlessly in the suttas and it is in accord with the Four Noble Truths. If I wanted to spend the time to do so, I could quote you dozens, probably hundreds of suttas in the Canon about how the consummate ones are free from greed, hate, and delusion. Here's just one I read just last night (my emphasis).

[The Buddha:]

A man established in virtue, discerning, developing discernment & mind, a monk ardent, astute: he can untangle this tangle. Those whose passion, aversion, & ignorance have faded away, arahants, their effluents ended: for them the tangle's untangled. Where name-&-form, along with perception of impingement & form, totally stop without trace: that's where the tangle is cut.

-SN 7.6
Peace,
James

User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Gallifrey

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

Postby Modus.Ponens » Fri May 30, 2014 8:10 pm

What's troubling is not that the distortion of the Buddha's appearance itself. It's the implication this has to what possible distortions there may be in any part of the canon. That's the thing that makes me very cautious on any absolute authority of the suttas. But I agree that the center of the message is very, very solid. Just not perfectly solid.

I din't say an arahat has lust. Nor anger, nor delusion. That's not what I meant, at all. But I don't want to repeat myself anymore.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

culaavuso
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

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

Postby culaavuso » Fri May 30, 2014 9:02 pm

waterchan wrote:If we're talking Classical Theravada then the commentaries also support this.


Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of MN 144 discusses and quotes from the commentaries:

Majjhima Nikāya Aṭṭhakathā wrote:He cut his throat, and just at that moment the fear of death descended on him and the sign of future rebirth appeared. Recognising that he was still an ordinary person, he was aroused and developed insight. Comprehending the formations, he attained arahantship just before he expired.


Majjhima Nikāya Aṭṭhakathā wrote:Although this declaration (of blamelessness) was made while Channa was still a worldling, as his attainment of final Nibbāna followed immediately, the Buddha answered by referring to that version declaration.


Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:It should be noted that this commentarial interpretation is imposed on the text from the outside, as it were. If one sticks to the actual wording of the text it seems that Channa was already an arahant when he made his declaration, the dramatic punch being delivered by the failure of his two brother-monks to recognise this. The implication, of course, is that excruciating pain might motivate even an arahant to take his own life -- not from aversion but simply from a wish to be free from unbearable pain.

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

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

Postby robertk » Sat May 31, 2014 2:01 am

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



Venerable Sariputta and venerable Mahcunda having advised venerable Channa, in this manner got up from their seats and went away. Soon after they had gone venerable Channa took a weapon and put an end to his life. Then venerable Sariputta approached the Blessed One, worshipped, sat on a side and said.’Venerable sir, venerable Channa has put an end to his life, what are his movements after death?’

‘Sariputta, wasn’t the faultlessness of the bhikkhu Channa declared in your presence?’

‘Venerable sir, in Pabbajira, the village of the Vajjii’s, the families of venerable Channa’s friends, well -wishers and earlier relations live.’

‘Sariputta, there may be the families of venerable Channa’s friends, well-wishers and earlier relatives, I say, there is no fault to that extent. Sariputta, if someone gives up this body and seizes another, I say it is a fault. In the bhikkhu that fault is not apparent. Bhikkhu Channa took his life faultlessly.’


If we're talking Classical Theravada then the commentaries also support this.

The link to the citation you gave says this:
Buddhaghosa explains (MA.ii.1012f.; SA.iii.12f ) that after cutting his throat, Channa, feeling the fear of death, suddenly realised that he was yet a puthujjana. This thought so filled him with anguish that he put forth special effort, and by developing insight became an arahant.

I'm guessing you don't know that a puthujjana is someone without any attainments, a worldling.
As for the quote of Bhikku bodhi given by Cula - well that is his opinion and is directly against the Theravada position.

User avatar
waterchan
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 7:17 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Sereitei

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

Postby waterchan » Sat May 31, 2014 11:21 am

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



Venerable Sariputta and venerable Mahcunda having advised venerable Channa, in this manner got up from their seats and went away. Soon after they had gone venerable Channa took a weapon and put an end to his life. Then venerable Sariputta approached the Blessed One, worshipped, sat on a side and said.’Venerable sir, venerable Channa has put an end to his life, what are his movements after death?’

‘Sariputta, wasn’t the faultlessness of the bhikkhu Channa declared in your presence?’

‘Venerable sir, in Pabbajira, the village of the Vajjii’s, the families of venerable Channa’s friends, well -wishers and earlier relations live.’

‘Sariputta, there may be the families of venerable Channa’s friends, well-wishers and earlier relatives, I say, there is no fault to that extent. Sariputta, if someone gives up this body and seizes another, I say it is a fault. In the bhikkhu that fault is not apparent. Bhikkhu Channa took his life faultlessly.’


If we're talking Classical Theravada then the commentaries also support this.

The link to the citation you gave says this:
Buddhaghosa explains (MA.ii.1012f.; SA.iii.12f ) that after cutting his throat, Channa, feeling the fear of death, suddenly realised that he was yet a puthujjana. This thought so filled him with anguish that he put forth special effort, and by developing insight became an arahant.

I'm guessing you don't know that a puthujjana is someone without any attainments, a worldling.
As for the quote of Bhikku bodhi given by Cula - well that is his opinion and is directly against the Theravada position.


If I neglected to account for that, then this just goes to show that the commentarial explanation deserves to be ignored, since it injects an apocryphal explanation that is not found anywhere in the suttas.

Bhikkhu Bodhi's explanation makes sense. The commentarial notion that Ven Channa went from putthujjana to arahant in the flickering moments of life after slitting his throat is so ridiculously contrived that one can only assume it was written to appease royal patrons of Buddhism who could not stomach the original sutta explanation that Ven Channa was an arahant at the time of suicide.
quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
(Anything in Latin sounds profound.)

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 4163
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: California, USA

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

Postby Mkoll » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:57 am

Saw this on the sister site.



~~~

I listened to most of it. It doesn't really get into anything regarding Theravada Buddhism until ~1:55. I was pleasantly surprised to see him showing the humility of admitting that he "might be totally full of s**t" (~2:08). He seems like a friendly guy whose practice has made him happier, and I wish him the best.
Peace,
James

User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Gallifrey

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

Postby Modus.Ponens » Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:01 am

Mkoll wrote:Saw this on the sister site.

(video)

I listened to most of it. It doesn't really get into anything regarding Theravada Buddhism until ~1:55. I was pleasantly surprised to see him showing the humility of admitting that he "might be totally full of s**t" (~2:08). He seems like a friendly guy whose practice has made him happier, and I wish him the best.


Thanks for the video. I had never seen him in an interview. I'm watching this and I'm still at the first half hour. But so far it has confirmed several of my thoughts.

First and foremost, he is not claiming to be an arahat to gain money. He is not doing this maliciously. The look in his eyes, clearly indicates that he has an enourmous joy and and happiness in him. A happiness that is clearly not found worldly. So, if there is something wrong with his claims, it's out of miscomprehension of his attainments, not out of malicious intent. His body language confirms this. If you pay atention you'll see that he's not lying or trying to BS other people. He's talking out of experience.

My interpretations of what he meant are semi-confirmed, both in terms of morality and in terms of "emotion". I'll have to watch the whole thing.

If he's an arahat I think what he's doing is very, very interesting. He is trying to take the arahat out of a pedestal and humanise him/her. The "pedestal arahat" is that perfect, infallible being. This "pedestal arahat" has no trace of negative physical emotion and is completely perfect in terms of morality. Some people's pedestal is even higher. Some people's "pedestal arahat" is always perfectly equanimous and mindful; others believe they cannot feel any physical pain; or even that they cannot attain jhana, because nibbana trumps any other mental states. Ingram's down to earth aproach is very interesting.
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
tiltbillings
Posts: 20081
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

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

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:06 am

Modus.Ponens wrote: . . .
He is a nice guy, but an arahant? He has reinterpreted what it means. If you want what he has, do his practice. The whole non-dual thing is really not that hard, and you to can be an arahant, or an ingram-ant.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=5569&start=480#p87166
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.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Gallifrey

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

Postby Modus.Ponens » Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:42 am

tiltbillings wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote: . . .
He is a nice guy, but an arahant? He has reinterpreted what it means. If you want what he has, do his practice. The whole non-dual thing is really not that hard, and you to can be an arahant, or an ingram-ant.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=5569&start=480#p87166



I am aware of the pitfalls of my openness. Wishing to believe in something is powerful enough to partialy cloud my vision. So I try to be extra careful in this case.

One thing that is now obvious to me is that something spiritualy profound is going on with him. If it's as profound as being an arahat, I don't know. But that facial expression, and especially that look in the eyes, is something I've only seen in people who I regard as very advanced practicioners, like Rinpoches, and so on. I've talked a few months ago about perceiving some emotions in peoples' eyes and I can do this to some degree. But there are cases where the emotions overflow and is unmistakeable to me.

The other thing is that I read that passage before. And I tried to read it in context. I'm pretty sure I am remembering this right: he explained that those emotions of lust, anger, etc. were physical in nature. Without remembering the exact words, what I got from that text, when put in context, is that fully knowing the nature of phenomena doesn't erase physical emotions. The brain still has them. It's just that they are comprehended to a degree that these physical emotions are not suffering anymore.

And to me this makes sense. For example, imagine that a monk, before being an arahat, had an accident where he loses sensitivity in the left arm. If the monk attains full liberation I don't think he will regain that sensitivity. His mind is unconditioned by suffering. But his mind is conditioned by his body. For a specific example, I think of Ajahn Chah. I think it was in the final period of his life, he had like a fluid congestion in the brain because of diabetes (sorry for not being more precise that this). Even though he couldn't talk the monks report that he was aware and sharp. This is an extreme case where a person that I, and many others, regard as an arahat, was clearly conditioned by the brain.
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
tiltbillings
Posts: 20081
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

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

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:51 am

Modus.Ponens wrote:
The other thing is that I read that passage before. And I tried to read it in context. I'm pretty sure I am remembering this right: he explained that those emotions of lust, anger, etc. were physical in nature. Without remembering the exact words, what I got from that text, when put in context, is that fully knowing the nature of phenomena doesn't erase physical emotions. The brain still has them. It's just that they are comprehended to a degree that these physical emotions are not suffering anymore. .
I gave the link to that passage.

As for something "spiritualy profound is going on with him," I am not denying that. Buddhism does not have a monopoly on the spiritually profound and the changes that the "spiritualy profound" can elicit, but Buddhism does have a monopoly on how it views what it sees as the spiritually significant. Ingram's relationship to that is, at best, problematic.
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.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

LXNDR
Posts: 520
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 5:15 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

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

Postby LXNDR » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:45 am

Modus.Ponens wrote:The look in his eyes, clearly indicates that he has an enourmous joy and and happiness in him. A happiness that is clearly not found worldly.


for such a conclusion it's necessary to have been familiar with him prior to his attainment, so you have something to collate with

all I see is an optimistic, positive and joyful guy, although i admit i don't know how an arahant is to be recognized, maybe only through personal contact

Modus.Ponens wrote:If you pay atention you'll see that he's not lying or trying to BS other people. He's talking out of experience.


i'm not saying this about him specifically, but a person can genuinely, honestly err and then even Polygraph won't detect his lie

User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Gallifrey

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

Postby Modus.Ponens » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:26 am

LXNDR wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:The look in his eyes, clearly indicates that he has an enourmous joy and and happiness in him. A happiness that is clearly not found worldly.


for such a conclusion it's necessary to have been familiar with him prior to his attainment, so you have something to collate with

all I see is an optimistic, positive and joyful guy, although i admit i don't know how an arahant is to be recognized, maybe only through personal contact

Modus.Ponens wrote:If you pay atention you'll see that he's not lying or trying to BS other people. He's talking out of experience.


i'm not saying this about him specifically, but a person can genuinely, honestly err and then even Polygraph won't detect his lie


Establishing the baseline for body/face/eye language is usually necessary. But sometimes it's obvious. If you see someone completely blinded by rage, you can detect it imediatly. Or if you see someone who's very disturbed mentaly, there's a distinctive look in the eyes. You can tell that immediatly too. And in this case, it seems obvious to me that that overwhelming joy is not fake. You just can't fake that, unless you're an outstanding actor and have the skill so trained that you can do it on demand.

I guess it's pointless to discuss this further. The most important thing I wanted to confirm about Ingram was that he is not malicious in intention. That, to me, is very clear now. Wether he is an arahat, or shifted his spiritual progress in another direction will never be subject to a definitive conclusion, collective or personal. If my interpretation of his words is correct, he makes some very interesting, and probably true, observations about the nature of enlightenment. The "pedestal arahat" doesn't make much sense to me.
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
tiltbillings
Posts: 20081
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

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

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:40 am

Modus.Ponens wrote: The "pedestal arahat" doesn't make much sense to me.
For what ever reason you seem to desperately want him to be an arahant. By his definition he is. I would suggest, if you have done so already, go spend time on his forum and see what you find. It may be more to your liking.
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.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

chownah
Posts: 3021
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

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

Postby chownah » Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:54 pm

"You just can't fake that, unless you're an outstanding actor and have the skill........"

:goodpost:

chownah


Return to “Open Dhamma”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Feathers, LastLegend, Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests