gnulnx wrote: Will my comment add to the peace or decrease the peace?
Given the rather unskilful approach taken here, your comments probably do not help.
I decided to post because I think this thread appears to
provide an open book to the thoughts of many of the posters.
In short this thread makes me sad. The delusion and dogma appear to be quite steep with some members. Is this a Buddhist forum were the members make constant strides to be aware of every passing thought or is this a random religious forum focused on dogmatic detail to scripture? Is Ingrams book any more contradictory than the whole of Zen?
First of all, Zen has nothing to do with the issue at hand, but if someone grossly misrepresented Zen, is it delusion and dogmatic to offer a critique of the misrepresentation? So if someone is critical analysis of Ingram’s claims, claims which run counter to the very core texts of the tradition of this forum, then offering a critique is to be delusional and dogmatic, so it seems. Now, that characterization could, with equal justification, be seen as equally problematic as the critique of Ingram’s claims.
Also, what is being stated by gnulnx, so it seems, is that offering a critique of Ingram’s claim means that those making the critique are not good Buddhists, that they are not really doing the practice, but are, rather, just deluded and dogmatic. I wonder how that adds to the peace?
Can any of you honestly find fault with Ingrams teaching on meditation? His chapter on correct meditation are about as concise and accurate as any I've as of yet found.
That is your opinion; however, the question is taking the whole picture of what Ingram is offering into consideration; there are better options.
Is it possible that the only real issue you have with him is a claim he made? Claiming something that a part of you obviously considers taboo? Ponder this in it's entirety. Don't focus on whether he is an Arahat or not. Focus on that part of you that is reacting to some part of Ingram? What is it about him that causes your mind to push back in such away?
So, in other words, if a person has a problem with Ingram, the problem is with that person, not the fact that Ingram has distorted the Buddha’s teachings and that Ingram's claims of being an arahant run counter to the words of the Buddha.
This is an interesting form of an ad hominem: you disagree with Ingram because something is wrong with you. Not really a very helpful response.
Lastly, what would you require of a person as proof of their enlightenment? Are you sure it's even possible for a human to meet that definition?
Then why would Ingram make such a claim about himself? Since he has, all by himself, put that claim out there, it is open for discussion (why wouldn’t it be?), and since he is using a Buddhist category –arahant – in his claim of “enlightenment” that is also not at all unreasonably open for discussion. And disagreeing with Ingram does not all by itself mean that whomever disagrees with his claim is delusional or dogmatic. There is no justification for such a claim as that.
I[sic] appears that often times we become so focused on the inaccuracies of another persons teaching that we fail to realize the real lesson was to found in the observation of our own aversion.
Looking at the failure of another’s teaching does mean that those who are doing the looking are full of aversion. It might mean quite the contrary – a very deep concern for the welfare of others and wanting the Dhamma to be carefully and skilfully presented in a way that does not bring shame to it.