A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby Nyana » Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:53 pm

Alex123 wrote:Dislike and anger both push away or reject something.

There are a number of Buddhist practices which include developing revulsion toward things that induce craving and clinging. E.g. the list of perceptions described in AN 7.46 (AN 7.49 in NDB). If developing dislike and revulsion in this way required developing anger, then these practices would be unskillful and never result in liberation.
Nyana
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby lojong1 » Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:19 pm

Then there is the Unnabha paradox.
lojong1
 
Posts: 580
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:59 am

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby Alex123 » Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:33 pm

Ñāṇa wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Dislike and anger both push away or reject something.

There are a number of Buddhist practices which include developing revulsion toward things that induce craving and clinging. E.g. the list of perceptions described in AN 7.46 (AN 7.49 in NDB). If developing dislike and revulsion in this way required developing anger, then these practices would be unskillful and never result in liberation.


Maybe revulsion to counteract craving is equal in force to craving so that net result is zero.

Example: Lets say that craving is 5 units of force to the left. If one develops 5 units of force to the right (anger) then the net result is zero.

Or to put it in another way: -5 + 5 = 0
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2853
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby Nyana » Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:53 pm

lojong1 wrote:Then there is the Unnabha paradox.

If you're referring to SN 51.15, it's hardly a paradox. Rather, it's a matter of differentiating between what is skillful and what is unskillful. Chanda (desire) in the context of developing the noble path is skillful.
Nyana
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby Nyana » Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:59 pm

Alex123 wrote:Maybe revulsion to counteract craving is equal in force to craving so that net result is zero.

Example: Lets say that craving is 5 units of force to the left. If one develops 5 units of force to the right (anger) then the net result is zero.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any recommendations for developing anger or aggression as a practice or as part of the path in the Nikāyas. Anger is regarded as unskillful, and unskillful mental qualities don't lead to liberation. For example, the well known verse from Dhammapada 1.5:

    Hatred never ends through hatred.
    By non-hate alone does it end.
    This is an ancient truth.
Nyana
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby manas » Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:21 pm

Alex123 wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Dislike and anger both push away or reject something.

There are a number of Buddhist practices which include developing revulsion toward things that induce craving and clinging. E.g. the list of perceptions described in AN 7.46 (AN 7.49 in NDB). If developing dislike and revulsion in this way required developing anger, then these practices would be unskillful and never result in liberation.


Maybe revulsion to counteract craving is equal in force to craving so that net result is zero.

Example: Lets say that craving is 5 units of force to the left. If one develops 5 units of force to the right (anger) then the net result is zero.

Or to put it in another way: -5 + 5 = 0


Hi Alex,

I think it is important to distinguish between 1. a mind overcome by aversion, which is clearly unskilful, and 2. intentionally bringing forth a fabrication - the perception of foulness - with the wholesome underlying intention of abandoning sensual desire. Both the state of mind, and the motivation are different here, aren't they?

So it's not through aversion that we counter greed, it's through seeing the object of our greed in a different way.


(The above was according to my current understanding; someone kindly correct it if there is any inaccuracy.)

KInd regards :anjali:
User avatar
manas
 
Posts: 2129
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby IanAnd » Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:03 am

Ñāṇa wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Maybe revulsion to counteract craving is equal in force to craving so that net result is zero.

Example: Lets say that craving is 5 units of force to the left. If one develops 5 units of force to the right (anger) then the net result is zero.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any recommendations for developing anger or aggression as a practice or as part of the path in the Nikāyas. Anger is regarded as unskillful, and unskillful mental qualities don't lead to liberation. For example, the well known verse from Dhammapada 1.5:

    Hatred never ends through hatred.
    By non-hate alone does it end.
    This is an ancient truth.

Stop and listen to Ñāṇa, and contemplate what he is saying here.

Put in the language of Zen, anger presupposes someone to be "angry," at some thing or someone else. Yes? An act of the ego. Yes?

Better to replace the anger in your equation with dispassion (for example, non-hate) through insight into "things as they are."

Dispassion implies allowing things to be and not minding that they are (that they exists).
"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: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby Spiny Norman » Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:07 am

daverupa wrote:
porpoise wrote:I'm still not clear about whether the 1st arrow ( physical pain ) is dukkha for a Buddha.


SN 1.38 & SN 4.13 discuss this.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha at the Maddakucchi Deer Reserve. Now at that time his foot had been pierced by a stone sliver. Excruciating were the bodily feelings that developed within him — painful, fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable — but he endured them mindful, alert, & unperturbed.


"Unperturbed" seems to be the key term here.


Thanks Dave, useful references. "Unperturbed" does seem to be significant.
Mrs. Bun: Have you got anything without spam in it?
Waitress: Well, there's spam, egg, sausage and spam. That's not got MUCH spam in it.
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby Alex123 » Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:45 pm

Ñāṇa wrote:I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any recommendations for developing anger or aggression as a practice or as part of the path in the Nikāyas.


I think that while anger and dislike are similar in some degree (both push away or reject something), dislike is less harmful than anger. So in the sense of gradual path, isn't it possible to use dislike of defilements and laziness in a positive way?
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2853
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby Alex123 » Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:47 pm

IanAnd wrote:Put in the language of Zen, anger presupposes someone to be "angry," at some thing or someone else.


What about disliking? What about choosing? Doesn't it presupposes someone to "dislike" at some thing or someone else.
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2853
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby daverupa » Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:12 pm

Alex123 wrote:Doesn't it presuppose


It doesn't seem to, no.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4179
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby Prasadachitta » Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:03 pm

Alex123 wrote:I think that while anger and dislike are similar in some degree (both push away or reject something), dislike is less harmful than anger. So in the sense of gradual path, isn't it possible to use dislike of defilements and laziness in a positive way?


Hi Alex,

It is possible that using the word "dislike" is meant to convey some degree of affective "rejection" or "pushing away" but this is not necessarily so. The words we use are created within the context of an unenlightened mind so that "dislike" is necessarily associated with some degree of aversion. We can imagine that the Buddha has preference without aversion attraction or apathy. I think we can say that it is a new category which unenlightened humanity has not had the opportunity to name except with the term Nibbana. For us painful pleasant and neutral experience is almost always conjoined with some degree of aversion, attraction, or apathy.


Take Care

Prasadachitta
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby Modus.Ponens » Fri Apr 05, 2013 6:02 pm

This is a very interesting discussion.

If I interpret correctly, the critics of Daniel Ingraim say his definition of arahatship is wrong because it includes "emotions" that an arahat isn't suposed to have. And, again if I interpret correctly, what Daniel Ingraim says is that although these "emotions" arise, they don't cause suffering, they are not clung to or pushed away.

One thing that's interesting is that, in light of my interpretation of the contention, and iirc, there are people who criticise Daniel Ingraim's suposed awakening (idk if he did awake or not) and on the other hand tend to believe Dipa Ma was an arahat. And what Dipa Ma said in an interview to Jack Engler, is basicaly what Ingraim says about arahatship. She says something like: the "emotions" arise but they don't burn.

I believe Tiltbillings is one of the persons who is in this dilema. If you are indeed in this dilema, can you explain why you believe one is an arahat and the other is not?

PS: I'm not trying to pick a fight. On the contrary, I'm trying to learn. I mentioned you because you're the only person that I remember being on this situation publicly. However, if I didn't think you were representative of a good portion of people in this dilema, I wouldn't bring it up. Please don't take this the wrong way.
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: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby IanAnd » Fri Apr 05, 2013 6:31 pm

Alex123 wrote:
IanAnd wrote:Put in the language of Zen, anger presupposes someone to be "angry," at some thing or someone else.


What about disliking? What about choosing? Doesn't it presupposes someone to "dislike" at some thing or someone else.

With apologies to the OP of this thread (which has been temporarily hijacked). Hopefully to get back on track soon.

Alex, please pause long enough to put two and two together (for your own benefit, if for no one else). The following seems to have gone over your head: "Dispassion implies allowing things to be and not minding that they are (that they exists)." And daverupa's contribution, in reference to the Buddha and how he responded to physical pain (something that we all have an aversion toward): ". . . but he endured them mindful, alert, & unperturbed."

It is not so much that the arising of disliking or aversion can take place (as it most assuredly can, even in an arahant, who is confronted by a conventional situation which may seem to be unjustified, in the mind). It is about not taking it personally (i.e. remaining unperturbed that it has arisen; in other words, not minding that it has arisen, thus not causing one dukkha!). Through insight into "things as they are" one simply observes the arising of conventional reactions (mental processes) without becoming part of the reactions. In other words, one observes: "Oh, look! A reaction has arisen! How quaint. In the meantime, I remain unperturbed [by its arising]!" See?
"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: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Apr 05, 2013 6:54 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:This is a very interesting discussion.

If I interpret correctly, the critics of Daniel Ingraim say his definition of arahatship is wrong because it includes "emotions" that an arahat isn't suposed to have. And, again if I interpret correctly, what Daniel Ingraim says is that although these "emotions" arise, they don't cause suffering, they are not clung to or pushed away.

One thing that's interesting is that, in light of my interpretation of the contention, and iirc, there are people who criticise Daniel Ingraim's suposed awakening (idk if he did awake or not) and on the other hand tend to believe Dipa Ma was an arahat. And what Dipa Ma said in an interview to Jack Engler, is basicaly what Ingraim says about arahatship. She says something like: the "emotions" arise but they don't burn.

I believe Tiltbillings is one of the persons who is in this dilema. If you are indeed in this dilema, can you explain why you believe one is an arahat and the other is not?

PS: I'm not trying to pick a fight. On the contrary, I'm trying to learn. I mentioned you because you're the only person that I remember being on this situation publicly. However, if I didn't think you were representative of a good portion of people in this dilema, I wouldn't bring it up. Please don't take this the wrong way.
I really do not know what you are saying here about me, nor do I know iirc and idk mean. If this is text msg speak, it should be banned outright.
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: 19562
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby Virgo » Fri Apr 05, 2013 6:59 pm

tiltbillings wrote:I really do not know what you are saying here about me, nor do I know iirc and idk mean. If this is text msg speak, it should be banned outright.

You don't know what idk means?

Kevin
Virgo
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby Modus.Ponens » Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:05 pm

tiltbillings wrote:I really do not know what you are saying here about me, nor do I know iirc and idk mean. If this is text msg speak, it should be banned outright.


Idk means "I don't know" and iirc means "if I recall correctly".

What I'm basicaly saying is that you seem to be of the opinion that Ingraim is not an arahat (based on his definition of arahatship) and on the other hand that Dipa Ma is an arahat, even though they seem to agree that an arahat has "emotions" that s/he isn't suposed to have acording to the more traditional interpretation.
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: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:13 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:I really do not know what you are saying here about me, nor do I know iirc and idk mean. If this is text msg speak, it should be banned outright.


Idk means "I don't know" and iirc means "if I recall correctly".

What I'm basicaly saying is that you seem to be of the opinion that Ingraim is not an arahat (based on his definition of arahatship) and on the other hand that Dipa Ma is an arahat, even though they seem to agree that an arahat has "emotions" that s/he isn't suposed to have acording to the more traditional interpretation.
Dipa Ma never claimed to be an arahant, and I never claimed it of her. Show me where Dipa Ma claimed, as did Ingram, that, to quote Ingram:
Here are a number of bogus myths and falsehoods about arahats, each of which violates one of more of the First Principles in addition to simply being untrue:
1.Arahats cannot lie.
2.Arahats cannot have erections or have sex.
3.Arahats would never do drugs or drink.
4.Arahats cannot kill anything ever.
5.Arahats cannot state they are arahats.
6.Arahats must ordain within 7 days of becomming an arahat in the Buddhist order of monks or they will die.
7.Arahats cannot think the thought "I am an arahat."
8.Arahats cannot feel the following emotions: lust, hatred, irritation, restlessness, worry, fear, pride, conceit, desire for the formless realms, desire for the formed realms, or any other "bad" emotion.
9.Arahats cannot like music or dance.
10.Arahats love forests.
11.Arahats cannot have jobs or normal relationships.
12.Arahats do not really exist today.
13.Arahats must work hard to maintain their understanding, and it is this that makes them unable to do so many things. http://ww.morpheusrising.com/arahats.shtml );return false;
ydnrc, it would seem.
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: 19562
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby kirk5a » Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:34 pm

IanAnd wrote:It is not so much that the arising of disliking or aversion can take place (as it most assuredly can, even in an arahant, who is confronted by a conventional situation which may seem to be unjustified, in the mind). It is about not taking it personally (i.e. remaining unperturbed that it has arisen; in other words, not minding that it has arisen, thus not causing one dukkha!). Through insight into "things as they are" one simply observes the arising of conventional reactions (mental processes) without becoming part of the reactions. In other words, one observes: "Oh, look! A reaction has arisen! How quaint. In the meantime, I remain unperturbed [by its arising]!" See?

No, I don't see that at all. The suttas say that passion, aversion, and delusion are not subject to arising for an arahant.
"And how is a monk well-released in discernment? There is the case where a monk discerns, 'Passion is abandoned in me, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.' He discerns, 'Aversion is abandoned in me, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.' He discerns, 'Delusion is abandoned in me, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.' This is how a monk is well-released in discernment.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
kirk5a
 
Posts: 1758
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby Modus.Ponens » Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:37 pm

tiltbillings wrote:Dipa Ma never claimed to be an arahant, and I never claimed it of her. Show me where Dipa Ma claimed, as did Ingram, that, to quote Ingram:
Here are a number of bogus myths and falsehoods about arahats, each of which violates one of more of the First Principles in addition to simply being untrue:
1.Arahats cannot lie.
2.Arahats cannot have erections or have sex.
3.Arahats would never do drugs or drink.
4.Arahats cannot kill anything ever.
5.Arahats cannot state they are arahats.
6.Arahats must ordain within 7 days of becomming an arahat in the Buddhist order of monks or they will die.
7.Arahats cannot think the thought "I am an arahat."
8.Arahats cannot feel the following emotions: lust, hatred, irritation, restlessness, worry, fear, pride, conceit, desire for the formless realms, desire for the formed realms, or any other "bad" emotion.
9.Arahats cannot like music or dance.
10.Arahats love forests.
11.Arahats cannot have jobs or normal relationships.
12.Arahats do not really exist today.
13.Arahats must work hard to maintain their understanding, and it is this that makes them unable to do so many things. http://ww.morpheusrising.com/arahats.shtml );return false;
ydnrc, it would seem.


I didn't recall correctly that she atained 4th path. She claimed to attain 2nd path, but we can conclude from this interview that she attained 3rd path, because Munindraji stoped her from talking about 3rd path, which can only mean that she attained it and Munindraji thought it wouldn't be wise to speak about it. About 4th path, I don't have information. But I believe the "emotions" mentioned in that list, if felt by the non returner, are felt by the arahat (with the exception of conceit, I believe), so the part about the emotions is true. In the interview you can find this dialog:

Do you experience anger at all? As soon as it comes, at the very start, I’m aware of it. It doesn’t get any nourishment.

What do you do when you begin to feel irritation or anger? Anger is a fire, but I don’t feel any heat. It comes and dies right out.


I have to leave imediatly, but you can find the interview here: http://www.tricycle.com/interview/enlig ... e?page=0,0
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

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests