|
I bought the Ingram book back when it cost cash money after hearing good things and I was seriously disappointed by him, his approach, his writing,... everything. It seemed like the exact opposite of what I was hearing by the teachers I was learning from with regards to meditation and Buddhism in general. Ingram's whole approach smacks of a "level-up to LEVEL FOUR on the attainment ladder on the road to mastering enlightenment blah blah" was a dishearteningly blank, empty approach. I read the comments he makes in the book, his blog, on podcasts, in talks and on forums regarding the fact that "no one talks about being enlightened when they're enlightened but I will because that's bullshit" and I can't see how it is anything other than the the biggest red flag in Buddhism. I think its far more likely that he's completely deluded and he's not really enlightened. Yet the people at the Buddhist Geeks conference lap this poo poo up. What an iconoclast! The Internet and mind technology wins! I have no doubt he's done *something* with his mind. It sounds like he is convincing himself that his method is matching up with this jhana and that whatever and therefore he's got the map. It all smacks of grasping in the most Buddhism 101 way I can't even see why people are giving this guy the time of day. I'm glad this thread is giving this bozo a rough ride. I'm with Ugrok. He's the one making sense.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
The real question is has Ingram reached the attainment of a Level 5 Laser Lotus yet or not?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:The real question is has Ingram reached the attainment of a Level 5 Laser Lotus yet or not? Is that before or after you beat the boss?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:The real question is has Ingram reached the attainment of a Level 5 Laser Lotus yet or not? It’s funny you should ask, but I’m not sure this thread is hardcore enough for the sequel:  That was a joke but get ready because this is really happening.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Popcornicus posted:It’s funny you should ask, but I’m not sure this thread is hardcore enough for the sequel: Sometimes I get the feeling that Harris is really Buddhist but would never admit it because his public persona would evaporate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
he1ixx posted:I bought the Ingram book back when it cost cash money after hearing good things and I was seriously disappointed by him, his approach, his writing,... everything. It seemed like the exact opposite of what I was hearing by the teachers I was learning from with regards to meditation and Buddhism in general.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:I recall Ajahn Brahm on several occasions saying that a surefire way to tell when someone is not enlightened is when they say that they are enlightened. Having spent years reading about (and talking to people about) the various ways Buddhist communities implode, go crazy, cover up abuses and that kinda stuff, it usually starts with a bunch of people deciding "this teacher is enlightened and he can do absolutely no wrong whatsoever." If the teacher doesn't basically get corrupted by that, then usually the students in the community do. Often this cycle seems to get established because people are desperate to have someone else "~~~confirm their enlightenment~~~~" and will then proceed to overlook any criticism of the inhumanly, impossibly perfect and enlightened teacher, as well as overlook all of the crazy poo poo going on in a community. This sorta cycle also repeats itself in all of the Guru systems of practice, as well. From what I can tell, the best antidote is to read some academic stuff about Buddhism that will elucidate the role of hagiographizing teachers (both living and dead), while also emphasizing to never shut off one's critical thinking just because someone claims to be enlightened. If someone is claiming (or even not actively denying) their own enlightenment, you'd better turn the critical thinking up to 12 because some crazy poo poo, historically, is about to go down. Read about the history of abuses within each tradition because each tradition has a tendency to get misused in certain ways. The traditions that place particular emphasis on obedience to a specific teacher are particularly susceptible to exploitative relationships, and they have a very long history of precisely that. The whole, "I'll call you enlightened if you call me enlightened" thing is basically the backbone of what keeps unhealthy Buddhist communities going, though. That and a lot of people who think that Buddhism is about developing some sufficiently vacant sorta gaze and not reacting to a bunch of hosed up poo poo going on around them. It really has to be emphasized that Buddhist scripture is comparable to reading a bunch of promotional materials, it is extremely carefully put together, both in ancient times and in modern times as well. Should any of y'all decide to go to a Buddhist community, keep your eyes and ears open and do a lot of research before hand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:It really has to be emphasized that Buddhist scripture is comparable to reading a bunch of promotional materials, it is extremely carefully put together, both in ancient times and in modern times as well. You had me until this sentence, mind clarifying what you mean by that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Grim Up North posted:You had me until this sentence, mind clarifying what you mean by that? They (the 12 kinds of scripture, or whatever the precise number is) are absolutely worth reading, but they should not be mistaken as objective information about Buddhism. I.e. reading or hearing a 1000, 2000, or 2500-year-old text is not an objective reference on what you are likely to experience if you go visit Buddhist communities as they exist today, even though there will be some recognizable similarities.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:I recall Ajahn Brahm on several occasions saying that a surefire way to tell when someone is not enlightened is when they say that they are enlightened. I'd just have to say that that's a surefire way to know Ajahn Brahm is full of poo poo. He's not the maker of the rules of who can say what, much less enlightened beings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Would it be silly if an atheist tried to practice Buddhism in the way that you might try on a shirt to see if it fits? And with how many teachers out there how do you tell who is legit and who would lead you astray?
ShadowMoo fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:I'd just have to say that that's a surefire way to know Ajahn Brahm is full of poo poo. He's not the maker of the rules of who can say what, much less enlightened beings. Ajahn Brahm teaches in a pretty lighthearted way with a lot of humor. While I haven't heard him say this exact thing, I can imagine him saying it in a way that probably isn't meant to be heavy-handed and serious, but more of a cautionary guideline. He is most certainly not full of poo poo, though. He has some tendencies that put me off a bit in his teaching, but he has been a monk for around 40 years and is a very well respected teacher.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Would it be silly if an atheist tried to practice Buddhism in the way that you might try on a shirt to see if it fits? Not at all, that's the point of a lot of Buddhist practices. We are not enlightened, so we accept that our own cognition is flawed and undertake practices to train ourselves away from that cognition. Through repeated practise and right effort we hone ourselves to an enlightened state. By all means the buddhadharma is a tool to let you do that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
What does it mean by don't willingly intoxicate yourself? One of the definitions of intoxication is 'a strong excitement or elation'. Using that note even spiritual happiness can be considered intoxicating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:What does it mean by don't willingly intoxicate yourself? One of the definitions of intoxication is 'a strong excitement or elation'. Using that note even spiritual happiness can be considered intoxicating. [college hippy voice] Don't you know that like, everything is a drug, man? Like, the air, is chemicals man. Air is a drug dude
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Ruddha posted:[college hippy voice] Don't you know that like, everything is a drug, man? Like, the air, is chemicals man. Air is a drug dude That was mostly what I was going for, but nice. I've just always waxed philosophical about what it actually meant to 'not lie to yourself'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:What does it mean by don't willingly intoxicate yourself? One of the definitions of intoxication is 'a strong excitement or elation'. Using that note even spiritual happiness can be considered intoxicating. It's pretty simple. Don't do drugs, don't smoke, don't drink.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:What does it mean by don't willingly intoxicate yourself? One of the definitions of intoxication is 'a strong excitement or elation'. Using that note even spiritual happiness can be considered intoxicating. I'm pretty sure what you're supposed to avoid is things that make you un-mindful of your actions. I think "spiritual happiness" tends to avoid that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
It is my understanding that it is referring to consuming substances that prevent or impair you from being mindful. You know, unless there's a medical reason to do so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
This may be splitting hairs but what exactly does it mean by that. If one took say Thorazine for schizophrenia does that mean they are going against the teachings? I have personally always had a beef with the idea of 'only the drugs you get from medical corps are valid' or am I missing something here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:This may be splitting hairs but what exactly does it mean by that. If one took say Thorazine for schizophrenia does that mean they are going against the teachings? I have personally always had a beef with the idea of 'only the drugs you get from medical corps are valid' or am I missing something here. No, because if you are taking thorazine for schizophrenia it is making it so that you can be mindful, it is corrective. It's less only drugs from doctors are valid, because it's obviously going against the precepts if you're prescribed vicodin for a stubbed toe and you take it, but absolutely take your meds to balance out your mental illnesses. Don't recreationally intoxicate yourself. Don't smoke, don't do drugs, don't drink. It's a practise to teach us mindfulness of this reality
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:What does it mean by don't willingly intoxicate yourself? One of the definitions of intoxication is 'a strong excitement or elation'. Using that note even spiritual happiness can be considered intoxicating. The actual wording of the precept (in Pali) implies that it is speaking about fermented beverages, so it doesn't apply to elated states that may come from mental or spiritual euphoria or agitation, etc. It is usually extended to cover any substance that would lead to headlessness though, not just alcohol. I think medicines are specifically exempted in the Vinaya but I might have some wires crossed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Even though light recreational can be as fulfilling in the right setting and mindset as meditating in a meadow? Did some googling and some of the practice consider the intent of the rule was not to willingly subject yourself to the point it interferes with one's mindfulness. One can imbibe certain substances and so long as the intent is soul-searching and meditation and not a blind dive into bliss and euphoria still be mindful. I know this likely belongs in D&D but things like this pique my interest.
ShadowMoo fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Even though light recreational can be as fulfilling in the right setting and mindset as meditating in a meadow? Did some googling and some of the practice consider the intent of the rule was not to willingly subject yourself to the point it interferes with one's mindfulness. I know this likely belongs in D&D but things like this pique my interest. Light recreational drug use is not as fulfilling as meditation in terms of Buddhism because the act is really just a temporary altering of the senses, which is exactly the opposite of what you would normally want to achieve during meditation. The point is to still and clarify the mind, not muddy it with external substances, so that you can clearly observe reality as it truly is - impermanent and empty and without self. There are plenty of traditions that offer up intoxicants as part of a path toward enlightenment but the Buddha did not teach this. The intent of the actual precept is to abstain from the substances that lead to headlessness There isn't any mention of "you can drink a few beers as long as you don't do anything dumb" or any kind of qualifications on the precept. Some people interpret it to allow a bit here and there. Most practitioners do not, in my opinion. And tangling with whether or not you can wriggle by with a few drinks or whatever is probably a sign of attachment in and of itself that should be examined. edit: I think it is important to mention that the precepts aren't meant as moral commandments as much as rules to follow to help your practice along. Having a beer or smoking a joint doesn't make you a bad person. It does, however, make you more likely to inflict suffering on other beings, inadvertently or otherwise. The precepts are just as much about keeping other beings from suffering as they are about helping your own practice. People Stew fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:And tangling with whether or not you can wriggle by with a few drinks or whatever is probably a sign of attachment in and of itself that should be examined. Not an attachment (alright maybe cigs) I just have issues with those who preach that thousand year old religions have hard rules despite the fact that they need to update those rules to keep the interest of a changing society. (i.e. All of the Abramic religions)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:Ajahn Brahm teaches in a pretty lighthearted way with a lot of humor. While I haven't heard him say this exact thing, I can imagine him saying it in a way that probably isn't meant to be heavy-handed and serious, but more of a cautionary guideline. He is most certainly not full of poo poo, though. He has some tendencies that put me off a bit in his teaching, but he has been a monk for around 40 years and is a very well respected teacher. Are you the one who got flustered because a "respected monk", maybe that guy said dog doody?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 03:26
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Even though light recreational can be as fulfilling in the right setting and mindset as meditating in a meadow? Not from a Buddhist perspective.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:Are you the one who got flustered because a "respected monk", maybe that guy said dog doody? I wouldn't say flustered. I was more surprised because it was unexpected. 50 or so people seated at a meditation center, and then 10 minutes into a talk you hear the monk swearing. It certainly didn't change my impression of his teaching ability.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Not an attachment (alright maybe cigs) I just have issues with those who preach that thousand year old religions have hard rules despite the fact that they need to update those rules to keep the interest of a changing society. (i.e. All of the Abramic religions) I'm not sure the fact that a religion has existed for centuries has anything to do with the fact that then, just as now, taking intoxicants clouds your judgement and keeps you from seeing the world for what it really is. Those rules don't need to be updated since they apply just as readily to reality as it exists now as it did when they were formulated. It isn't as though people in the current age are just better at holding their liquor. If anything, the drugs that are available now should cause even more caution. And that is coming from someone who has battled drug addiction for a while.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
So here's a stupid question from an honestly curious person wanting to learn a bit more: I get from reading the About page for my local Buddhist temple that "Jodo Shinshu" or "Shin Buddhism" is part of the "Mahayana tradition," but is it the same thing as Zen or something different? Zen was something I wanted to look into but the temples around me don't specifically identify as such. I'll shut up now, and thanks all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:So here's a stupid question from an honestly curious person wanting to learn a bit more: I get from reading the About page for my local Buddhist temple that "Jodo Shinshu" or "Shin Buddhism" is part of the "Mahayana tradition," but is it the same thing as Zen or something different? Zen was something I wanted to look into but the temples around me don't specifically identify as such. I'll shut up now, and thanks all. Its Japanese Pure Land Buddhism, which has a Yiggy fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
The specific taxonomic term here is jiriki vs. tariki. The vast majority of Japanese Buddhist schools are jiriki schools, meaning the emphasis is on personally cultivating attainment through your own efforts and practice. Tariki schools, such as Jodoshu and Jodoshinshu, emphasize receiving outside help or benefiting from the efforts of others. In the case of Pure Land Buddhism, the idea is that a Buddha named Amida (amitābha in Sanskrit) once made a set of vows regarding the way he wanted to train and teach people, and one of his vows was that if anybody recited his name even ten times, he would strive to ensure that they receive rebirth in his realm, with access to long lifespans free of sickness, teachers, and all kinds of awesome stuff, and through this rebirth eventually attain enlightenment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 09:55
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:I wouldn't say flustered. I was more surprised because it was unexpected. 50 or so people seated at a meditation center, and then 10 minutes into a talk you hear the monk swearing. It certainly didn't change my impression of his teaching ability. that's not swearing. Avici is far harsher than any 'swear' words. This thread is dogshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:Ajahn Brahm teaches in a pretty lighthearted way with a lot of humor. While I haven't heard him say this exact thing, I can imagine him saying it in a way that probably isn't meant to be heavy-handed and serious, but more of a cautionary guideline. He is most certainly not full of poo poo, though. He has some tendencies that put me off a bit in his teaching, but he has been a monk for around 40 years and is a very well respected teacher. One of his points was (IIRC) that you shouldn't do what someone tells you to do if you feel doing it is immoral, even if it's coming from a teacher who is claiming/known to be to be enlightened. Personally I think Ajahn Brahm is a very wise person, and his teaching has been and still is incredibly beneficial in my life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:that's not swearing. Avici is far harsher than any 'swear' words. This thread is dogshit. This thread has certainly had its moments. Then again I waded through some pretty sad discussions back at E-sangha, so as far as cross-tradition discussions are concerned, I've been pretty happy with the people here with a few exceptions. Rhymenoceros posted:IIRC it was in the context of bullying and how bullying appears wherever there are hierarchies; he was talking about spiritual communities and how there can be bullying there too. I worked a terrible job in a warehouse for a while, and listening to Ajahn Brahm dhamma talks was one of the things that helped keep me sane during those times, and also kind of introduced me to the Thai Forest tradition. I moved away from him gradually because I ended up just preferring other teachers in the tradition out of preference, but I think he really is a great teacher. I don't know if you read or listen to Bhante Sujato, but he is also worth checking out. I believe he studied under Ajahn Brahm. His approach is much more textual and academic but he gives good talks. edit: On the topic of bullying in spiritual communities, was he by chance talking about the controversy he was involved in during the Bhikkhuni ordination fiasco?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:I worked a terrible job in a warehouse for a while, and listening to Ajahn Brahm dhamma talks was one of the things that helped keep me sane during those times, and also kind of introduced me to the Thai Forest tradition. I moved away from him gradually because I ended up just preferring other teachers in the tradition out of preference, but I think he really is a great teacher. I don't know if you read or listen to Bhante Sujato, but he is also worth checking out. I believe he studied under Ajahn Brahm. His approach is much more textual and academic but he gives good talks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:This thread has certainly had its moments. Then again I waded through some pretty sad discussions back at E-sangha, so as far as cross-tradition discussions are concerned, I've been pretty happy with the people here with a few exceptions. Buddhist usenet groups 10-15 years ago had some lively threads, and some interesting contributors. I don't know if or how those groups are doing these days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:It's pretty simple. Don't do drugs, don't smoke, don't drink. Serious question. Like in the sense of "Oh, you did a drug. You're not a Real Buddhist anymore". I agree that there are benefits of a sober mind, but it seems like a strange point to harp on. a dog from hell fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Feb 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
No one's saying you aren't a Real Buddhist if you do a drug or have a drink. You're just not doing yourself any favors by doing so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
On the contrary it's said pretty frequently.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 01:57
|
|