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

[daverupa]

No no, we're looking at things that are solely sensual pleasures.

So, I think they will not, it is not an acceptable offering to an arahant but, if done, it would not be used. This is because there is no engagement with it. So, even apart from not enjoying it while smoking, there will not be any smoking at all.

So, there will not be any sensual-ing at all. There might still be pleasant vedana, e.g. breezes, sunsets, and the like, and it will be these sorts that occur naturally which are not fastened upon.

[Unrul3r]

So, I think they will not, it is not an acceptable offering to an arahant but, if done, it would not be used. This is because there is no engagement with it. So, even apart from not enjoying it while smoking, there will not be any smoking at all.

So, there will not be any sensual-ing at all. There might still be pleasant vedana, e.g. breezes, sunsets, and the like, and it will be these sorts that occur naturally which are not fastened upon.

I agree, but I think he wouldn't even accept it if offered. What use would it have to him? It's not even edible for sustaining the body, which, along with sharing Dhamma, would be his only purpose until his body breaks-up.

Edit: Small correction in wording.

[waterchan]

. . .

Okay, fair enough.

What I was getting at is that an arahant would not see a cigarette as something pleasurable. Heck, I don't see it as a sensual pleasure, let alone someone with any degree of ariyaship.

I agree, but I think he wouldn't even accept it if offered.

Monks do accept all manner of gifts even if they don't need it. It's more about letting the giver rejoice in his dana than the monk finding it useful. Ajahn Chah, widely regarded as an arahant, received at least several million dollars worth of gifts from rich generals in Thailand. It stands to reason he had no personal use for the vast majority of those gifts. Ajahn Brahm said that Ajahn Chah's hut was stark empty except for a mat and cushion.

[daverupa]

A poor example, drawn from my own unwholesome experiences, but hopefully the point is made.

[Modus.Ponens]

A poor example, drawn from my own unwholesome experiences, but hopefully the point is made.

I'm not sure it was made at all. I hope I am not distorting this story due to bad memory, but I'm fairly confident. There was a time when Ajahn Chah smoked and so did the monks in his monastery. When lay people complained that smoking was not seen as wholesome behaviour for a bhikkhu, Ajahn Chah stopped smoking and instructed his monks to stop it as well. I think he was the abbot.

Many, many people regarded Ajahn Chah as an arahat. Even if he wasn't an arahat (at the time of this episode) he was a very, very strict adherent to the vinaya. So these ideals we have about what an arahat is or does is very rigid, imo.

[tiltbillings]

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... =80#p48308

• 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)

[Unrul3r]

Monks do except all manner of gifts even if they don't need it. It's more about letting the giver rejoice in his dana than the monk finding it useful. Ajahn Chah, widely regarded as an arahant, received at least several million dollars worth of gifts from rich generals in Thailand. It stands to reason he had no personal use for the vast majority of those gifts.

Indeed, I've heard this and I would agree depending on the item. But I think an arahat wouldn't accept this kind of gift. It doesn't generate any kind of faith, by the contrary. He also wouldn't accept drugs, women, weapons, etc.

If a statue or another neutral gift is given, I would agree that he could possibly accept it but not gifts approaching harming or sensuality. I certainly don't believe the Buddha would accept any of these. It just wouldn't generate faith. If I gave this kind of gift to test a monk and one would accept it, I would lose faith in him. I would ask myself, "Why would he accept this kind of item?", "What use does he have for it?". I believe an arahat would be very pragmatic.

Even Ananda when offer a robe refused it because he had no use for it. But to be fair, Ananda probably wasn't an arahat at the time but he would be very knowledgeable on what to accept nonetheless.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. Off to bed, good night to all.

Edit: Small alterations for clarity.

[Alex123]

Reading that list of what Mr. Ingram believes,

I wonder: what would be a difference between a normal person and an Arahant if an arahant seems to behave in the same way as a normal non-Buddhist?

[Denisa]

This, quoted out of context, is terrible. I have Daniel Ingram's book in PDF format. I used the search function to find the word "crack" and didn't find it used in any way as sugested above. Nor did I find "prostitute".

The currently available book is the third revised edition. We don't know what he revised. His site (http://integrateddaniel.info/book/) says "An older version of the book is also available" but it's a dead end. However even in this edition you can find "stop smoking crack".

Reading that list of what Mr. Ingram believes,

I wonder: what would be a difference between a normal person and an Arahant if an arahant seems to behave in the same way as a normal non-Buddhist?

Exactly! That's the question I had. If what Mr. Ingram says is true then what's the point of becoming an arahant! I'm not even an ariya, I don't even smoke

I totally deny them, if they brag about their attainments in public.

[Jetavan]

MCTB is the abbreviation for the title of a book called Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha, an Unusually Hardcore Dharma Book by Daniel Ingram.

I suggest that he change the title of his book, so as not to confuse MCTB with MBCT.

[Modus.Ponens]

I totally deny them, if they brag about their attainments in public.

Why?

[Modus.Ponens]

This, quoted out of context, is terrible. I have Daniel Ingram's book in PDF format. I used the search function to find the word "crack" and didn't find it used in any way as sugested above. Nor did I find "prostitute".

The currently available book is the third revised edition. We don't know what he revised. His site (http://integrateddaniel.info/book/) says "An older version of the book is also available" but it's a dead end. However even in this edition you can find "stop smoking crack".

Reading that list of what Mr. Ingram believes,

I wonder: what would be a difference between a normal person and an Arahant if an arahant seems to behave in the same way as a normal non-Buddhist?

Exactly! That's the question I had. If what Mr. Ingram says is true then what's the point of becoming an arahant! I'm not even an ariya, I don't even smoke

I totally deny them, if they brag about their attainments in public.

I don't know what version you have. Mine, on the crack thing, has the obvious teaching that crack is not good for you _ in short.

Ayya Khema said that her suffering was gone. In context I take it as she meaning that she was an arahat. And she was a bhikkhuni. She also talked openly about jhanas, speaking of her past experience. Dipa Ma said that the sensations correspondent to anger arise in a non returner, although they don't "burn". A non returner is supposed to be done with anger. Dipa Ma, as far as I know, was very respected by Mahasi Sayadaw himself. She was no phony. Unless you want to throw the whole Mahasi meditation style away, you can't dismiss Ingram so easily.

I don't think anybody would ever take him seriously if he literally meant that arahats can have anger and lust, in the same sense of the words we attribute to them. That would make no sense whatsoever. It only makes sense to interpret his opinions in the way I interpret them. If you do interpret them like I explained above, you'll see that it's not that much big of a step to understand the more contentious points in the infamous list.

[tiltbillings]

I don't think anybody would ever take him seriously if he literally meant that arahats can have anger and lust, in the same sense of the words we attribute to them. That would make no sense whatsoever. It only makes sense to interpret his opinions in the way I interpret them. If you do interpret them like I explained above, you'll see that it's not that much big of a step to understand the more contentious points in the infamous list.

Oh, so arahants have special arahant anger and special arahant lust. That clears it all up.

[tiltbillings]

Unless you want to throw the whole Mahasi meditation style away, you can't dismiss Ingram so easily.

I have no problem with dismissing Ingram's non-dual interpretation of the Mahasi Sayadaw practice for the reasons I carefully outlined in this msg and my comments that follow it. There are simply better teachers of Burmese vipassana out there.

As for Dipa Ma, please cite your reference to her statement.

[manas]

I don't think anybody would ever take him seriously if he literally meant that arahats can have anger and lust, in the same sense of the words we attribute to them. That would make no sense whatsoever. It only makes sense to interpret his opinions in the way I interpret them. If you do interpret them like I explained above, you'll see that it's not that much big of a step to understand the more contentious points in the infamous list.

Hi Modus,

I thought that emotions such as anger and lust simply no longer arise in an arahant, as their roots have been destroyed...so it's not that 'they arise but one does not attach to them at all', but rather, that they just don't arise anymore, period...isn't that it? The Buddha was pretty clear about that, where is the need for 'interpretation'? And surely that's the true & deep kind of peace & freedom we are all striving for?

kind regards
manas