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 polarbuddha101 » Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:17 am

IanAnd wrote:
kirk5a wrote:
IanAnd wrote:A distinction without a difference.

A distinction with a clear difference. You say aversion can arise even in an arahant, the suttas deny that is the case.

If you wish to believe that, go right ahead. It's no skin off my nose.

Like I say, practice really hard and find out for yourself. Nothing clarifies the mind like first hand experience.

I also pointed out the following:
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."

The without a difference is: without becoming attached to it (meaning the aversion), and thereby bothered (creating dukkha for himself) by it. Or do you not see this distinction, also?


You're assuming that aversion is impossible to uproot, hence you're assuming that nibbana, the destruction of passion, aversion, and delusion is also impossible.
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
User avatar
polarbuddha101
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Location: California

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby IanAnd » Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:26 am

polarbuddha101 wrote:You're assuming that aversion is impossible to uproot, hence you're assuming that nibbana, the destruction of passion, aversion, and delusion is also impossible.

No. You are.
"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 manas » Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:50 am

alan... wrote:
manas wrote:EDIT: Interesting how before meditating, I felt like expressing a view on this topic, but after meditating, I feel like a better option is not to say anything about it at all. So I've taken down that previous post I wrote.

In peace. :anjali:


this describes most of my experience on this forum lol!

sometimes i even write out long responses while in the back of my mind figuring i'll delete it anyway before i even click "submit".


Not wanting to go too far off-topic, but I changed my mind again and did post. Indignation arose when once again, I read how mr Ingram had misrepresented the Dhamma regarding the state of an arahant, and I felt I 'had' to denounce this. How hard it is to remain silent, when one sees something one regards as deeply offensive. But my final word on posting or not, is that if one is going to refute adhamma, one should first calm one's mind, and should make the refutation in that calm state. I'll try to follow that from now on.

Anyway, had better be :focus:

Peace. :anjali:
Last edited by manas on Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
manas
 
Posts: 2102
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby polarbuddha101 » Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:51 am

IanAnd wrote:
polarbuddha101 wrote:You're assuming that aversion is impossible to uproot, hence you're assuming that nibbana, the destruction of passion, aversion, and delusion is also impossible.

No. You are.


I am what? Are you saying I'm assuming that you're assuming or something else? Also, I think aversion is possible to uproot so I'm not assuming that the destruction of passion, aversion, and delusion is impossible and hence one can realize nibbana.

Do you think that getting rid of aversion so that it never arises again is impossible?
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
User avatar
polarbuddha101
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Location: California

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby taintless » Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:04 am

Another issue that I find with the MCTBers or Pragmatic Dharma yogis, is that they place too much emphasis on extra-canonical material.

But not just that, they misinterpret extra-canonical material, GREATLY. For example the notion that the path causes depression, mental illness, self-obsession or whatever is literally baseless. It IS the case that the path may cause pain from striving as it may go against one's strongly intense nature.

But it is not an excuse to indulge every whim for saying... "Oh I'm depressed, it's just that I'm on the way to Awakening."

Furthermore they overuse the Vimuttimagga and Visuddhimagga, as far as I'm concerned the author of the Visuddhimagga did not experience Awakening himself as he wrote a small note wishing for rebirth in heaven so that he might meet Metteyya and become Awakened.

And even if they use the Visuddhimagga, they misuse and abuse it anyways, the text speaks of successive PURIFICATIONS and STAGES of INSIGHT and AWAKENING, not stages of EMOTIONAL FEELING. Often times this stems from a misunderstanding of the Dhamma or a misapprehension, due to having not studied the source material of this religion.

So the whole thing is really just, quite a mess.

Anyways, just me venting.

Once again, still the strongest respect, admiration and faith in these yogis.

P.S:

I created this thread out of a feeling anger, so perhaps my motivation is not entirely pure in regards to criticizing these yogis. There are still some emotional burns left in my psyche. If this at all discredits what I'm saying, please consider the motivation as to why I'm making these criticisms, as it may render them baseless. I've been labelled as a troll over at the DhO and banned, you should take this into account when reading what I'm writing. There are quite a few emotions regarding this issue, and I find it sensitive, at least for me.

Thank you.
taintless
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:07 am

taintless wrote:
Furthermore they overuse the Vimuttimagga and Visuddhimagga, as far as I'm concerned the author of the Visuddhimagga did not experience Awakening himself as he wrote a small note wishing for rebirth in heaven so that he might meet Metteyya and become Awakened.
Actually Buddhaghosa did not write that note. It was penned by a scribe who copied the manuscript.
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: 19215
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby Modus.Ponens » Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:12 am

tiltbillings wrote:Let me repeat what I said here:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=5569&start=80#p48308

    yuuki wrote:In his book, Mr. Ingram states that non-duality models of awakening are "without doubt [his] favorite of them all." As indicated by Mr. Ingram, there aren't specific moral changes in a non-dually awakened person's capabilities (i.e. not being able to lie) or experience (not feeling sensual desire). . . . .

    Mr. Ingram's method of choice is vipassana meditation. I personally am a little hesitant to practice vipassana, because I can't find its source in the suttas and when I consider the method conceptually it seems that it leads precisely to the non-dual awakening mentioned above.
    The late Austrian Hindu scholar and practitioner Agehananda Bharati stated in his book THE LIGHT AT THE CENTER that if you were a stinker before your enlightenment you would be a stinker afterwards, and this is from a man coming from a non-dual tradition. The Theravada and vipassana is not a non-dual tradition, nor is it a pluralistic tradtion.

    Ingram is telling us a lot here. One thing he is telling us is that he disregards the Pali sutta tradition, which characterizes the arahant as one who is morally transformed. Moral transformation is something that is part of the practice leading up to awakening as it is a result of the awakening. He is also telling us that the basis of his “awakening” is not vipassana; rather, it is jhana, of which he claims to be a master.

    Jhana experience has the capacity to mimic what one might think is awakening, the suppression of negative states of mind and jhana can give one “a sort of disassociation from oneself” or a disassociation from those aspects of oneself one finds problematic - a sort of “conversion experience” where one perceives oneself as radically changed. Jhana experience, especially spontaneous jhana experience, has that as a danger. While one, as the result of such an experience (or a cluster of such experiences), may now have a very different view and “understanding” of oneself, the stuff suppressed by the jhana experience(s) can - and will - come back, and thus we get this list:
    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://www.interactivebuddha.com/arahats.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
    What this list tell us is that while one may imagine oneself awake based upon a profound and supposedly transformative non-dual experience(s), one has to also explain away, in terms of one’s new self-image, all the stuff that comes back after the effects of the jhana/conversion experience(s) wears off.

    Mr. Ingram's method of choice is vipassana meditation.” Any methodology is susceptible to being twisted to meet one’s needs, which is why working with a teacher is important, but even that is no guarantee, which is why understanding that any experience is just another thing of which to let go.

    As for the Mahasi Sayadaw style of practice, please take a look at U Pandita’s THE STATE OF MIND CALLED BEAUTIFUL, and Ven Nyanaponika’s THE POWER OF MINDFULNESS

    I can't find its [vipassana] source in the suttas Do not confuse certain techniques with what is core to the vipassana traditions, which are found in such suttas as the Satipatthana sutta and the Bahiya Sutta and the Kalaka Sutta, and the perception of impermanence should be cultivated for the removal of the conceit 'I am.' For when one perceives impermanence, Meghiya, the perception of not-self is established. When one perceives not-self one reaches the removal of the conceit 'I am,' which is called Nibbana here and now." Ud 37 (4.1)


Ok, thanks Tilt. That is helpful, although I won't rely completely on the red part since it is not a literal quote, so I will not base my opinion of Ingram on it. I still haven't closed the door on Ingram being an arahat, because I think what he is trying to say is easily interpretable as something that is not what he is trying to say.

Anyway, let me try to go through a more direct way of clarifying what I want to learn. Nana, I also ask for your help.

I think we can all agree that an arahat can experience unpleasant physical sensations, although he is unperturbed, as quoted above.

Would it be possible that the sensations resulting from contact with the other senses (except for the mind itself) result in unpleasant sensations? I'm inclined to think this is possible, although, again, it wouldn't perturb the arahat. Here maybe I'm making a step that maybe is not correct: pain is a perception of tact; unpleasant sensation resultant from sense contact in general may not be the case for an arahat. Is this step in my train of thought acceptable?
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: 1961
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Funchal, Portugal

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby daverupa » Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:31 am

Modus.Ponens wrote:Is this step in my train of thought acceptable?


Sn 4.11 wrote:"The pleasant and the unpleasant have their source in sense-impression. When this sense-impression is absent, these states are not present."


SN 36.10 wrote:"Dependent on a sense-impression that is liable to be felt as painful, there arises a painful feeling. When that very sense-impression liable to be felt as painful has ceased, then the sensation born from it — namely the painful feeling that arose dependent on that sense-impression — also ceases and is stilled.


I think the stone splinter episode shows that unpleasant sense-impressions exist. A stone splinter wound, for example, is liable to be felt as pain even in the case of the Buddha, neh?

But even though the body was afflicted, the Buddha's mind was not. I think the problem in this thread is that Ingram describes a category of "unpleasant mental feeling" (#8 in the list) as being present for arahants in the same way as the physical can be, but the suttas clearly describe the utter absence of such mentalities for arahants.
    "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: 4074
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby kirk5a » Sat Apr 06, 2013 1:13 pm

IanAnd wrote:
kirk5a wrote:
IanAnd wrote:A distinction without a difference.

A distinction with a clear difference. You say aversion can arise even in an arahant, the suttas deny that is the case.

If you wish to believe that, go right ahead. It's no skin off my nose.

I don't need to wish to believe it. It's explicitly stated.
Aversion is abandoned in me, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.'

Like I say, practice really hard and find out for yourself. Nothing clarifies the mind like first hand experience.

You will also have to try really hard and find out for yourself, unless you're saying you're an arahant.
I also pointed out the following:
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."

The without a difference is: without becoming attached to it (meaning the aversion), and thereby bothered (creating dukkha for himself) by it. Or do you not see this distinction, also?

I see the distinction, but it's not how arahantship is described. The aversion doesn't occur in the first place.
"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: 1746
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:06 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote: I still haven't closed the door on Ingram being an arahat, because I think what he is trying to say is easily interpretable as something that is not what he is trying to say.
Why do you want this idiot who craps on the Buddha's teachings to be an arahant?
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: 19215
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby SamKR » Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:54 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote: I still haven't closed the door on Ingram being an arahat, because I think what he is trying to say is easily interpretable as something that is not what he is trying to say.
Why do you want this idiot who craps on the Buddha's teachings to be an arahant?

Why would you want to call someone you probably dont know -- who seems to have experience and knowledge of teachings -- an idiot? He may not be an arahant according to suttas but still anyone is free to understand the buddha's teachings as he/she wishes.
SamKR
 
Posts: 758
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:00 pm

SamKR wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote: I still haven't closed the door on Ingram being an arahat, because I think what he is trying to say is easily interpretable as something that is not what he is trying to say.
Why do you want this idiot who craps on the Buddha's teachings to be an arahant?

Why would you want to call someone you dont know -- who seems to have experience and knowledge of teachings -- an idiot? He may not be an arahant according to suttas but still anyone is free to understand the buddha's teachings as he/she wishes.
The list in question is a crap on -- a pointed rejection of -- the Buddha's teachings about what an arahant is by someone who self-proclaims being an arahant. Hard to to take this guy seriously. In rejecting the Buddha's teaching, it ceases to be following the Buddha. He certainly is free to do that, but there is no point in calling it the teachings of the Buddha. It is the teachings of Ingram.
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: 19215
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby SamKR » Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:14 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
SamKR wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:but there is no point in calling it the teachings of the Buddha. It is the teachings of Ingram.

Yes, You may be right. But still I am not sure about the demarcation line when a teaching ceases to become the Buddha's teachings. The demarcation is fuzzy.
SamKR
 
Posts: 758
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:18 pm

SamKR wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:but there is no point in calling it the teachings of the Buddha. It is the teachings of Ingram.
Yes, You may be right. But still I am not sure about the demarcation line when a teaching ceases to become the Buddha's teachings. The demarcation is fuzzy.
When one redefines so radically the goal of the practice, that is probably a good place to consider that what is being advocated is not what the Buddha taught.
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: 19215
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby Modus.Ponens » Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:26 pm

daverupa wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:Is this step in my train of thought acceptable?


Sn 4.11 wrote:"The pleasant and the unpleasant have their source in sense-impression. When this sense-impression is absent, these states are not present."


SN 36.10 wrote:"Dependent on a sense-impression that is liable to be felt as painful, there arises a painful feeling. When that very sense-impression liable to be felt as painful has ceased, then the sensation born from it — namely the painful feeling that arose dependent on that sense-impression — also ceases and is stilled.


I think the stone splinter episode shows that unpleasant sense-impressions exist. A stone splinter wound, for example, is liable to be felt as pain even in the case of the Buddha, neh?

But even though the body was afflicted, the Buddha's mind was not. I think the problem in this thread is that Ingram describes a category of "unpleasant mental feeling" (#8 in the list) as being present for arahants in the same way as the physical can be, but the suttas clearly describe the utter absence of such mentalities for arahants.


Thank you for the suttas. So it's safe to assume that an arahat has pleasant and unpleasant sensations based on sense contact, with the exception of the mind, right?

Now comes the crucial part, which you already mentioned. There are pleasant sensations arising from mind contact for the arahat, such as rapture. Are there unpleasant sensations resulting from mind contact? The standard answer is no. But could it be that there are unpleasant sensations born of mind contact, but the arahat is unperturbed by these unpleasant sensations as well? I'm not a materialist, but from a biological point of view, if an arahat remembers of his mother's death and the sorrow he felt at the time (assuming that he wasn't an arya by then), it makes sense that he will remember the unpleasant sensations that he felt at the time and thus, from, mind contact, a part of the same unpleasant sensations arise in him. Is this incorrect?
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: 1961
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Funchal, Portugal

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby Modus.Ponens » Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:37 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote: I still haven't closed the door on Ingram being an arahat, because I think what he is trying to say is easily interpretable as something that is not what he is trying to say.
Why do you want this idiot who craps on the Buddha's teachings to be an arahant?


Maybe because I'm naive. But I won't eliminate the option as long as there is an interpretation of what he says that arahats are that makes sense. The list you quoted is, in the best case scenario, a very unskillful way to express his thoughts. However, not all arahats are skillful at teaching, so this can be the case. It's an interesting thing to discuss, wether that list is interpretable as correct dhamma or not. At first sight, it obviously isn't. But maybe there's something to it, point 8 being the main one. Even if there isn't, I'm interested in exploring the nature and limitations of the arahat along the lines of that list (with the exception of the illogical points, such as: arahats have to ordain within 7 days or they die or they can't have a job).
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: 1961
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Funchal, Portugal

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby Alex123 » Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:58 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:Now comes the crucial part, which you already mentioned. There are pleasant sensations arising from mind contact for the arahat, such as rapture. Are there unpleasant sensations resulting from mind contact? The standard answer is no. But could it be that there are unpleasant sensations born of mind contact, but the arahat is unperturbed by these unpleasant sensations as well? I'm not a materialist, but from a biological point of view, if an arahat remembers of his mother's death and the sorrow he felt at the time (assuming that he wasn't an arya by then), it makes sense that he will remember the unpleasant sensations that he felt at the time and thus, from, mind contact, a part of the same unpleasant sensations arise in him. Is this incorrect?


An interesting continuation: What happens if an Arahant remembers lustful events, etc. Can Arahant still feel lust, but it merely does NOT obsess his mind and he doesn't identify with it as "mine"?

If lust depends on certain hormones such as testosterone, etc, do Arhats still have these hormones?

Does Arahant have clinging aggregates?
Then which things should an arahant attend to in an appropriate way?"
"An arahant should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. SN22.122

That message is identical with instruction from virtuous monk to non-returner.

Venerable Sariputta, an Arahant wrote:Whichever of these seven factors of enlightenment I want to dwell in during the morning, I dwell in that factor of enlightenment during the morning. Whichever I want to dwell in during the middle of the day, I dwell in that factor of enlightenment during the middle of the day. Whichever I want to dwell in during the evening, I dwell in that factor of enlightenment during the evening. SN46.4


If Arahant can dwell in mindfulness as factor of enlightment, does it mean that whenever He doesn't dwell in it - he has no mindfulness?



"And how is one a noble one with developed faculties? There is the case where, when seeing a form with the eye, there arises in a monk what is agreeable (manāpaṃ), what is disagreeable (amanāpaṃ), what is agreeable & disagreeable (manāpāmanāpaṃ). If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome. If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome (paṭikkula). If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome & what is. If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not. If he wants — in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not — cutting himself off from both, he remains equanimous, alert, & mindful. MN152


So Arhat can experience:
manāpa = pleasing; charming.
amanāpa= detesful.
paṭikkula = loathsome;


Buddha has also talked to Mara. There are 5 interpretations of Mara and I believe only two fit the case:
a) Māra as actual being, (with horns and pig tail? :pig: ) and lifespan of 9.216 billion years :rolleye: .
or
b)Kilesa-Māra. Mara as personification of defilements. But how could "defilements" speak to Buddha and attempt to tempt Him?
Last edited by Alex123 on Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby daverupa » Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:08 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:if an arahat remembers of his mother's death and the sorrow he felt at the time (assuming that he wasn't an arya by then), it makes sense that he will remember the unpleasant sensations that he felt at the time and thus, from, mind contact, a part of the same unpleasant sensations arise in him. Is this incorrect?


It seems to be incorrect. Here is a passage which directly bears on your hypothetical:

somewhere in the therigatha they wrote:Pulling out
completely out —
the arrow so hard to see,
embedded in my heart,
he expelled from me
— overcome with grief —
the grief
over my daughter.
    "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: 4074
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby Modus.Ponens » Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:14 pm

daverupa wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:if an arahat remembers of his mother's death and the sorrow he felt at the time (assuming that he wasn't an arya by then), it makes sense that he will remember the unpleasant sensations that he felt at the time and thus, from, mind contact, a part of the same unpleasant sensations arise in him. Is this incorrect?


It seems to be incorrect. Here is a passage which directly bears on your hypothetical:

somewhere in the therigatha it wrote:Pulling out
completely out —
the arrow so hard to see,
embedded in my heart,
he expelled from me
— overcome with grief —
the grief
over my daughter.


That is not conclusive. I don't afirm that the arahat experiences grief. It wouldn't make sense to be a buddhist and believe it to be true. What I'm asking is if, when remembering the grief itself, the arahat experiences an unpleasant sensation, towards which he remains unperturbed. I think the key here is memory. Is it possible to remember a feeling without any sensation at all? When you remember a feeling, you experience that feeling. In the case of the arahat, what seems more likely to me is that some (unpleasant) sensation is felt. Like Dipa Ma said about anger,

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 only now read the link you quoted, Alex. In it one has the answer to this question, I think, unless the pali experts have something contrary to say. The passage is the following and it is linked in Alex's post:

When cognizing an idea with the intellect, there arises in him what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable & disagreeable. (...) This is how one is a noble one with developed faculties
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: 1961
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Funchal, Portugal

Re: A Critique of the Hardcore Dharma Movement.

Postby Nyana » Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:38 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:Nana, I also ask for your help.

I think Ingram's notion of an "arahant" is not an arahant at all. There's no actual liberation there -- just more wandering on through saṃsāra. Of course, there are plenty of misguided gurus in this world who claim to be enlightened, and no shortage of people who will follow them.
Nyana
 
Posts: 2229
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 14 guests