Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
An american monk teaching buddhism online.
hermitwin
Veteran
0
Comments
Seems excellent, useful, authentic. I have joined the yahoo group - I need all the help available . . .
Many thanks for bringing to our attention.
I am not a Theravadin practitioner and so am fairly neutral but for a detailed discussion you might want to drop into Dhamma Wheel.
Perhaps this perceived controversy is a result of his being a 'westerner' and/or teaching Buddhism to westerners?
Whether that matters is an individual decision.
Among other points of controversy he claims to be able to cure AIDS. And that he has received direct teaching from the Devas which corrects the " mistakes" of all existing Buddhist teachers.
He has launched strong attacks on a number of other teachers, particularly those that teach Vipassana.
But...not my path.
I've read through the first two pages, and it seems to be the usual bickering of whether or not his teachings/manners of teaching are valid. As someone who is not attached to any particular line of Buddhism, I don't know if this would concern me to the point of not being open to what he has to say. But, I would do some more research before going to a retreat or proclaiming him as my main teacher. Just my POV.
This is actually something I did find that made me think, in particular, about Vipassana (this is a response post in the thread I listed above):
It was Bhante Vimalaramsi who helped me escape the person I had become via "vipassana". Numerous 10 day courses, although initially enticing had turned me into an unthinking, hard-hearted individual who was gradually losing all sense of the joy and wonder of the Dhamma - which is what attracted me to it in the first place. There is more between heaven & earth than bare attention & observing sensations, and Bhante Vimalaramsi is one of the few monks who actually teach what that is. If we want to hang around waiting for the "perfect" monk as a teacher, we might have a long wait. All I know is that Bhante's teachings resonate with the suttas, introduce clear guidelines for practice which find verification in the suttas, and most importantly they work.
Most monks teach a variety of methods.
I learned Vipassana from a real hard core source, a teacher who was then in the robe and is now called Dhiravamsa but still teaching. And even he taught much more than bare attention and observing sensations.
The reality is there are a lot of good teachers out there who do not claim special powers or to communicate with Devas.
If the Theravada is your thing you cant go wrong with the Forest Tradition 's teachers.
the lessons from their teachings will differ.
I'm simply saying that he may have a valid teaching somewhere and that keeping an open mind may be beneficial (or he may not have a valid teaching, but one would never know if one doesn't look into the matter for themselves). As far as I know, the Buddha taught in many languages to many people of many faiths, so that everyone could understand a teaching within the context of their own lives. I could assume that some students may not like or "get" some teachings that were meant for completely different "types" of students. This is why I say that it may be worth keeping an open mind. Also, I understand that Buddha says that you should not put so much weight on the teacher as you should put on the teaching. That is where a lot of us get hung up, IMHO (including myself)
Other options within Buddhadharma are available.
The issue with Vimalaramsi is not whether his teaching is valid. The issue is that he says the teaching of other Buddhist teachers is invalid.
And that he knows this because the Devas told him.
Also, I am happy you have a tradition which works so well for you, but it would not be a comfortable fit for me, for my own personal and philosophical reasons (yes, we are lucky to have diversity in the world). However, one thing I wonder about-- does your tradition make it more difficult to have open dialogue about anything that hasn't been strictly transmitted from your teacher to you? It is an honest question, not meant to be judgmental or anything, as I am sure you have a very well qualified teacher. I am a newbie, so your graciousness is appreciated.
Difficult to dialogue ? I would say not.
Having said that concepts and cognitions are not emphasised in the Dzogchen tradition. its about operating from a non dual view.
So its not about holding only those views endorsed by the teacher.
Its more about seeing all views as provisional.
:: shrugs:::
Well lots of people believe prayers (to God/saints) can cure diease, too. Not that outrageous, IMO.
Whilst we await the Mahdi, comforter, Maitriya, perfected Bhantu or a vision from Manjushri we have to make do with the slightly used. This miserable looking (for those taken in by superficialities) monk offers contact through the Internet. Yippee.
His reluctance to teach is so reflective. Others like me, who have barely scratched the surface can be similarly judged.
When I become a Buddha, anytime now, remember to spread tales of how I offered Viagra to the Sangha, that should ensure I have no authentic validation and qualification to teach . . .
:thumbsup:
Many of them children.
A teacher who manages to draw the oprobrium of both Ajahn Sumedho and ( scathingly ) of Ajahn Brahm, is either what he says he is, the unique saviour of Buddha Dhamma and those other teachers are wrong, or he is a fruitcake.
I know what i think.
i think there is no need to jump to any conclusion.
listen for yourself and make up your own mind.
But not from one vid alone. As did Ajahn Brahm Ajahn Sumedho and etc.
So the alternatives are drawing the conclusion that any given person is a fruitcake OR having an open mind. LOL.
A round of applause for anyone who spots the logical fallacy operating here....
@Citta
I'm only relaying what I read on a couple of other forums; not trying to pointedly contradict anyone. This guy could be a fruitcake, and then again, maybe just an easy target as a 'non-Asian' or "non-Traditional" teacher.... I don't have a dog in this fight as they say.
I really don't get any particularly bad vibes from him, I'm not looking toward him as my own teacher, so I stand neutral.
Now that other 'monk' discussed in that other thread? That guy didn't sit well with me.
And so it is....
The issue is not anything Vimalaramsi says on that video. It is however in the public domain that he is on record saying that ALL other teachers with one exception have got it wrong and that he was told by Devas that this is the case. The one exception is a self proclaimed Arahant who is widely seen by even the most moderate and liberal of teachers as deluded.
I find it personally impossible to exclude those facts from my mind when listening to him on any subject.
But its a free ( ish ) world.
Anyway, my point was and still is, neutrality - on this particular monk in the OP's question.
More power to his elbow.
where ajahn brahm or sumedho made
negative remarks about vimalaramsi.
otherwise, it is just hearsay.
i have my preferences too.
but some of the allegations made here not
only involves vimalaramsi but also ajahn brahm n sumedho.
so it is important to ascertain the veracity of these statements.
Personally i think he is a good monk.
Why he is controversial? because he openly disagrees with some parts of the visuddhimagga (theravada commentaries) and openly disagrees with "absortion concentration meditations". So its natural he will take some heat.
Its ok to openly disagree with someone!, as long as its not connected with evil-unwholesome states (both ways).
Now, be carefull with gossip! haha. "i heard he got some bad review inside close circles", i heard he say he can cure AIDS... he just told that in the context that generosity can cure sickness (he also put an example of a person who had cancer and after practicing generosity she went to the doctor and was free from it)
Just in case anyone has missed it, at the heart of that anecdote is good old " if you have cancer its your fault ".
Which is neither provable nor compassionate.
U mean a proof that generosity can cure sickness or cancer? ofcourse not (u could find some studies probably of the beneficts of joy or good mental states for the body and the inmune system blablabla, not more than that.)
Why do you say that "the heart of the anecdote is good old "if you have cancer its your fault" ? wich is neither provable nor compassionate". Is that other way of saying that because the monk believes in karma like pretty much any other buddhist he is not compassionate?.
The generosity curing cancer seems unlikely too.
While buddhists believe in kamma and the beneficts of generosity, it doesnt`t neccesarily mean that
they state: "if u get a benefict because u practice generosity in a certain situation, then that means that sittuation was created directly because of
lack of generosity/covetousness in the past".
Simplest: If a man growns resentful he might want going to war, in war he might loose his legs, without legs he might grown humble, being humble: who knows.
So yes, if u go to the doctor he will say he loosed hig legs because of an explotion, because thats the truth (and it doesnt go against kamma).
Might i add that the Buddha taught rebirth?.
So, i don`t see why u say that a monk teaching generosity is not being compassionate.
But yes, in a way buddhists believe in a certain responsability over our present experience.
If you dont believe that, its ok.
pd: sorry if i made grammar mistakes, its not my language:).
and that includes cancer.
They are
The factors of the physical world....roughly the laws of physics and chemistry.
The factors of biology including what we would now call genetics
The factors of kamma and kamma vipaka. ( Karma and the fruit of karma )
The factors of Dhamma/Dharma including Dependent Origination, and
The factors of Citta ( consciousness )..which is the realm of psychology.
So kamma/karma is just one factor among many that accounts for any given situation..and the Buddha said that it was unwise to speculate which factor or factors were operant
In fact he said that to speculate thus was to fall into the trap of speculating about what he called The Imponderables.
The simplistic idea that all actions have a one-to-one observable and clear cut consequence is a Hindu belief, not a Buddhist one.
As usual the Buddha took a basic idea current at the time and transformed it into a teaching that was far more radical and at the same time far more subtle. As he did with the idea of Rebirth which is far more subtle than Hindu Reincarnation.
and suffering.
suffering is caused by bad karma period.
an arahant can have cancer but no suffering.
You are conflating karma..action, with karma -vipaka the fruits of karma. Which can be experienced as positive , negative, or neutral.
If someone has cancer there is no way to know whether it is related to karma -vipaka.
It may be, or it may be connected to other Niyamas.
The Buddha himself described speculating about causes as " acinteyya " or Imponderable.
See his teaching in the Anguttara Nikaya.