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 Modus.Ponens » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:57 pm

Viscid wrote:
daverupa wrote:Knowing the minds of others is an iddhi; projecting, objectifying, and proliferating over smiles is something else.

This is getting quite

:offtopic:


It's not really that off-topic. Ingram's status as an arahant is in question. Are the suttas the final authority in determining an individual's level of attainment? If yes, then Daniel Ingram is not an arahant, as his behaviour contradicts some requirements as stated in the suttas. If no, then we have to make that determination using, in part, our own intuition. If we're going to either support or refute his claim of attainment based on our own intuition, we should investigate our reasons for doing so. I think we underestimate just how much influence a person's appearance has in our assessment of them-- if Ingram appeared more like a traditional Burmese forest monk, we'd be less critical of his claim. If Modus Ponens sees a quality in Ingram which he feels is evidence of Ingram's attainment, then we should closely scrutinize that perception to determine whether or not such a conclusion is warranted.


Viscid, I know you mean well, and this is not just for you. It's for most people who I have been exchanging posts with.

I wil (try to)l stop posting because you are not reading my posts carefully. Rather, you are reacting impulsively. I never said that Ingram's body/face/eye language indicated that he is an arahat. I'm saying that something spiritually profound is going on there, that can't be faked with such ease. It can be jhanas, or any level of arya. I just don't know.

The only recent "progress" in the discussion of dhamma itself, was with culaavuso. I think you are trying to make something as complex and organic as the human experience into rigid theoretical models, culaavuso.

I'm honestly tired of this discussion. I think I've learned all I had to learn within this discussion.

Daverupa, sorry for the detour into body language.
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: 2083
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

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

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:43 am

tiltbillings wrote:
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.
Don't alter my msg without acknowledgement that you have done so.

I frequent both forums. I like both of the forums, but I frequent DW more. And I'm not going to leave just because I don't think arahats are perfect. I don't understand why you are suggesting that I leave for this silly reason. I've been here since the first week after this forum started.
I am not asking you to leave; I am suggesting to you that if you find Ingram's reinterpretation of the Dhamma of interest to explore it further, and his forum would be the place to do it. Quite frankly the circular argumentation you have been carrying on here makes little sense to me.
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: 19918
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

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

Postby Modus.Ponens » Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:15 am

tiltbillings wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
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.
Don't alter my msg without acknowledgement that you have done so.

I frequent both forums. I like both of the forums, but I frequent DW more. And I'm not going to leave just because I don't think arahats are perfect. I don't understand why you are suggesting that I leave for this silly reason. I've been here since the first week after this forum started.
I am not asking you to leave; I am suggesting to you that if you find Ingram's reinterpretation of the Dhamma of interest to explore it further, and his forum would be the place to do it. Quite frankly the circular argumentation you have been carrying on here makes little sense to me.


I underlined the part of your post that was relevant to me. Aknowledgement done.

Now, can you aknowledge and explain why my first post on page 37, where I responded to you, is gone and substituted by this messge I'm quoting right now? It seems more relevant than underlining a part of a post I want to adress. Or, if you want, we can have this discussion in private, with the moderation of at least one admin, if they wish so.

I too am tired of the circular argument because people continue to bring up points that I've refuted before, intead of refuting my refutations. Hence the tiresome circularity and repetition.
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: 2083
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

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

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:28 am

Modus.Ponens wrote:
Now, can you aknowledge and explain why my first post on page 37.
Yep/ I hit edit rather than quote and did not catch that I made that mistake, and my apologies to you for that. And now the original is back.
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: 19918
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

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

Postby Modus.Ponens » Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:38 am

tiltbillings wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:
Now, can you aknowledge and explain why my first post on page 37.
Yep/ I hit edit rather than quote and did not catch that I made that mistake, and my apologies to you for that. And now the original is back.


Thank you.
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: 2083
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

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

Postby culaavuso » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:00 am

Modus.Ponens wrote:I think you are trying to make something as complex and organic as the human experience into rigid theoretical models, culaavuso.

Can you please expand on what you mean here?

Does this mean that reading the Nikāyas to understand the definition of the word arahant as used in that context is misguided? Or is trying to understand the two definitions of arahant in order to compare and contrast them misguided? Does this mean that the Nikāyas are simply wrong in their description of the moral conduct of an arahant, or perhaps that the definition they use is an impossible ideal?

What is the proper way to learn the definition(s) of the word arahant?
culaavuso
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

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

Postby vesak2014 » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:20 am

Mkoll wrote: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.

How about around 1:30, it does. When I heard "Sayadaw" at 1:50, I had enough clue that Ingram is not what he claims to be.

It is very easy to recognize people who openly claim their arahant attainment as deluded. They teach wrong view. But it is not easy for people to recognize those who also do (claim and teach) the similar but subtly, especially if they are well known and well regarded people. The later contribute to dhamma corruption much more effectively than the first.
vesak2014
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:04 pm

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

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:33 am

vesak2014 wrote:
Mkoll wrote: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.

How about around 1:30, it does. When I heard "Sayadaw" at 1:50, I had enough clue that Ingram is not what he claims to be.

It is very easy to recognize people who openly claim their arahant attainment as deluded. They teach wrong view. But it is not easy for people to recognize those who also do (claim and teach) the similar but subtly, especially if they are well known and well regarded people. The later contribute to dhamma corruption much more effectively than the first.
What I found interesting in watching this video is how inarticulate he was in talking about his experiences.
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: 19918
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

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

Postby Aloka » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:43 am

Modus.Ponens wrote:
Aloka wrote:
Viscid wrote:
A couple of other people who (I interpret) to have an enlightened expression are Adyashanti and Jack Kornfield....

...I do also see it with Ingram.. It's an expression I actually find somewhat unsettling-- perhaps such unfettered ease conflicts with my conflicted nature.



I'm puzzled as to why men smiling in their photos should be thought to have "enlightened expressions". By that reasoning, just about everyone I know who has smiled pleasantly in a photo, must be enlightened!

.


Obviously a picture cannot be conclusive of anything. Only a video can be scrutinised enough to reach reasonable conclusions.

But can you see the difference between these 4 smiles? Are they significant?


Image

Image

Image

Image



Asking me this is just irrelevant nonsense, sorry.

.
User avatar
Aloka
 
Posts: 3771
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

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

Postby Mkoll » Thu Jun 19, 2014 5:59 am

Modus,

You've yet to respond to my post about Dr. Ingram admitting that he may be "full of s**t" at ~2:08 in the video.

Here, I've actually taken a few minutes to transcribe his words so you get the context. Watch the video itself for proof.

So my best skeptical inquiry into the nature of the thing doesn’t find any last, little things, you know. And if they’re there I’m totally deluded about them, you know, which is another option. You’ve gotta keep that one in mind, I might be just totally full of s**t, you know, excuse my language. You know, so, but, uhm, if it is, it’s a level of delusion I haven’t managed to crack, so I’ll leave that skillful door open if that makes sense from a reasonable skepticism point of view.

-From 2:08:06-2:08:32


Here are the premises:

1) Dr. Ingram claims he is an arahant.
2) Dr. Ingram claims he might be "totally deluded", might be "totally full of s**t", and might have "a level of delusion I haven't managed to crack".

Here's the question:

Do you think an arahant could have those uncertainties listed in the second premise?
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 3852
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

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

Postby Mr Man » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:46 am

culaavuso wrote:
What is the proper way to learn the definition(s) of the word arahant?


8 fold path?
User avatar
Mr Man
 
Posts: 1345
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

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

Postby Modus.Ponens » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:45 am

Mkoll wrote:Modus,

You've yet to respond to my post about Dr. Ingram admitting that he may be "full of s**t" at ~2:08 in the video.

Here, I've actually taken a few minutes to transcribe his words so you get the context. Watch the video itself for proof.

So my best skeptical inquiry into the nature of the thing doesn’t find any last, little things, you know. And if they’re there I’m totally deluded about them, you know, which is another option. You’ve gotta keep that one in mind, I might be just totally full of s**t, you know, excuse my language. You know, so, but, uhm, if it is, it’s a level of delusion I haven’t managed to crack, so I’ll leave that skillful door open if that makes sense from a reasonable skepticism point of view.

-From 2:08:06-2:08:32


Here are the premises:

1) Dr. Ingram claims he is an arahant.
2) Dr. Ingram claims he might be "totally deluded", might be "totally full of s**t", and might have "a level of delusion I haven't managed to crack".

Here's the question:

Do you think an arahant could have those uncertainties listed in the second premise?


I think continuing this discussion is pointless. You (all?) have made up your mind. I have too, in the ways I've described here. The hostility is palpable, so there's nothing to be gained by continuing to discuss this.
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: 2083
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

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

Postby Mkoll » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:12 pm

Modus,

OK, I understand.

But if you change your mind, I would like to hear your answer to my question.

:thanks:
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 3852
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

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

Postby IanAnd » Fri Jun 20, 2014 4:22 pm

tiltbillings wrote:What I found interesting in watching this video is how inarticulate he was in talking about his experiences.

Are you suggesting that an arahant (either ancient or modern) is immune from being inarticulate?

If so, what are your thoughts about the communication skills of the person who many accept as being a modern-day arahant the Ven. Acariya Maha Boowa?

(BTW, I understand your comment and agree with it. I, too, sometimes find Daniel's communication to be somewhat puzzling as to what point he is intending to make.)
"The gift of truth exceeds all other gifts" — Dhammapada, v. 354 Craving XXIV
User avatar
IanAnd
 
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:19 am
Location: the deserts of Arizona

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

Postby MisterRunon » Thu Nov 27, 2014 6:54 pm

To those who think this topic ispointless: it is not.

I recently discovered Daniel. My curiosity was piqued when I'd heard that he was a self-proclaimed Arahant, which led me to google up "daniel ingram arahant." It landed me on this site. I'd say this issue has already been settled; it came out of Daniel's own mouth that he is not an Arahant in the Buddha-Dhamma context.

Discussion about this topic is important because Daniel claims to teach Buddhism, but he actually conflates it with some other practice that he has created himself. In that regard, I do think people of the Buddhist community have the right to bring his claims to the fore. If someone is using your reputation as a means for their credibility, then you have every right to respond.

U Pandita is still alive, right? Has anyone brought up Daniel's claims to him, and has he officially said anything? I'd think it would be an issue worth clarifying (for U Pandita), since Daniel has been building a following in the name of The Buddha.
MisterRunon
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 6:43 pm

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

Postby Modus.Ponens » Thu Nov 27, 2014 11:00 pm

MisterRunon wrote:To those who think this topic ispointless: it is not.

I recently discovered Daniel. My curiosity was piqued when I'd heard that he was a self-proclaimed Arahant, which led me to google up "daniel ingram arahant." It landed me on this site. I'd say this issue has already been settled; it came out of Daniel's own mouth that he is not an Arahant in the Buddha-Dhamma context.

Discussion about this topic is important because Daniel claims to teach Buddhism, but he actually conflates it with some other practice that he has created himself. In that regard, I do think people of the Buddhist community have the right to bring his claims to the fore. If someone is using your reputation as a means for their credibility, then you have every right to respond.

U Pandita is still alive, right? Has anyone brought up Daniel's claims to him, and has he officially said anything? I'd think it would be an issue worth clarifying (for U Pandita), since Daniel has been building a following in the name of The Buddha.


It is a relevant discussion but maybe not in the setting of a strictly theravadin forum. But, this being the dhamma for all section, I'll try to say something more than before.

Theravada buddhism, zen buddhism, tibetan buddhism are different in their tendencies and statements. Wildly different versions of the truth _ at the surface. There are many buddhisms, but only one reality and thus, one truth. In my opinion, tibetan buddhism deviated from the original teachings in the direction of superstition and esoteric practices. Zen buddhism deviated from the original teachings by summarising it way too much and by becoming excentric. Theravada buddhism, in my opinion, deviated from the original teachings in the direction of idealistic purity.

Obviously there's no doubt to anyone who knows the history of buddhism that theravada is the most reliable version. But it is still a version. The teachings were written down 300 years after the Buddha died. The abidhamma was added and commentaries became the normative interpretation. And who knows what happened since the writing down? Some people feel offended by someone suggesting that the teachings of the suttas are not the almost perfect recording of the Buddha's word because it implies that the sangha didn't preserve the teachings in their perfection. I would say otherwise. The fact that the teachings in the suttas are so sound, coherent and clear is a testament of the fantastic quality of the Buddha's disciples for centuries after.

So you're kind of right that Daniel Ingram doesn't teach strictly theravada. But do you claim that he does not teach the truth? That's an interesting road to take. Are you ready to claim that Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche wasn't an arahat? And what about the Dalai Lama? Or Trulshik Rinpoche? Or Ajahn Chah? Or Ajahn Sumedho? Or Ajahn Brahm? Or Ayya Khema? What about zen teachers and recluses like the anonymous people on retreat in chinese mountains?
How many teachers are you going to say are not arahats because they express things in a different language? The teaching is "just" about eliminating suffering by destroying the illusion that there is a permanent and independent self. All these traditions, one way or another, teach this. And the other traditions have views in them at least as troublesome as Daniel Ingram's.

So, unless you are one of those people that would reject that a teacher is an arahat if that teacher would sit in a bench one inch taller than what is allowed by the vinaya/uposatta rules it's best if you can back up your statements without dogmatic arguments.
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: 2083
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

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

Postby MisterRunon » Fri Nov 28, 2014 1:06 am

Modus.Ponens wrote:It is a relevant discussion but maybe not in the setting of a strictly theravadin forum. But, this being the dhamma for all section, I'll try to say something more than before.

Theravada buddhism, zen buddhism, tibetan buddhism are different in their tendencies and statements. Wildly different versions of the truth _ at the surface. There are many buddhisms, but only one reality and thus, one truth. In my opinion, tibetan buddhism deviated from the original teachings in the direction of superstition and esoteric practices. Zen buddhism deviated from the original teachings by summarising it way too much and by becoming excentric. Theravada buddhism, in my opinion, deviated from the original teachings in the direction of idealistic purity.

Obviously there's no doubt to anyone who knows the history of buddhism that theravada is the most reliable version. But it is still a version. The teachings were written down 300 years after the Buddha died. The abidhamma was added and commentaries became the normative interpretation. And who knows what happened since the writing down? Some people feel offended by someone suggesting that the teachings of the suttas are not the almost perfect recording of the Buddha's word because it implies that the sangha didn't preserve the teachings in their perfection. I would say otherwise. The fact that the teachings in the suttas are so sound, coherent and clear is a testament of the fantastic quality of the Buddha's disciples for centuries after.

So you're kind of right that Daniel Ingram doesn't teach strictly theravada. But do you claim that he does not teach the truth? That's an interesting road to take. Are you ready to claim that Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche wasn't an arahat? And what about the Dalai Lama? Or Trulshik Rinpoche? Or Ajahn Chah? Or Ajahn Sumedho? Or Ajahn Brahm? Or Ayya Khema? What about zen teachers and recluses like the anonymous people on retreat in chinese mountains?
How many teachers are you going to say are not arahats because they express things in a different language? The teaching is "just" about eliminating suffering by destroying the illusion that there is a permanent and independent self. All these traditions, one way or another, teach this. And the other traditions have views in them at least as troublesome as Daniel Ingram's.

So, unless you are one of those people that would reject that a teacher is an arahat if that teacher would sit in a bench one inch taller than what is allowed by the vinaya/uposatta rules it's best if you can back up your statements without dogmatic arguments.


I can't say that I am well-versed in Mahyana, Vajrayana, or any other sect of Buddhism, but I wonder if you could find me an example of any other Buddhist sect that re-defines the meaning of Complete Liberation in a similar manner that Daniel has? That's the issue right there - the ultimate objective in Buddhism is to attain Arahanthship, and Daniel has completely uprooted its meaning.

I'm currently reading his book, and it's quite obvious that he still has attachment to conceit. In the 2nd chapter, and he is quite cynical to the struggles of meditationstudents, whom he claims "whine about their problems to teachers" at retreats." As a side note also seems to be lacking in Metta, though I'm not saying it nullifies Arahanthood. He's made other boastful claims that many find quite a turn-off.

Are you saying that there are no characteristics that one should have, if he/she is indeed enlightened? Because I find your equating Daniel's teaching with dogma to be hyperbolic and irrelevant. Comparing whether someone sits on a prop to how someone defines Arahantship is apples to oranges. He is not trying to create a new sect of Buddhism, but something distinctly different.

As for who is an Arahant and who is not: I don't know who is an Arahant and make no such claims. However, it's usually much easier to distinguish who isn't one. I don't know what the "truth" is in your context, and I never intended to use that word in any form; all I am saying is that what he is teaching is quite a departure from Buddhism.
MisterRunon
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 6:43 pm

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

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Nov 28, 2014 1:18 am

Modus.Ponens wrote:
So you're kind of right that Daniel Ingram doesn't teach strictly theravada.
If one wants to follow Ingramism, that is one's choice. As this thread graphically illustrates, there is enough in what Ingram and his followers have said and teach, that I would prefer to look elsewhere for a more sound quality of 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: 19918
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

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

Postby MisterRunon » Fri Nov 28, 2014 1:23 am

tiltbillings wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:
So you're kind of right that Daniel Ingram doesn't teach strictly theravada.
If one wants to follow Ingramism, that is one's choice. As this thread graphically illustrates, there is enough in what Ingram and his followers have said and teach, that I would prefer to look elsewhere for a more sound quality of Dhamma.


Another thing to note: Every school of Buddhism strictly follows the Noble Eightfold Path, which includes "Right Speech." If he is indeed an Arahant, then he has achieved the ultimate goal by not even following this path. At 2:08, he uses profanity as well as in his book. I say this again: every Buddhist sect that I know of follows the Noble Eightfold Path, yet Daniel does not. It's a major diversion (in addition to his other ones), and I wouldn't have any issues if he claimed to teach Ingramism instead of Buddhism.

Since I am not yet enlightened, I can say it: he is full of bullshit :D
Last edited by MisterRunon on Fri Nov 28, 2014 1:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
MisterRunon
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 6:43 pm

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

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Nov 28, 2014 1:37 am

IanAnd wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:What I found interesting in watching this video is how inarticulate he was in talking about his experiences.

Are you suggesting that an arahant (either ancient or modern) is immune from being inarticulate?

If so, what are your thoughts about the communication skills of the person who many accept as being a modern-day arahant the Ven. Acariya Maha Boowa?

(BTW, I understand your comment and agree with it. I, too, sometimes find Daniel's communication to be somewhat puzzling as to what point he is intending to make.)
Goodness. I did not see this when it was posted, but it does warrant a response.

Are you suggesting that an arahant (either ancient or modern) is immune from being inarticulate?
What I am suggesting that a person as highly educated and supposedly experienced in the Dhamma as Ingram claims to be cannot express his own experiences more clearly is, in the very least, interesting.

As for Maha Bua, I have no particular opinion. I do not find him particularly convincing, but people want to believe just as they they hanker for experiences.
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: 19918
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alex123, Coyote, fig tree and 11 guests