|
Who or what is an Avici?
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 12:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 01:35 |
|
|
Avici is the direst of the hell-realms. Among the Narakas, Avici can take something like 10^18 years to suffer in. It is the longest naraka and only those who commit the five great offenses are condemned here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:Avici is the direst of the hell-realms. Among the Narakas, Avici can take something like 10^18 years to suffer in. It is the longest naraka and only those who commit the five great offenses are condemned here. Thanks man, Google kept suggesting Avicii.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
I've only managed to read the first couple of pages so far, but this thread is really great, lots of interesting info. Thanks for making it. I've always been intrigued by Buddhism but've been too lazy/distracted to stick to any sort of regular practice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
For anyone overwhelmed by the abundance of theory and competing approaches to doctrine that lie under the Buddhist umbrella, to the extent you're confused about how to go about practicing and what the goal is, I strongly recommend Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha . It's straightforward and clear, very different from a lot of intro-to-Buddhism books. The author, Daniel Ingram, nominally comes from a Theravadan background, but his take on Buddhism, especially his emphasis on the realistic possibility of awakening in this lifetime, will be valuable to meditators from any tradition. Until I came across this book, I didn't understand what meditation was supposed to do in real life aside from producing minor stress relief. I saw Buddhism as another set of unverifiable religious beliefs, interchangeable with every other creed, that could never bring real change to a regular person's life. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Popcornicus fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Feb 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 16:49
|
|
Popcornicus posted:but his take on Buddhism, especially his emphasis on the realistic possibility of awakening in this lifetime That's a really interesting take on it, especially considering that Theravada is (from within a pan-traditional view) the slowest path to Enlightenment. That said, I read through a bit of that and flicked through some more and, uhh, wow it's a terrible introduction to Buddhism. He literally calls Tantra "Magick" and makes some incredibly questionable claims about the nature and speed with which one can achieve enlightenment which usually it takes a literal Arahat to be able to say. He even talks about Enlightenment as the elimination of Self. And on page 279 he literally re-writes a core Theravada teaching to fit his worldview. I mean, at the end of the day Buddhism does have some of the same elements of an unfalsifiable religious creed, it's not like we're all scientists who are peer-reviewing our beliefs in Nature. If you want rapid enlightenment within a single lifetime, we have a couple of pathways for that; hope your birth was very very fortunate and become a monk, hope your birth was slightly less fortunate than the previous option and become a Vajrayana monk, or hope you birth was really really really really fortunate and become a household yogi which pretty much means being a monk in all but name. Here's the most basic thing: If someone is saying that you can achieve enlightenment within a single lifetime and they're basically presenting their own take on the teachings that's never been seen before and contradicts other teachings, then ask yourself a very simple question: Are they enlightened? Because I really doubt that this guy is by any metric. I'm not sure what he's teaching but it sure as heck isn't Buddhism. Popcornicus posted:Nothing could be further from the truth. That book you linked tries pretty hard in a lot of places though. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Feb 22, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Here's the most basic thing: If someone is saying that you can achieve enlightenment within a single lifetime and they're basically presenting their own take on the teachings that's never been seen before and contradicts other teachings, then ask yourself a very simple question: Are they enlightened? Because I really doubt that this guy is by any metric. I'm not sure what he's teaching but it sure as heck isn't Buddhism. Look man, it says right on the title page: "The Arahat Daniel M. Ingram, MD MSPH". What more do you want? Seriously. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 18:50
|
|
Grim Up North posted:Look man, it says right on the title page: "The Arahat Daniel M. Ingram, MD MSPH". What more do you want? Seriously. Holy poo poo I thought you were kidding. 
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Holy poo poo I thought you were kidding. I found his website. Apparently, he's having brony problems. Daniel M. Ingram posted:Apparently there is another Daniel Ingram who creates music for My Little Pony. I get a few inquiries a year about this, and the answer is that I am not that same Daniel Ingram. I wish that other Daniel well and hope you find a way to contact him. Best wishes, Also, more magick chat. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
I routinely refer to Vajrayana ritual as "wizard poo poo" but I mean it affectionately and wouldn't call it "magick" because modern Western esotericism and "magick" basically took wholesale from Vajrayana, not vice versa, and welp. I ain't clickin' any of that though because eh. I am glad the book was helpful for Popcornicus, anyhow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Arahat MD, Tuesdays on Fox. I'd watch that. I actually read the book. Ingram claims it's all about how fast you can flip between sensations while meditating. The faster you switch your focus from, say, the breath to the back of your head, to the top of the scalp, and so on, the sooner you start perceiving reality as it really is. It all feels like a totally gnarly Cali skater dude extreme approach to meditation. That's the first part of the book. The rest is really hermetic and hard to understand, I didn't really get it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
mcustic posted:Arahat MD, Tuesdays on Fox. I'd watch that. Wait what?  Okay well I'll stick with Shamatha to Mahamudra. It doesn't involve switching focus around, just, you know, being chill and meditating. The best meditation advice I ever received was that losing focus in meditation isn't a problem, because "success" in meditation comes from when you realize you got distracted. That awareness begins creeping into all facets of life. It's really cool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:That's a really interesting take on it, especially considering that Theravada is (from within a pan-traditional view) the slowest path to Enlightenment. That said, I read through a bit of that and flicked through some more and, uhh, wow it's a terrible introduction to Buddhism. He literally calls Tantra "Magick" and makes some incredibly questionable claims about the nature and speed with which one can achieve enlightenment which usually it takes a literal Arahat to be able to say. He even talks about Enlightenment as the elimination of Self. And on page 279 he literally re-writes a core Theravada teaching to fit his worldview. I don't see how calling the Theravada the "slowest path to enlightenment" is "pan-traditional" unless you're equating the Theravada with the strawman concept of the 'Hinayana' that sometimes get used as a punching bag in the doctrine of other schools. The Theravada isn't the Hinayana. I find this paragraph really confusing: "If you want rapid enlightenment within a single lifetime, we have a couple of pathways for that; hope your birth was very very fortunate and become a monk, hope your birth was slightly less fortunate than the previous option and become a Vajrayana monk, or hope you birth was really really really really fortunate and become a household yogi which pretty much means being a monk in all but name." What does the fortune of one's birth have to do with deciding to become a monk or a householder practitioner? How are householder yogis 'monks in all but name'? You can be a householder yogi without observing a fraction of the rules followed by monastics and still make progress. What is the difference between a regular monk and a 'Vajrayana monk'? mcustic posted:I actually read the book. Ingram claims it's all about how fast you can flip between sensations while meditating. The faster you switch your focus from, say, the breath to the back of your head, to the top of the scalp, and so on, the sooner you start perceiving reality as it really is. It all feels like a totally gnarly Cali skater dude extreme approach to meditation. Paramemetic posted:Wait what? What he's teaching in the book is straightforward Burmese Mahasi-style vipassana, in which the practitioner notes sensations as they arise, and eventually turns attention to awareness of the three characteristics (impermanence, not-self, and dukkha/stress) in sensations. The idea isn't to rapidly and willfully move your attention to different parts of your body. Instead, you note where attention is moving on its own, as quickly and accurately as possible. Ingram's depiction of stream-entry, fruitions, jhanas, etc. are also straightforward Burmese-style Theravadan. He's hardly presenting a new school of practice: these meditation techniques are taught throughout Southeast Asia and at a lot of western retreat centers, including IMS and Spirit Rock. WH seems to be criticizing MCTB from the perspective that the book is a bad introduction to a museum version of Vajrayana Buddhism as described in textbooks, and I agree, but the book isn't designed to introduce any particular school or doctrine of Buddhism: MCTB is a practical guide to awakening for lay practitioners. Of course it's possible to get to the same place through Shingon, Mahamudra, and many other modes of practice. "I mean, at the end of the day Buddhism does have some of the same elements of an unfalsifiable religious creed, it's not like we're all scientists who are peer-reviewing our beliefs in Nature." Meditators aren't scientists, but it is useful for meditators to compare experiences with their peers and with the phenomenology described in texts to see whether they're on the right track, especially if the goal is awakening in this lifetime. Monks created commentaries centuries ago to help serve this purpose. I'm surprised by the beating that MCTB is taking in the thread on the basis that the book supposedly contradicts the teachings of one Buddhist school or another. I don't necessarily agree with Ingram's views about Buddhist doctrine, I don't think he's an arahat, and I don't consider myself a Theravadan, but leaving doctrinal issues aside, I recommend experimenting with the practices Ingram describes to see if you can replicate his results. And if you've been practicing with another tradition for some time, it's worth checking out the stages of insight in case they've cropped up in your practice. Feel free to PM me if you have questions. Popcornicus fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Feb 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Historical and critical approaches to talking about the Buddhist Tradition tend to be frowned on in this thread, not to mention learning about Buddhism from books... So forgive me, but I guess I just can't help myself. Anywho, the development of tantric literature and the tantric tradition is rather interesting. At its beginning were the Kriya tantras. Ignoring any pejorative connotations to magic, its a rather apt description of what the earliest Tantras were. Rituals in service of affecting the world and achieving worldly goals. Buddhist Thought by Paul Williams et al posted:The earliest texts classified as Kriya tantras date from perhaps as early as the second century CE. They continue to appear until about the eighth century - by which time tantric Buddhism had become a self-conscious tradition - with some perhaps continuing to expand subsequently. The term kriya means 'action', and in this context denotes ritual action. And indeed, the Kriya tantras form a miscellaneous collection of largely ritual texts generally focused on the achievement of a variety of wordly (laukika) goals. The range of these pragmatic ends is wide: protection from misfortune and danger, alleviation of illness, control of weather, generation of health and prosperity, opposition and destruction of obstacles and enemies, and placation of angered deities. They were essentially rituals and magic rites performed by wandering sadhus who would ply multiple religious traditions in order to support themselves (one of the reasons the roots of early Vajrayana are so deeply entangled with Tantric Shaivism and Hinduism to degree that is arguably larger & deeper than for the rest of the Buddhist tradition). The difference you see in the development from Kriya, to Carya, to Yoga, Mahayoga and Yogini tantras is a shift in using these rites for the purpose of obtaining enlightenment much sooner than would otherwise be possible. What lies at the root of the conception of Vajrayana being an airplane which will get you to nirvana much faster. When you look at the phylogenetic tree, to borrow a term from somewhere else, of tantric literature and tantric Buddhism, what started out as mantras and magic for controlling the weather and thwarting ones enemies, became mantras and magic for sudden enlightenment. So without defending this Ingram guy who definitely seems like a crackpot and his book specifically, some of his characterizations aren't so far off the mark.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:So without defending this Ingram guy who definitely seems like a crackpot and his book specifically, some of his characterizations aren't so far off the mark. To address Ingram's claim to arahatship, It's worth looking at other writers like Adyashanti, Eckhart Tolle, and Gary Weber, who claim to be awakened. All three claim to have undergone a major transition in which they eliminated the idea of a small self, but from a Theravadan perspective, it isn't clear whether any of them would be considered fully enlightened: Adyashanti and Eckhart Tolle aren't celibate, while Gary Weber is still married (I think?) and hasn't become a monk (based on the "King Milinda's Questions" commentary, some Theravadans believe that a real arahat would have to ordain within 7 days or die). There's a lot of disagreement between various schools about what constitutes an awakening experience, much less what counts as 'full enlightenment', and for good reason: human experience is messy and difficult to map. I do think Ingram is more than a stream-enterer but less than an arahat, and I'd lump Adyashanti and Eckhart Tolle in the same category. Fortunately, the practices that get you to stream-entry can take you all the way if you do them enough. That's why I still recommend Ingram's book to people despite not believing that he's an arahat. The practices he presents and his phenomenology are sound. As for equating tantra to Western magick, the two do have a lot in common, mostly because Aleister Crowley jacked a ton of ideas from Tibetan and other schools of Buddhism. I encourage practice-focused Buddhists ITT to give the book a fair shake as a practice guide. The thread's reaction to MCTB is the worst I've seen anywhere, but it's telling that none of the critics take issue with Ingram's practice instructions or phenomenology, which are the whole point of the book. Here are some alternate perspectives. I'm a little embarrassed to find myself defending the book against pretty bizarre criticism, but now that I've read some pages back, it looks like this is the direction the thread has been taking for a while. Popcornicus fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Feb 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
WowPopcornicus posted:The thread's reaction to MCTB is the worst I've seen anywhere, but it's telling that none of the critics take issue with Ingram's practice instructions or phenomenology, which are the whole point of the book. Here are some alternate perspectives. I'm a little embarrassed to find myself defending the book against pretty bizarre criticism, but now that I've read some pages back, it looks like this is the direction the thread has been taking for a while. Daniel Ingram, Arahat, DDS: Pg 285-286 posted:The Action Models tend to involve certain actions that enlightened beings cannot commit or certain actions they must commit. Both types of models are completely ridiculous, and so we come now to the first of the models that simply has no basis in reality. The traditional Theravada models contain numerous statements about what enlightened being cannot do or will do that are simply wrong. My favorite examples of this insanity include statements that arahats cannot break the precepts (including killing, lying, stealing, having sex, doing drugs or drinking), cannot have erections, cannot have jobs, cannot be married, and cannot say they are arahats. They also state that unordained arahats must/will join the Theravada monastic order within 7 days of their realization or they will die. Needless to say, all are simply absurd lies, lies that have unfortunately often been perpetuated by arahats. Anguttara Nikaya 9.7 posted:"Yes, Sutavan, you heard it rightly, learned it rightly, attended to it rightly, & understood it rightly. Both before & now I say to you that an arahant monk whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis, cannot possibly transgress these nine principles. I would hardly call it "A bizzare criticism" any more than someone claiming to be a saint and telling you how to be christian. He has some very strange and outlandish approaches to the practise. I'm sorry you find the reaction to that "among the worst"- But it's worth keeping in mind it hasn't been particularly vitriolic. Even wafflehound has been pretty well tamed from anything overly aggressive. If by worst you mean that people aren't immediately receptive and jumping over someone who claims to be a living saint and offers an expedient and convenient path to liberation. . . Well, uh. . . Sorry? Yiggy posted:Historical and critical approaches to talking about the Buddhist Tradition tend to be frowned on in this thread, not to mention learning about Buddhism from books... So forgive me, but I guess I just can't help myself. WAFFLEHOUND posted:I mean, at the end of the day Buddhism does have some of the same elements of an unfalsifiable religious creed, it's not like we're all scientists who are peer-reviewing our beliefs in Nature. If you want rapid enlightenment within a single lifetime, we have a couple of pathways for that; hope your birth was very very fortunate and become a monk, hope your birth was slightly less fortunate than the previous option and become a Vajrayana monk, or hope you birth was really really really really fortunate and become a household yogi which pretty much means being a monk in all but name. My only criticism here is that Mahayana tends to hold that it's entirely possible to attain enlightenment within a lifetime no matter your birth- Even icchantika have a buddha-nature, though not the karma to ever realize that. Though yes, it's beyond difficult barring sudden realization.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
When you have almost universally praised and well-translated versions of the various Nikayas available from Bhikkhu Bodhi, as well as guides to meditation that are as straightforward and based in orthodox Buddhist methods as Mindfulness in Plain English, I can't imagine ever recommending a book to beginners that is written by a layperson who claims to be an Arahant. The criticisms against Ingram in this thread aren't really bizarre, in my opinion. They are pretty common to reactions to the book I've seen elsewhere. The "hardcore Dhamma" movement has been addressed at DhammaWheel a few times, and the resulting discussions are pretty similar
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 22:12
|
|
Popcornicus posted:I don't see how calling the Theravada the "slowest path to enlightenment" is "pan-traditional" unless you're equating the Theravada with the strawman concept of the 'Hinayana' that sometimes get used as a punching bag in the doctrine of other schools. The Theravada isn't the Hinayana. Theravada doesn't claim to have a path to enlightenment in a single lifetime for anyone who really really wants to do it. Mahayana does, and Vajrayana is the branch that makes the claim that you can very rapidly achieve liberation with certain tantric practices. That's literally the origin of tantra in Buddhism. The pan-traditional comment was if you look at the claim of all three branches taking a step back from the perspective of any one tradition; Vajrayana claims it can be done very quickly, and Theravada makes no claims to the expediency of the path and kind of looks like the Dharma version of this. Popcornicus posted:I find this paragraph really confusing: *please learn to use quotes* One's birth has to do with one's karma, and if you're trying to overcome a huge pile of karma from, say, a greatly attached life prior then you might not have a shot at enlightenment within one lifetime. It doesn't make practice any less valid or important. And of course you can be a household yogi without basically being a monk. That said, the historical accounts of people attaining enlightenment who were not monks are stories of householders who basically were monks but hadn't taken monastic vows. As far as I know there's no equivalent stories of someone who resembled a Western householder yogi attaining enlightenment. Maybe I'm wrong. Popcornicus posted:WH seems to be criticizing MCTB from the perspective that the book is a bad introduction to a museum version of Vajrayana Buddhism as described in textbook It's a bad introduction to Buddhism in the way David Koresh is a bad introduction to Christianity. He's claiming to be a living saint and then justifies not doing all the things that saints are meant to do that are actually hard, like, say, not lying, and accusing every other historical arahat of conspiracy or lying. Popcornicus posted:I'm surprised by the beating that MCTB is taking in the thread on the basis that the book supposedly contradicts the teachings of one Buddhist school or another. I don't necessarily agree with Ingram's views about Buddhist doctrine, I don't think he's an arahat, and I don't consider myself a Theravadan Then why in the name of anything would you recommend his books? He claims to be able to have achieved something, he uses this as a basis for totally making up his own version of Buddhism, and then published it as a book. If he can't even follow through on his own claims, why would his practice be good? I mean, maybe it's not the worst if you strip every bit of religiosity out of it and just treat it as a meditation guide, but since he's claiming to be an Arahat that's pretty hard to do. Popcornicus posted:but leaving doctrinal issues aside, I recommend experimenting with the practices Ingram describes to see if you can replicate his results. But you just said you don't believe his claims on results? I'm really confused by what you're saying is positive in his book. Yiggy posted:Historical and critical approaches to talking about the Buddhist Tradition tend to be frowned on in this thread, not to mention learning about Buddhism from books... So forgive me, but I guess I just can't help myself. Oh, get off your high horse. This is basically if ObamaCareHugSquad wrote a book and someone was recommending it. Seriously though, everyone should read Buddhist Thought. Popcornicus posted:To address Ingram's claim to arahatship, It's worth looking at other writers like Adyashanti, Eckhart Tolle, and Gary Weber, who claim to be awakened. All three claim to have undergone a major transition in which they eliminated the idea of a small self, but from a Theravadan perspective, it isn't clear whether any of them would be considered fully enlightened The extent of their Arahatship in practical terms seems to extend to book deals and immediately turning around and explaining how the traditional understanding of Arahats is wrong and that their pleasure-filled lifestyles are still totally in-line with being what the claim. All religion aside, how is that not setting off a red flag the size of Russia?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Popcornicus posted:I don't see how calling the Theravada the "slowest path to enlightenment" is "pan-traditional" unless you're equating the Theravada with the strawman concept of the 'Hinayana' that sometimes get used as a punching bag in the doctrine of other schools. The Theravada isn't the Hinayana. The basis for this statement is that Theravada focuses on an individual enlightenment that tends to rely on monasticism as being a requisite aspect to this attainment. If you're not a monk and don't have the karma or foundation for becoming a monk in this lifetime, Theravada would hold that you aren't becoming a non-returner in this life, at least. It is the slowest because it fundamentally denies that a person can self-liberate in this life without already being born to a birth where one becomes a monk. Further, Theravada is not equal to the Hinayana, but a lot of people in this thread still hold that Hinayana is equivalent, because Theravada's goal is individual liberation, seeking which is the very definition of the Hinayana. quote:I find this paragraph really confusing: "If you want rapid enlightenment within a single lifetime, we have a couple of pathways for that; hope your birth was very very fortunate and become a monk, hope your birth was slightly less fortunate than the previous option and become a Vajrayana monk, or hope you birth was really really really really fortunate and become a household yogi which pretty much means being a monk in all but name." What does the fortune of one's birth have to do with deciding to become a monk or a householder practitioner? How are householder yogis 'monks in all but name'? You can be a householder yogi without observing a fraction of the rules followed by monastics and still make progress. What is the difference between a regular monk and a 'Vajrayana monk'? I'm not sure what the bits about the auspiciousness of a birth are, but to clarify a bit on that, Theravadans would hold that you're not liberating if you're not a monk, so if your birth is very auspicious and you're already a monk, you have a decent shot with Theravada. Vajrayana monasticism is a bit different. Because Vajrayana practices expedient means, and because it is practiced in cultures where certain aspects of the Vinaya are not practical, there seem to be fewer constraints on Vajrayana monks. Most Tibetan monks in the West I know handle their own money, some have jobs, they will wear clothes that are not their monastic robes when it is expedient to do so, they won't maintain clean shaving, and so on. I guess Wafflehound's point is that they can still attain despite having a less auspicious birth because they are practicing Vajrayana, which is basically as has been discussed here the use of things like magical rituals (i.e. wizard poo poo) and techniques to jumpstart liberation. (Something which I am certainly not opposed to, I am a disciple of the Vajrayana without a doubt). quote:What he's teaching in the book is straightforward Burmese Mahasi-style vipassana, in which the practitioner notes sensations as they arise, and eventually turns attention to awareness of the three characteristics (impermanence, not-self, and dukkha/stress) in sensations. The idea isn't to rapidly and willfully move your attention to different parts of your body. Instead, you note where attention is moving on its own, as quickly and accurately as possible. I appreciate this clarification. The other way made it seem as if the switching of consciousness was a volitional act, and if that were the case it would not be the first person to say meditation moving consciousness around in just the right way could unlock god-mode, such as "focus your consciousness up down up down left right . . . " This clarification makes far more sense and is in line with what I had pointed out was what I consider the essence of meditation, which is to develop awareness. quote:Ingram's depiction of stream-entry, fruitions, jhanas, etc. are also straightforward Burmese-style Theravadan. He's hardly presenting a new school of practice: these meditation techniques are taught throughout Southeast Asia and at a lot of western retreat centers, including IMS and Spirit Rock. When you mentioned the various stages of insight and such as he sees them, I recalled that I'd read this guy's stuff on a website he maintains, integrateddaniel.info . At the time, my main concern was a lack of lineage authority, as I was reading this when I was pretty new to Buddhism and was seeking legitimacy. It was linked to me by a non-Buddhist magician, of the modern persuasion, maybe a chaos magic guy? I don't recall. He said that he thought it was the best resource available on Buddhism and I recall reading some of it and being somewhat underwhelmed but yet occasionally impressed with some syncretism. I do actually recall reading these lists of attainments and so on on his website, as well as his various stages. Edit: I recall now my concern at the time I read it, which is that it's a lot to do with "leveling up" and not a lot to do with following the path. I recall it reading like kind of an "enlightenment walkthrough," but the goal wasn't actually attaining the path, it was doing x y and z to attain level 3 Bhumis, which is not really how it works in any meaningful way. This concerned me at the time and continues to concern me now. I don't know that I recognize Ingram as an arhat, but I don't know the man personally, and a lot of that comes from an individual impression of a person. I don't have enough experience with the guy to comment either way on his book. If people find it helpful and it does not contradict Dharma, that is good. I don't think it is a mischaracterization to claim Vajrayana is a magic path to Buddhism, as there is certainly an aspect of it there. Crowley did take wholesale from Tibet after his visit there, after all, so Western esotericists are no stranger to some concepts in Vajrayana (such as the conceptually manifested mandala / Buddhafield being indistinguishable from physical reality in the sense of its existent nature, and so on). There are questionable things to teaching that one can be an arhat and not practice things that define an arhat, but I haven't read his work extensively so can't comment accurately. The concern about the stages and focusing on attaining certain stages in order and so on did strike me as problematic and inconsistent with the Dharma that I learned, which is why I never investigated his work deeply. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Feb 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:He has some very strange and outlandish approaches to the practise. Such as? Prickly Pete posted:When you have almost universally praised and well-translated versions of the various Nikayas available from Bhikkhu Bodhi, as well as guides to meditation that are as straightforward and based in orthodox Buddhist methods as Mindfulness in Plain English, I can't imagine ever recommending a book to beginners that is written by a layperson who claims to be an Arahant. I find it bizarre that people would reject the entire book because they disagree with Ingram's model of awakening, which every Buddhist tradition manages to disagree about, while ignoring MCTB's excellent treatment of Mahasi-style vipassana. Is it inconceivable that Ingram could have something to offer to lay practitioners while being wrong about the stage of awakening he's at? I recommended the book as a practice guide and supplement to the more traditional materials people are already working with, and it's weird to see it rejected out of hand for reasons that have nothing to do with the book's practice instructions or phenomenology. While I disagree with Ingram's model of awakening, I derived colossal benefit from the rest of the book, and as you can see from the Goodreads link, I'm not alone. I found the DhammaWheel discussions disappointing for similar reasons. Participants were caught up in defending the territorial space of their chosen dogma and had nothing to say about how their own practice experiences matched up or didn't match up with the book.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:That's a really interesting take on it, especially considering that Theravada is (from within a pan-traditional view) the slowest path to Enlightenment. That said, I read through a bit of that and flicked through some more and, uhh, wow it's a terrible introduction to Buddhism. He literally calls Tantra "Magick" and makes some incredibly questionable claims about the nature and speed with which one can achieve enlightenment which usually it takes a literal Arahat to be able to say. He even talks about Enlightenment as the elimination of Self. And on page 279 he literally re-writes a core Theravada teaching to fit his worldview. I read it and thought exactly the same thing. Plus I found it full of craving ("increase the meditation dose and you will attain stage 1 ; increase dose further and you wil attain stage 2" - in the zen school meditation is not at all about attaining anything) and pre conceived truths about everything, pre-made concepts about everything ("those things are like THIS and those things are like THAT"), with no compassion, no joy and no openness. I would not recommend this book.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:I read it and thought exactly the same thing. Plus I found it full of craving ("increase the meditation dose and you will attain stage 1 ; increase dose further and you wil attain stage 2" - in the zen school meditation is not at all about attaining anything) and pre conceived truths about everything, pre-made concepts about everything ("those things are like THIS and those things are like THAT"), with no compassion, no joy and no openness. I would not recommend this book. I do recall this being almost exactly my reaction to it. It struck me like a video-game guide to leveling up, without regard to the actual essence of the path. The path is not about attaining higher and higher levels of bhumis, that is just something that happens off to the side. In fact, it is exactly why all Vajrayana practices focus first and foremost on attaining bodhicitta, because it is understood that with practice one does develop "miracle powers" and such, and it is also understood that one can develop those powers without actually attaining enlightenment, and mistaking one for the other is extremely dangerous. Vajrayana is an airplane in the analogy of speed not only because it goes the fastest, but also because it can fail the most spectacularly. If you crashon the Mahayana bus, you need only wait to catch the next one. If you crash on the Vajrayana bus, you might have to walk back to the takeoff, or be rescued from the hell realms, or, worst, you might think you landed successfully because you were always simply seeking to attain the illusory body yoga or whatever and never focused on developing bodhicitta. Wafflehound posted:]One's birth has to do with one's karma, and if you're trying to overcome a huge pile of karma from, say, a greatly attached life prior then you might not have a shot at enlightenment within one lifetime. It doesn't make practice any less valid or important. And of course you can be a household yogi without basically being a monk. That said, the historical accounts of people attaining enlightenment who were not monks are stories of householders who basically were monks but hadn't taken monastic vows. As far as I know there's no equivalent stories of someone who resembled a Western householder yogi attaining enlightenment. Maybe I'm wrong. Yeah this is certainly fair. Milarepa never took monastic vows, but he lived in a cave essentially as a monk. Jigten Sumgon attained liberation before he took his vows, but took them afterwards in order to demonstrate the right path. It is certainly possible for a Western householder yogi to attain enlightenment, but I don't know of any historical basis for this. Then again, Western householder yogis are a rather new thing, I think it will be some time before we see a history of this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Popcornicus posted:Such as? I guess I would counter that the best treatments of vipassana in the tradition of Mahasi Sayadaw are the texts that were written by Mahasi himself. With that available, I would certainly not instead offer up a book written by someone who is married, probably having sex, and working as a medical doctor, living the household life, while also claiming to be an arahant, completely free of the defilements, having completely abolished self-view, hatred, delusion, and craving of any kind. Anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the qualities of an arahant as put forth in the suttas should understand why this is extremely unlikely. The reason people in the Dhammawheel threads aren't discussing their personal experiences is because they are instead focusing on the unorthodox claims made by Ingram, which in and of themselves should be huge red flags for someone who is claiming to represent Mahasi style vipassana. Those participants in the Dhammawheel threads also include a few monks, for what it is worth. It isn't just a bunch of casual practitioners spouting off preference for one tradition over another.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
It's totally false to claim that the Theravada reserves awakening for monks (see this thread) and that awakening in the Theravada is supposed to take longer than in other traditions. But this is all dogma derived from texts, not data obtained through direct experience.WAFFLEHOUND posted:The extent of their Arahatship in practical terms seems to extend to book deals and immediately turning around and explaining how the traditional understanding of Arahats is wrong and that their pleasure-filled lifestyles are still totally in-line with being what the claim. All religion aside, how is that not setting off a red flag the size of Russia? Well, it's certainly possible that many spiritual teachers who are somewhat awakened but haven't attained the final goal are still able to teach from whatever level they're at. In fact, unless your teacher is an arahat, that constitutes whoever you're learning from. I think Chogyam Trungpa was a great teacher, for example, and many of his students believed he was enlightened, even though from a Theravadan perspective there's no way he was an arahat what with the boozing and sex. If you read the book you may agree it's plausible that Ingram has reached some stage of awakening, and IMO that's enough to make him worth learning from. The same goes for Zen and Vajrayana teachers who may not believe in the ten-fetter model at all but still have excellent teaching. I don't care what level they're at or claim to be at as long as their teaching is useful. Edit: Ugrok posted:I read it and thought exactly the same thing. Plus I found it full of craving ("increase the meditation dose and you will attain stage 1 ; increase dose further and you wil attain stage 2" - in the zen school meditation is not at all about attaining anything) and pre conceived truths about everything, pre-made concepts about everything ("those things are like THIS and those things are like THAT"), with no compassion, no joy and no openness. I would not recommend this book. I'd recommend this article by Thanissaro Bhikku about the role of skillful desire (or craving putting an end to craving) on the path. Prickly Pete posted:I guess I would counter that the best treatments of vipassana in the tradition of Mahasi Sayadaw are the texts that were written by Mahasi himself. With that available, I would certainly not instead offer up a book written by someone who is married, probably having sex, and working as a medical doctor, living the household life, while also claiming to be an arahant, completely free of the defilements, having completely abolished self-view, hatred, delusion, and craving of any kind. Anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the qualities of an arahant as put forth in the suttas should understand why this is extremely unlikely. Mahasi Sayadaw's own guides are good, but honestly I found MCTB more readable and accessible. Ingram doesn't claim to have eradicated the defilements - he just redefines arahatship such that those fetters aren't criteria for it. Popcornicus fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Feb 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 23:01
|
|
Popcornicus posted:I find it bizarre that people would reject the entire book because they disagree with Ingram's model of awakening, which every Buddhist tradition manages to disagree about, while ignoring MCTB's excellent treatment of Mahasi-style vipassana. Is it inconceivable that Ingram could have something to offer to lay practitioners while being wrong about the stage of awakening he's at? No. If he's offering a pathway that is fraught with literally throwing away parts of the Dharma and making fantastic claims of his own Arahatship which by the very definitions of what makes an Arahat are falsifiable, then any positive influence he could have in what he's offering to teach are massively outweighed by the potential damage his teachings could have in teaching people his made up worldview as Dharma. Popcornicus posted:I recommended the book as a practice guide and supplement to the more traditional materials people are already working with, and it's weird to see it rejected out of hand for reasons that have nothing to do with the book's practice instructions or phenomenology. While I disagree with Ingram's model of awakening, I derived colossal benefit from the rest of the book, and as you can see from the Goodreads link, I'm not alone. Buddhism has a strong sense of a teacher being able to live up to their teachings as an important thing, historically. It's one of the criticisms you see levelled at groups like Shambhala and Watts. In this case, this guy is clearly making poo poo up, claiming to have found his own path to the endgoal of Buddhism and that he is willing to teach that path. He clearly hasn't reached that path, while the point of Buddhism is that Buddha himself has. Since there are a whole host of contradictory statments between Arahat Ingram and, well, Buddha, anyone hoping to learn from both of them is forced to decide that one of the two is lying. If you think Ingram is lying about being an Arahat, then what possible value could his teachings which contract Buddhism have? If you're at a fork in the road, and one person is saying go left, and the other is saying go right, who do you trust? The person who has been there or the person who says they've been there but demonstrably has not? I'd still really like to know how you reconcile the fact that you say you don't believe his claims while simultaneously finding his path valid. Basically I'd really love to see you justify this statement: Popcornicus posted:If you read the book you may agree it's plausible that Ingram has reached some stage of awakening, and IMO that's enough to make him worth learning from. Because the only way it seems plausible to me is if you accept that all other Arahats are in some kind of conspiracy to deny that Arahats can totally do selfish pleasure-seeking things. I mean, otherwise he is literally attempting to divide the Sangha. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Feb 22, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Uhhhh I rescind my recommendation of MCTB as an introductory text and put forward Thanissaro Bhikku's Wings to Awakening instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Popcornicus posted:
This is a problem. This is why people think he is not worth learning from. Right here. If someone wants to say they are enlightened but obviously don't have the characteristics of an enlightened person, and instead just decide to move the goalposts, it should be no surprise that they aren't taken seriously by anyone interested in learning the Dhamma as the Buddha taught it. Popcornicus posted:Uhhhh I rescind my recommendation of MCTB as an introductory text and put forward Thanissaro Bhikku's Wings to Awakening instead. This book is really good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
This discussion was really useful and I probably won't recommend MCTB in the future without significant disclaimers as a result.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 23:20
|
|
Popcornicus posted:Mahasi Sayadaw's own guides are good, but honestly I found MCTB more readable and accessible. Ingram doesn't claim to have eradicated the defilements - he just redefines arahatship such that those fetters aren't criteria for it. Redefining the things an Arahat cannot do would make for some interesting Sutras: AN 8.41 sans fetters posted:"Bhikkhus. Ariyan disciples in this Religion reflect thus, man:
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Ajahn Thanissaro came to our center a few years ago. He was telling a story about something that I can't recall, but he swore a few times and it was so startling at the time. I think he said "dog-poo poo" actually. I remember looking around at people's faces and it was a mixture of absolute calm and wide-eyed shock. We had been meditating for probably 45 minutes before the dhamma talk, and then he busts out the profanity in the midst of our calm reflective circle. It was one of the more memorable experiences I have had with a monk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:Ajahn Thanissaro came to our center a few years ago. He was telling a imagine it bout something that I can't recall, but he swore a few times and it was so startling at the time. I think he said "dog-poo poo" actually. There are some talks transcribed on Access to Insight where he uses profanity. I was pretty shocked too but I imagine it was more surprising in person.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Dharma-talk group update! Having been exposed to the basis of indian logic, we'll be the commentaries on the separation of the middle from the extremes, through to part III 16b. People are welcome to dive in whenever still, it produces fruitful discourse and a good opportunity for study.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
I'd recommend this supplementary coursework to keep up with Quantumfate during the discussion.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Consolidating double post.
Popcornicus fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Feb 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:Absolutely. Compassion should always be part of the equation. But compassion also does not exclude correcting wrong view. Compassion also means correcting wrong view that would lead to suffering. Practicing the Dhamma incorrectly, or transmitting it incorrectly, can cause suffering to a lot of people if their practice suffers as a result. As Prickly hints at the end of his post, right view is also a locus of personal development as part of the noble eightfold path. There's the "right view" of basic Buddhist doctrine, which anyone can memorize and comprehend to varying degrees, but then there are varying levels of discernment that are only perfected at arhatship (or equivalent depending on your tradition). From a practical perspective, people adopt thousands of views throughout the day. For most people, all of these views are subtly wrong (based on greed, ill-will, or delusion) and others somewhat right, in that any view involving the "I-me-mine" conceit is tainted with delusion. This is noticeable in real time. Any thought of I, me, or mine triggers sometimes-subtle tightening, numbing, or 'freezing up' in the body. Those thoughts and sensations are dukkha, which can intrude even when you're in the midst of enjoying sense pleasures. Only a being who has perfected discernment is therefore capable of perfect right view. It can be interesting when you feel really calm after meditating to intentionally trigger wrong view by thinking about an intense episode in your life story or enjoying a favorite sense pleasure and see how subtle or gross dukkha tries to take you over. Right speech is another problem. How wrong does someone have to be to make it worthwhile to correct that person? How do you know your response is modulated correctly to get through, especially when the person is a stranger on the internet? It's harder when you're dealing with someone who's curious, but also potentially hostile to Buddhism and the idea of renunciation. Not necessarily monastic renunciation, just the idea that giving up sense pleasures can be a useful part of training the mind. My biggest fear is turning somebody away from Buddhism & meditation by presenting it incorrectly or giving them the wrong materials. Edit: WAFFLEHOUND posted:I'd recommend this supplementary coursework to keep up with Quantumfate during the discussion. Are there people who make a career as Sanskrit and Greek and/or Latin scholars? Even if the works studied come from a shared time period, that combo of languages seems to clash. Paramemetic posted:Yeah this is certainly fair. Milarepa never took monastic vows, but he lived in a cave essentially as a monk. Jigten Sumgon attained liberation before he took his vows, but took them afterwards in order to demonstrate the right path. It is certainly possible for a Western householder yogi to attain enlightenment, but I don't know of any historical basis for this. Then again, Western householder yogis are a rather new thing, I think it will be some time before we see a history of this. It's worth noting that teachers in the vipassana movement are generally expected to have attained at least 2nd path before being allowed to teach, with stream-entry (first awakening) having come before that. The teacher typically recognizes the student's attainment based on the student's reported experiences and the teacher's close observation of the student. Ven. Yuttadhammo describes the experience of stream-entry in this video. When I say that I think other Western lay practitioners and teachers may be at some intermediate stage of awakening without having attained final liberation (however the end of the path is defined, since traditions don't agree), I mean those practitioners have attained at least at stream-entry. Ingram himself got permission to teach from the monk Sayadaw U Pandita, Jr., which doesn't imply Ingram is necessarily an arahat, just that he's somewhere on the path. Broadly, I would argue that any spiritual teacher who has irrevocably eliminated the view that there's a separate, permanent self (sakkya-ditthi) has attained at least stream-entry, and those people will have useful information about how they got to that point. That includes teachers from many contemplative traditions outside Buddhism, including Advaita Vedanta, Eastern Orthodox monasticism, and Sufism. Ugrok posted:I read it and thought exactly the same thing. Plus I found it full of craving ("increase the meditation dose and you will attain stage 1 ; increase dose further and you wil attain stage 2" - in the zen school meditation is not at all about attaining anything) and pre conceived truths about everything, pre-made concepts about everything ("those things are like THIS and those things are like THAT"), with no compassion, no joy and no openness. I would not recommend this book. Of course Zen has attainments. Those are the levels of practice the Ten Oxherding Pictures are meant to illustrate. That's why countless Zen masters describe kensho experiences after which they're forever changed. Dogen's "dropping off of body and mind" wasn't something he had to exert effort to maintain - once he had done it, that was it. That was an attainment. As far as Ingram describing basic concepts like sila in concrete specifics, I find that quality useful in practical instruction. I'm confused that you don't see compassion in a practitioner offering their best advice for casting off stress in clear and straightforward terms. WAFFLEHOUND posted:No. If he's offering a pathway that is fraught with literally throwing away parts of the Dharma and making fantastic claims of his own Arahatship which by the very definitions of what makes an Arahat are falsifiable, then any positive influence he could have in what he's offering to teach are massively outweighed by the potential damage his teachings could have in teaching people his made up worldview as Dharma. I'm perplexed by this argument because every tradition has different criteria for what constitutes full awakening. In the Theravada, the Buddha is considered the first of the arahats in this cycle of teaching (in other words the Buddha is equivalent to an arahat in terms of liberation), whereas in the Mahayana, a Buddha is unequivocally superior to an arahat, with bodhisattvas in between. Some Zen monks, including very advanced practitioners, are allowed to get married in part because abstention from and eradication of sexual desire isn't considered critical to awakening in those sects. The early Buddhist sangha first schismed because the monks couldn't agree whether arahats are perfected and incapable of backsliding to heedless behavior, or imperfect and capable of impure behavior (whereas bodhisattvas and Buddhas are superior and incapable of backsliding). By your standards, every tradition except the One True School of Buddhism, whichever one that is, is a "made up worldview" destroying the dharma by teaching the wrong path to its followers. It isn't that simple. WAFFLEHOUND posted:Buddhism has a strong sense of a teacher being able to live up to their teachings as an important thing, historically. It's one of the criticisms you see levelled at groups like Shambhala and Watts. In this case, this guy is clearly making poo poo up, claiming to have found his own path to the endgoal of Buddhism and that he is willing to teach that path. He clearly hasn't reached that path, while the point of Buddhism is that Buddha himself has. Since there are a whole host of contradictory statments between Arahat Ingram and, well, Buddha, anyone hoping to learn from both of them is forced to decide that one of the two is lying. These are false dilemmas: either the Buddha was lying or Ingram is nobody, if Ingram is wrong about being an arahat then Mahasi noting isn't a valid path to awakening, that we know exactly what the Buddha taught and teachers of that perfect truth can be trusted, whereas anyone who doesn't follow those teachings to the letter is a charlatan. In reality, the sangha is already divided into hundreds of offshoots, no one knows precisely what the Buddha taught, we don't have the original maps of awakening, we don't know precisely what constitutes awakening in this life and what effects that might have on rebirth. These issues aren't simple or straightforward at all. These also aren't issues any of us are likely to resolve, nor are we likely to benefit from debating maps of awakening using old texts and competing orthodoxies as a guide. Without the benefit of direct experience, we can know for sure that different schools of Buddhism disagree...and that's about it. That's why I'm much more interested in practical questions about the phenomenology of real meditative experience and what people have managed to accomplish in their own practices: Which techniques lead to which effects? Where is there syncretism between traditions in reality, despite their doctrinal disagreements? I can't see how it's unhealthy to talk honestly about what you've practiced, what effects that has had, and where that puts you on a particular map, for the benefit of other practitioners. That's really the point of MCTB, in which Ingram is honest, open, and offers plenty of disclaimers about the possibility that his opinion is likely to be controversial and may be wrong. He does explain the orthodox Theravadan practices he's used and the likely effects really well in terms accessible to westerners, to the extent you can easily try them for yourself without other guidance. That's the value of the book. Here's Ingram describing his experience: quote:Since the topic has come up so often and been so bandied about so many times by so many people, let me state here what I mean by 4th path, regardless of what anyone else means by it. It has the following qualities: I don't believe this is arahatship, but it sure sounds like a bona fide Buddhist attainment produced by Buddhist vipassana meditation. Regardless of what that attainment is properly called, someone who has reached the baseline of experience described above may have teachings worth exploring, even if that person's authorial style doesn't appeal to you. I really don't want to walk through the original rationale for Ingram's claim to arahatship (which he has since recanted), nor why I think it's incorrect, since it isn't the reason I recommended the book and in terms of the book's content, it's a tiny piece unlikely to have any practical impact on the meditative practice of the reader. That's why I've still recommended the book to people, and they've benefited from it, despite the inclusion of heterodox material. Prickly Pete posted:I guess I would counter that the best treatments of vipassana in the tradition of Mahasi Sayadaw are the texts that were written by Mahasi himself. With that available, I would certainly not instead offer up a book written by someone who is married, probably having sex, and working as a medical doctor, living the household life, while also claiming to be an arahant, completely free of the defilements, having completely abolished self-view, hatred, delusion, and craving of any kind. Anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the qualities of an arahant as put forth in the suttas should understand why this is extremely unlikely. In reference to DhammaWheel, that feudal "shun the heretic" view common among conservative Theravadans and other Buddhists is part of the reason different schools find it so difficult to engage in useful dialogue about phenomenology and maps of awakening. It really does sound like fundamentalist members of Abrahamic faiths arguing about whose God is bigger. I'm looking forward to the time when none of this dogma is off limits and practitioners can talk honestly about their experiences without facing instant rejection even by modern educated lay practitioners, who frankly have an intellectual responsibility to be more open-minded. What if an advanced Tibetan Buddhist meditator wrote a book arguing that the arahat ideal of early Buddhism is correct, Mahayana bodhisattvas don't exist, and therefore the bodhisattva vow is invalid? That person would get kicked out of their school of Tibetan Buddhism and their meditation teaching, whatever its quality, would be ignored. Is that justified? I think the Theravadan ten-fetter model of awakening is likely correct, but I don't know for sure, and that's OK. I take good meditation instruction wherever I can get it regardless of the author's chosen map of awakening, which is as irrelevant to real-life practice as whether the Buddha had a cranial protuberance or not. Popcornicus fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Feb 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
Thanks for taking the time to develop your views. The following are just my impressions and what i felt reading MCTB, i am by no means a buddhist scholar or a meditation expert. I practice zazen since 2011, and most of the things i read are from the soto zen tradition. I did not mean that there are no attainments or that you don't change through practice. I meant that the foundation of practice, in the soto zen school at least (i don't know other schools as well), is "mushotoku", "no goal". And reading MCTB (btw, even the title is full of grasping : "mastering the core teachings of the buddha", it sounds like a very ego centered way of seeing the path to me - but i might be wrong as the title might be a little provocative on purpose), i thought i, as a reader, was treated like some sort of machine : inject this and you will obtain that. Do this and you will obtain that. It's just about goal and means to attain this goal, which is the opposite of zazen, at least in the soto school where the sitting practice is the beginning and end of it all (Uchiyama : "Practice 10 years, then practice 10 more years, then practice 10 more years"). Maybe there are stages, maybe there are experiences, maybe there is change (of course there is), but so what ? In the end you just live your life as best as you can, you take shits and eat and do stuff, and you continue sitting. I understand that this "goal driven" approach can be really interesting for some, and maybe reassuring as well, just as knowing that eating those pills will produce this effect. But i really think that nobody can describe accurately what goes on when you meditate. Of course everyone is the same, but everyone is also very different, and i felt, in this book, that this was denied. For me it is the opposite. The more i sit with goals the less i can be at ease. Practice is about losing, slowly unburdening, not striving to gain stage 3 after defeating the end boss or destroying anything. For me, it's not a fight to win "buddahood" or whatever ; it's just discovering and being who i am, making peace with that, even in the darkest and most frightening aspects, and this is done by quietly, simply sitting with an open mind. I did not find compassion in the book because, even if what you say is right (i think it really comes from a good intention to show how the path and the practice may work), it's just one way of seeing things, and it's pretending to be THE way. Maybe i'm a bit overdramatic here, if so i apologize, but by reading the book i felt as if i had to struggle against myself to become what Ingram tells us to become, and i did not found this compassionate. I also understand that "sometimes you have to be harsh on people to make them understand", but there is a difference between that compassionate harshness, that you can feel in most zen books or teachings i read (Kodo Sawaki, for example, is really really harsh), and this way of presenting things as if it was god talking to ants or something (again maybe i'm a bit over the top here ahahah). Of course this is highly subjective, and so is meditation i think, but there was no sense of beauty and love while i was reading this book. When you read Suzuki, or Trungpa, or even Brad Warner, you feel this immense love for what we are, even if we are flawed, even if we suck, even if we fail at everything. And you also feel a great sense of humor about all this. When I read Ingram, i felt like an untermensch who had to go "total war" with himself to gain access to a "better" humanity. Anyway, it's only a book, and i only describe what i felt reading it, maybe in a few years i will understand it differently. At least i'm glad that it exists because it allows us to discuss about great, interesting things. To be honest, I found something really interesting in the book, it was all the part about what sensations and senses in general are and how they shape our reality. I found it really well written and explained, and it lead me to view things a bit differently. PS : hope this does not sound too critical. Of course, if that means anything, i have a ton of respect for anyone who, like Ingram did, had the balls to write a book about his experience and worked a lot on himself and tried to share it with others. Ugrok fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Feb 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
To be fair, the idea of progressive attainments along the path is kind of tied in to the way Mahasi Sayadaw structured his meditation method. Actually attainments aren't really the right word, but there is a definite series of steps or guideposts along the way as you get past simply watching the breath, and start actually seeing the rising and passing away of things. I linked his book earlier but you can find most of his stuff on access to insight. He was an extremely well respected monk and teacher and his writing is fascinating if a bit technical. I haven't read Ingram but if he comes from a Mahasi background that might be what influenced his approach as you mentioned. Anyway as has been stated before, worrying about attainments is more attachment. You see this just as often in people who practice samatha meditation and get fixated on whether or not they have attained jhana, or the requisite conditions to allow jhana, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:In the end you just live your life as best as you can, you take shits and eat and do stuff, and you continue sitting. The Roshi at the Zen Temple where I used to live used almost exactly these words to describe zazen. e: Same tradition and lineage, so I guess it shouldn't be surprising.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Anyone have any good book recommendations regarding the topic of bodhicitta?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 01:35 |
|
Popcornicus posted:I don't believe this is arahatship, but it sure sounds like a bona fide Buddhist attainment produced by Buddhist vipassana meditation. You'd think if he had some degree of attainment he wouldn't be accusing all prior Arahats of lying to justify his attainment. He's literally got a creepy cult-of-himself like thing going on where he accuses all other Buddhist schools of lying and only he has discovered the truth which just so happens to allow him to drink and hoard stuff and screw around. To repost what Quantumfate posted: Daniel Ingram, Arahat, DDS: Pg 285-286 posted: posted:The Action Models tend to involve certain actions that enlightened beings cannot commit or certain actions they must commit. Both types of models are completely ridiculous, and so we come now to the first of the models that simply has no basis in reality. The traditional Theravada models contain numerous statements about what enlightened being cannot do or will do that are simply wrong. My favorite examples of this insanity include statements that arahats cannot break the precepts (including killing, lying, stealing, having sex, doing drugs or drinking), cannot have erections, cannot have jobs, cannot be married, and cannot say they are arahats. They also state that unordained arahats must/will join the Theravada monastic order within 7 days of their realization or they will die. Needless to say, all are simply absurd lies, lies that have unfortunately often been perpetuated by arahats. So, to come back to something you said Popcornicus posted:These are false dilemmas: either the Buddha was lying or Ingram is nobody No, it's really explicitly not a false dichotomy because Ingram explicitly calls every Bodhisattva in the history of Buddhism a liar for having a different vision of what Arahatship means than him. His book is dangerous from a Buddhist perspective, not just wrong, but genuinely dangerous and it shouldn't be presented to people as Buddhism. That's not even a purely Buddhist-y thing, he should be setting off cult-y alarms left, right, and centre in any reasonable person. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Feb 24, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 22:43
|
|