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.
Is it possible for highly enlightened beings** to be
yes i agree, true wisdom can only be expressed through the vehicle of compassion or rather the heart.
i think it is a safe measure to see if an enlightened being has a softness to them. it may not be apparent, but there are soft sides to hard objects as well =].
on a forum though and even in zen there isn't much emphasis on the heart. sure we glance over compassion and how it's important, but it is mostly meditation and insight.
when we get into the heart, we get into a lot of interesting things that honestly i believe most people do not want to deal with.
jack kornfield agrees that the heart's awakening is enlightenments maturity.
just to poke fun. i believe or rather i have a theory that this is head orientated buddhism is the expression of men. men do not know how to love, they are taught how to lust.
as i've been getting older (23 years of age LOL) i have been finding that men express their love quite differently than women do. not to say that women are completely different but we do express it differently.
total acceptance is how we express love. this love moves through kindness. =]
7 stages is catchy and I am sure he does well from it, but there is really no need IMO. (IMO)
As to Zen, we teach right to the heart, right straight in - but it's not always evident. But to imagine it was missing is off mark IMO ..
IOW there is no way that we can avoid matters of the heart if we really practice Zen...but I have been very fortunate with good guides, friends and teachers so perhaps I speak from that bias only, and it is my understanding that not every one has had these encounterances..
With bext wishes, (young one! )
Abu
PS On Buddhist models as such, it is better not to compare IMO. Each Buddhist system has been set up for a particular reason and has its own context. Thus to look and try to blend/understand different models is not necessary. Rather if one digs, one can dig the deep hole rather than review the multitude. Then we can all enjoy ourself at the Earth's core. At that stage, no stages need apply - we can certainly be aware of them but we also have enough faith and trust to know that only our practice is most important, and what will unfold, will unfold.
As to the new age relays, I am not so akin to them, what is there is already well enough from all our ancestors and I have read enough of the other presentations to find fundamental aspects missing. I have not read the link you refer to.
Thanks as always for your inquiry, comments, your presence here, and shine.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Well that certainly sounds like how you live your life, and conduct, fede but I am not sure that is equated with all enlightened beings :rolleyes:
It's not a question of how I live my life. It is what it is. An enlightened being doesn't worry about what other people are like. only an unenlightened being worries about what other people are like. If your view differs, I'd like to know where you think I'm incorrect, instead of simply posting a dismissive line like that.
Well that certainly sounds like how you live your life, and conduct, fede but I am not sure that is equated with all enlightened beings :rolleyes:
It's not a question of how I live my life. It is what it is. An enlightened being doesn't worry about what other people are like. only an unenlightened being worries about what other people are like. If your view differs, I'd like to know where you think I'm incorrect, instead of simply posting a dismissive line like that.
Hi fede
That assumes I would believe that you know what an enlightened being worries or does not worry about and a (so called) unenlightened person worries or does not worry about.
Which I do not - so I will end this line here, with your forgiveness.
"Distance yourself from Vajra Masters who are not keeping the three vows, who keep on with a root downfall, who are miserly with the Dharma, and who engage in actions that should be forsaken.
An Enlightened being 'tells it like it is'. It's the unenlightened person that considers them to be 'complete jerks and assholes' because their perception is flawed, disillusioned and prejudiced, and they have a lesser comprehension of what the enlightened being is communicating.
Perception is often deception, and whom you perceive to be a "complete jerk and asshole" will not be perceived that way by someone else. Therefore, the problem - is yours.
I would hope that an enlightened being would not be so self involved that they fail to pay attention to whom they are communicating with and speak appropriatly. You don't go telling toddlers that there's no santa clause! Only an a-hole would do that.
@praxis Good point. The Buddha tailored his teachings to his audience. Skillfulness is one characteristic of an enlightened being.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Well it goes without saying, for goodness' sake....! we know that, right....? But I don't believe the Buddha ever sugar-coated his teachings, or dressed them up with embellishments or elaborations. He would never tell a toddler there's no santa claus...my guess is he would remain silent... No?
You wrote that people can misapprehend what an enlightened being might say to them, so much that they perceive a complete jerk and asshole. And yet, you write that it goes without saying that an enlightened being acts skillfully. This apparent contradiction could be resolved if, for instance, an enlightened being might intentionally act like a complete jerk and asshole. This is traditionally called "expedient means" I believe.
As far as I've observed, the act-like-a-jerk "skillful means" only alienates students. That doesn't seem very skillful.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
As I have quite clearly said: The perception of whether an enlightened being is or isn't being a jerk or @$$hole, rests with the perceiver, who judges the matter with a clouded, deluded mind. I don't believe I have ever met an enlightened being, therefore all the jerks and @$$holes I have met, have as far as I'm aware, are really jerks and @$$holes.
What are we to make of the curious fact that some people interpret "skillful means" as a license to be abusive, while the Buddha interpreted it as teaching to the level of the students? His teachings on Right Speech and avoidance of unnecessarily harsh speech play a role here, as well.
As I have quite clearly said: The perception of whether an enlightened being is or isn't being a jerk or @$$hole, rests with the perceiver, who judges the matter with a clouded, deluded mind. I don't believe I have ever met an enlightened being, therefore all the jerks and @$$holes I have met, have as far as I'm aware, are really jerks and @$$holes.
Or they could be enlightened beings. You couldn't know, being that, as you say, they can be perceived as jerks and assholes.
I think when you speak of things in general you lose something. Say I speak of the Chinese. It would be removed from reality because there is no such thing as 'the Chinese'. There are only individuals. And yes not everyone who claims to be enlightened is enlightened.
The teaching of buddhism is that we have a faculty of discernment. And you have to trust that because otherwise you have no hope. At the same time our own confusion means we can be wrong at times.
I would say don't hold company with who you consider an asshole because it would harm you. At the same time keep an open mind; an enemy can become a friend in an instant and vice versa.
The teaching of buddhism is that we have a faculty of discernment.
:thumbsup:
And you have to trust that because otherwise you have no hope. At the same time our own confusion means we can be wrong at times.
I would say don't hold company with who you consider an asshole because it would harm you. At the same time keep an open mind; an enemy can become a friend in an instant and vice versa.
Wisdom CIty! :bowdown:
If you discount your own discernment or gut feelings, those little red flags that pop up occasionally, you're signing up for major vulnerability. Don't let anyone talk you into taking off and throwing away your thinking cap.
or is the imagined halo of peace and joyfulness really something real?
Many years ago I once followed this strange yellow/orange/gold light moving through a large crowded international airport. I was between flights and I had my back to it, and turned and saw... what the heck was that? I walked toward the edge of the light and stood in it, and it felt oddly joyful, uplifting, peaceful... and it was moving away... so I followed it through the airport, just to keep up with it. Eventually I caught up to this crowd of people that it seemed to be coming from and I finally managed to make out through the crowd who it was who was emanating that light... It turned out to be a saffron-robed monk who apparently spoke no English, appeared to be endlessly curious about and fascinated by everything at the airport, and who was barely visible through and dwarfed by a small entourage of very attentive students and translators. I've no idea who he was. Physically he looked like an ordinary Buddhist monk, but he was no ordinary Buddhist monk and no ordinary human being; not with light that could fill up that much of a crowded airport. The light does give one a feeling of peace and joyfulness if you stand in it; it's why I followed it through a large crowded international airport to see where it led. If there are enlightened beings, beings who stand in the light and who yet walk this earth, that is the closest I have ever been to one. The peace and joyfulness and the light that accompanies such a being is quite palpable and is no figment of anyone's imagination. Is it possible for any being to stand in and emanate the light and behave like a complete jerk? Not that yellow/orange/gold light, no, because it goes through them and they are part of it. But any jerk can put on a costume and a mask and stand in a spotlight and gather a fan club and try to do an impersonation of the real thing... and some people might actually be fooled.
As I have quite clearly said: The perception of whether an enlightened being is or isn't being a jerk or @$$hole, rests with the perceiver, who judges the matter with a clouded, deluded mind..
That may be convenient, but I doubt that is the whole truth.
A real teacher may test the student but it is up to the good fortune and karma of a student to be under the wings of a real and genuine, as opposed to a masquerade - and if it were so that one was in the presence of a masqueraded mask one could not necessarily be very safe in their actions. To say that it is the perceiver's problem in that instance may not be appropriate. To say that it is the perceiver's ego in the case of the former may be more apt. But which is which - that is the challenge for most students.
Regardless, the problem with generalisations - especially of this nature: 'It is about the perceiver with their deluded mind' is that they are not quite complete IMO.
Your initial argument that an elightened being tells it "as it is", is a presupposition of yours on how (so called) enlightened beings act or do not. Which, as I explained, I do not subscribe to.
And at the end of the day as I said one's practice is the golden light that will reveal truth from falsity, and the good hearted from those that still need fine tuning. Which is why so much of the encouragement is to watch ourself I guess. :wave:
The teaching of buddhism is that we have a faculty of discernment.
:thumbsup:
And you have to trust that because otherwise you have no hope. At the same time our own confusion means we can be wrong at times.
I would say don't hold company with who you consider an asshole because it would harm you. At the same time keep an open mind; an enemy can become a friend in an instant and vice versa.
Wisdom CIty! :bowdown:
If you discount your own discernment or gut feelings, those little red flags that pop up occasionally, you're signing up for major vulnerability. Don't let anyone talk you into taking off and throwing away your thinking cap.
Suspicion and distrust is also the hallmark of ego, discernment in wisdom is seeing as it is. There are differences, believe it or not :vimp:
or is the imagined halo of peace and joyfulness really something real?
Many years ago I once followed this strange yellow/orange/gold light moving through a large crowded international airport. I was between flights and I had my back to it, and turned and saw... what the heck was that? I walked toward the edge of the light and stood in it, and it felt oddly joyful, uplifting, peaceful... and it was moving away... so I followed it through the airport, just to keep up with it. Eventually I caught up to this crowd of people that it seemed to be coming from and I finally managed to make out through the crowd who it was who was emanating that light... It turned out to be a saffron-robed monk who apparently spoke no English, appeared to be endlessly curious about and fascinated by everything at the airport, and who was barely visible through and dwarfed by a small entourage of very attentive students and translators. I've no idea who he was. Physically he looked like an ordinary Buddhist monk, but he was no ordinary Buddhist monk and no ordinary human being; not with light that could fill up that much of a crowded airport. The light does give one a feeling of peace and joyfulness if you stand in it; it's why I followed it through a large crowded international airport to see where it led. If there are enlightened beings, beings who stand in the light and who yet walk this earth, that is the closest I have ever been to one. The peace and joyfulness and the light that accompanies such a being is quite palpable and is no figment of anyone's imagination. Is it possible for any being to stand in and emanate the light and behave like a complete jerk? Not that yellow/orange/gold light, no, because it goes through them and they are part of it. But any jerk can put on a costume and a mask and stand in a spotlight and gather a fan club and try to do an impersonation of the real thing... and some people might actually be fooled.
Your post was read with a smile, thanks @aura. I have also had the great good fortune of meeting many people with said light. Not physically as you describe it but an unmistakeable, completely undeniable light of being... This is something completely different -- a joyousness, a ... I could not describe it. One was an old Thai Forest Ajahn who spoke of things many people would consider completely weird (and there we were, a bunch of international and British folk listening like he was talking about something as ordinary as poppies), and another is my teacher himself. In their presence and just having met them, you cannot not be changed no matter. I have also met others online who have had this effect.. and I have had enough .. revelations and been through enough different things to not deny the .. potentiality that you point to. Light and joy indeed..of course. Thanks again for sharing!
Is it possible for any being to stand in and emanate the light and behave like a complete jerk? Not that yellow/orange/gold light, no, because it goes through them and they are part of it. But any jerk can put on a costume and a mask and stand in a spotlight and gather a fan club and try to do an impersonation of the real thing... and some people might actually be fooled.
If they are teachers, they can act in different ways, but their being is and lives as that IMO. We talked of different methods before but that is not so important here. As to the fakes, yes how sad, for them -- but much more (in my eyes) for those that follow their examples, and so called 'teachings'
I have also had the great good fortune of meeting many people with said light. Not physically as you describe it but an unmistakeable, completely undeniable light of being... This is something completely different -- a joyousness, a ... I could not describe it. One was an old Thai Forest Ajahn who spoke of things many people would consider completely weird (and there we were, a bunch of international and British folk listening like he was talking about something as ordinary as poppies)
Oh yes, many have the light, the joyousness... you see it in them when you meet them, talk to them, or just in passing. Yes, as ordinary as wildflowers. What was not ordinary was to see it physically, moving, (around a corner!) and halfway across an airport with one's back turned. When I finally caught up to them... he was just this little old ageless ordinary looking monk, but he was not like any other monk I've ever seen. His light blessed everyone and everything he passed by, and it was a visible, tangible, phenomenon. metta Aura
I have also had the great good fortune of meeting many people with said light. Not physically as you describe it but an unmistakeable, completely undeniable light of being... This is something completely different -- a joyousness, a ... I could not describe it. One was an old Thai Forest Ajahn who spoke of things many people would consider completely weird (and there we were, a bunch of international and British folk listening like he was talking about something as ordinary as poppies)
Oh yes, many have the light, the joyousness... you see it in them when you meet them, talk to them, or just in passing. Yes, as ordinary as wildflowers. What was not ordinary was to see it physically, moving, (around a corner!) and halfway across an airport with one's back turned. When I finally caught up to them... he was just this little old ageless ordinary looking monk, but he was not like any other monk I've ever seen. His light blessed everyone and everything he passed by, and it was a visible, tangible, phenomenon. metta Aura
I'm aware of phenomena..my teacher also looks ageless, and very loveable.
@Abu Jeffrey and I were talking about discernment, not suspicion and distrust. That was pretty clear. It sounds like you may have misunderstood my post.
he says something about how he is the living proof that it is possible to be aharant and a jerk.
That guy sounds like a real fake though so I am not sure that qualifies..
The issue isn't just about self-proclaimed enlightened beings who use "skillful means" as a smokescreen for inappropriate behavior. It's about walking the talk, following the precepts, practicing right speech, rather than abusive speech. "Do as I say, not as I do" is not the method of a truly enlightened being. Enlightenment, mindfulness, virtue, right speech, loving-kindness and compassion are a package deal. Those who are selective, and enjoy the fame and adoring students, but leave behind the practice of discipline and all the rest are only revealing themselves to be false gurus.
if anything, Daniel has only ever made friends and i never see any teachers say anything bad about the guy.
This is interesting. He, himself, is a teacher who said something bad about himself. So what are we to make of that?
This is interesting. He, himself, is a teacher who said something bad about himself. So what are we to make of that?
that enlightenment, without the stories, is not something magical that turn people into some kind of lovey huggy unicorn?
Ajahn Brahm say all kind of stuff about himself as well, plus many hilarious jokes that could certainly be offending to many.
For Floating Abu: About Jack Kornfield, you think he is full of it as well?
Vincent Horn is now a meditation teacher, he got the permission to teach from Jack Kornfield himself after many years of practicing under him. But mr Horn was also a student of mr Ingram and got the permission to teach from him as well. Don't you think that if mr Ingram was full of it like you believe, mr Horn and so many other students of mr Ingram, who many have experiences with teachers from around the world, would be ringing some bells instead of praising the benefits they have received from mr Ingram's teaching?
"Vincent and Emily are a dynamic team. As community dharma leaders they bring years of committed meditation practice rooted in the Thai Forest tradition. Both Vincent and Emily have experience helping people find their path of awakening, and a passion for the embodiment of Buddhist wisdom. We have been guiding their practice closely, including on several long retreats. We feel confident that their depth of practice and sincerity will be a great asset as they share the dharma with others. It is a pleasure to encourage and support their teaching."
@patbb, I listened to the podcast. What the speaker says is that while struggling through difficult stages of insight practice, he became an arrogant jerk, which he said was one of the potential pitfalls of a certain stage. He realized his mistake, however, and adjusted his practice. Whether or not he is an arhat now, after completing all the stages of practice to achieve Awakening, is open for debate. But he was not an arhat when he was working through the stages of stream entry, etc., which is when his "jerk phase" happened. He's not a jerk now, because he's overcome those tendencies. I would say he's someone who is living proof that correct practice eliminates the motives behind arrogant and other egoic behavior, so that type of behavior is impossible for someone who has realized Nirvana.
@patbb, I listened to the podcast. What the speaker says is that while struggling through difficult stages of insight practice, he became an arrogant jerk, which he said was one of the potential pitfalls of a certain stage. He realized his mistake, however, and adjusted his practice. Whether or not he is an arhat now, after completing all the stages of practice to achieve Awakening, is open for debate. But he was not an arhat when he was working through the stages of stream entry, etc., which is when his "jerk phase" happened. He's not a jerk now, because he's overcome those tendencies. I would say he's someone who is living proof that correct practice eliminates the motives behind arrogant and other egoic behavior, so that type of behavior is impossible for someone who has realized Nirvana.
Daniel Ingram's writings are .. at the most basic level, incorrect and misleading. They have so many incorrect representations and other disassociated jumbles in them that I would not know where to start in dissecting it effectively. It sounds more like he has tried to put together a raft of concoctions and formulae he has picked up from reading various books/spiritual themes and tries to portray this as his theory (but it is worse than that, because he appears to have no actual comprehension of what he is talking about and many of his points are certainly inconsistent with the Buddhist teachings on many accounts)
However, frankly, his writings seem so elementary and easy to discard that I do not believe they, and he himself are worth the effort of detailed dissection and explanation. If people really cannot figure that out on their own, then they are certainly free to buy his books and line his pockets.
patbb - I respect you, but your suggestion that by Kornfield supporting Horn through a community character reference, infers that he also approves of Ingram and FURTHER lays weight to your claim that "no" Buddhist teachers speak poorly of him, does not seem accurate at all I'm afraid.
I feel that Ingram does no genuine service to the Buddhist community, I feel in his attempts at claiming status to what he does not have, and in talking about terms he has no experiential insight into, in jumbling together concepts and frameworks in a mismatched rehash, and basically posing as a good expert where he is not - well perhaps I do see his potential in the "Self Help" section..He does no favours by his works and representations. Perhaps it would have been more appreciated if he was someone who had a taste of genuine practice and understanding, but he most definitely does not and I would recommend those who are still open to find another teacher.
And finally again, really, his mistakes and ramblings are so elementary, they are almost laughable but since (some) people seem to take them seriously, then in this case, I have responded. I can see why he appeals since he really does the common man approach tone, but if he was more honest, he would stay in the Self-Help and Opinion section. Naturally, he has books to sell though and a reputation to hopefully establish for himself.
Generally if someone ascribes themselve a high self proclaimed status such as Arhant,Bodhisattva, Tulku or whatever without any recognition it will be fair to say in most of the cases their work will be poor and they use a title to gain respectability rather then let their work speak for itself.
you do realize he's a authorized teacher in the theravadin tradition right?
at the most basic level, incorrect and misleading.
what is incorrect?
inconsistent with the Buddhist teachings
what is inconsistent with the Buddhist teaching?
because he appears to have no actual comprehension of what he is talking about
again, authorized teacher in the theravadin mahasi tradition. Do you realize how difficult this is to achieve? How many long and ridiculously difficult retreats you have attend? There is no faking this stuff, it is very precise knowledge that arise from experiencing the things yourself.
his writings seem so elementary and easy to discard
what is so elementary and easy to dismiss?
I respect you
i respect you as well, but not this poorly tough out bash.
You make many very serious claims with zero arguments backing them.
This is particularly important since I believe mr Daniel fill a void that was there before. Presenting the same situation from a different point of view which may help many to be a able to see the whole picture.
People praising him and the help they received from his free book are abundant, people claiming it save them years of hard work etc... Please try to find some respected teachers saying anything bad about him, then we can begin to discuss (not interested in followers of other people bashing him, since the "my team is the best" mentality is very common for beginner and intermediate meditators)
I suspect the reason for your urge to bash him with what seem to be an empty bag of arguments is because he present an image of enlightenment, and an image of the path that doesn't match the picture you have of it in your imagination. Like a Christian getting angry at someone arguing that reality may be different than what he imagine it to be.
@patbb and Abu: I'm enjoying your discussion of Ingram. He was interesting and impressive in the podcast, it made me want to read his book. I'd never heard of him before. My impression is that he takes years worth of teachings and practices, and encapsulates them without neglecting detail. Eastern teachers' teaching style can be excruciatingly slow and repetitious (we had a boredom thread on this topic once). A Western teacher like Ingram may appeal to Western practitioners who do better with an accelerated approach. But, what do I know? I've only heard one podcast. He seems bright, though.
When it comes to teachers and students... given the wide variety of teachers and students, and the various issues they present one another... who can say what sort of teacher any given student might need at any given time?
Even the most corrupt of all false gurus might be the very best teacher of all... for providing a very valuable lesson on the wisdom of not following false gurus! Who can say? No one can say.
When all of life is your teacher the most important question of all becomes what one seeks to learn, and the greatest teacher of all, is the one who helps you to learn it.
Truly, when the student is ready the teacher appears. In the meantime, however... in the gameshow of life, until they ring that final gong: "It's time for our next contestant..."
I respect Kornfield for the strong stand he's taken on teacher misconduct.
There are a lot of vulnerable people out there. We shouldn't be encouraging them to completely suspend their critical thinking skills. In fact, judging by some of the stories I've heard, some people need encouragement to build up some defenses, where they have none.
Hi, ajnast4r All I know is that he was a member of the group of Western Dharma leaders to meet with the Dalai Lama to discuss abuse by teachers, way back around 1993, and at his Spirit Rock Dharma Center he has strict rules governing teacher behavior. I think he disrobed for reasons unrelated to this issue, I don't know his motives for that. Maybe he says in one of his books. http://www.spiritrock.org/page.aspx?pid=315 for Teacher Code of Ethics
some of what he said there is very suspect to me. i'm not a sutta expert by any means but he said something to the effect of: the Buddha said in the highest jnahas he couldn't find relief from the suffering caused by the illness that was killing him.
the whole idea that the Buddha suffered after his Enlightenment is directly opposed to the 3rd Noble Truth.
Please try to find some respected teachers saying anything bad about him, then we can begin to discuss (not interested in followers of other people bashing him, since the "my team is the best" mentality is very common for beginner and intermediate meditators)
I suspect the reason for your urge to bash him with what seem to be an empty bag of arguments is because he present an image of enlightenment, and an image of the path that doesn't match the picture you have of it in your imagination. Like a Christian getting angry at someone arguing that reality may be different than what he imagine it to be.
Dear patbb, and other friends,
Ajahn Sumedho, the Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh etc have never as far as I have seen gone on record criticising any teacher. Even the famous Geshe Roach whom was widely discredited in the Tibetan schools was not publicly criticised or commented about in the Tibetan school especially by the senior leaders. Today he still "teaches" as I understand despite a tenuous record and grounds. It seems to be just the general ethos and if serious teachers really went around criticising and critiquing others, it would be messy and to be honest best steered clear of. It is also impossible, I think, to control what goes in the world and charlatans are a dime a dozen. There is always someone who wants to follow someone else, no matter whom or where. I am sure every good teacher already knows this, and accepts and works within their own systems. That, and they themself have finite energy so I assume they focus just on their own work and deeds. And probably, practice.
I don't "attack" him because he doesn't fit my image, but because my impression of what he says is: it may appear OK on the surface to those whom like delivered packages of work/presentation and/or are trying to figure out practice themself - but in substance it seems to be more a mismatched and rehashed jumble of a lot of different ethoses and concepts he has picked up, espouses on, but seems to have very little experiential/genuine comprehension of. In terms of catch phrases, I do believe he has enough to get certain peoples' attention. But in terms of practice reality, I would recommend against it personally.
I speak up because I feel that he is a poor representation of Buddhist literature for those who are interested in its practice. And as I said, I would not recommend his works.
I would agree if you criticise me on preferring systems and guidance that I feel are more in line with the outcomes, insights and spirit of how the Buddha taught.
That in itself is wide open to criticism and of course I am but one measly writer on the internet - another anonymous face with a voice - so I am happy for you to dismiss my views entirely and believe your own reasons for my motivations.
After all you could be right, and I, completely wrong. That is fine also if it is true.
Also, I recognise in advance that without the detailed analysis, scripture comparison, quote versus quote versus teaching of respected teachers, this post and the other remains only a personal aspersion. Therefore, it is weaker.
I do have various points but if I were to go ahead and write a proper, substantive analysis I would have to spend time and effort on a person and writings I feel has little credibility or genuineness behind it in the first place. And I am just not interested enough in him, and I am happy if he really does for some reason help another, but I would steer clear myself particulary if he is the only source of practice one uses, with the potential to confuse people (at least if it is regards to Buddhist practice).
The argument that he has not had any teachers criticise him as representing validity on his part though is not very valid for the reasons outlined above - and the Kornfield community reference via another gentlemen is tenuous at best - if applicable at all. I will never make a statement though that there is one way to the genuine outcomes so Good Luck to all those seeking.
I would agree with aura as s/he sees it and says it in the immediate post above.
When it comes to teachers and students... given the wide variety of teachers and students, and the various issues they present one another... who can say what sort of teacher any given student might need at any given time?
Even the most corrupt of all false gurus might be the very best teacher of all... for providing a very valuable lesson on the wisdom of not following false gurus! Who can say? No one can say.
When all of life is your teacher the most important question of all becomes what one seeks to learn, and the greatest teacher of all, is the one who helps you to learn it.
Truly, when the student is ready the teacher appears. In the meantime, however... in the gameshow of life, until they ring that final gong: "It's time for our next contestant..."
I spent a lot of time thinking about this last night & I felt this important enough to comment on again in hopes that you or someone else who is following Daniel Ingrim and the like would be able to comment. Now these my be my errors in thinking & understanding so I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
A few main points he makes during this talk are:
1. Arahats continue to make unskilful choices
2. Arahats continue behind closed doors to have neurotic behavior, negative mental states & suffering aka still have mental defilement
3. The Buddha suffered at various point after his enlightenment and at his death.
These all seem to be diametrically opposed to the Buddhas own teachings on what Enlightenment and Arahatship is and what it means. Saying the Buddha said he suffered or that suffering still existed in the mind of the Buddha after his Awakening is 100% diametrically opposed to more or less the most important core teaching of the Buddha... that suffering can be permanently ended and that he had achieved this, re: 3rd Noble Truth.
"There is such a criterion, monks, whereby a monk... could affirm the attainment of enlightenment... What is that method?
"In this, monks, a monk seeing an object with the eye recognizes within himself the presence of lust, hatred or delusion, knowing 'Lust, hatred or delusion is present in me,' or he recognizes the absence of these things, knowing 'There is no lust, hatred or delusion present in me.' Now, monks, as regards that recognition of the presence or absence of these things within him, are these matters to be perceived by faith, by persuasion, by inclination, by rational speculation, by delight in views and theories?"
"Are not these matters to be perceived by the eye of wisdom?"[5]
"Indeed, Lord."
"Then, monks, this is the criterion whereby a monk, apart from faith, apart from persuasion, apart from inclination, apart from rational speculation, apart from delight in views and theories, could affirm the attainment of enlightenment: 'Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been accomplished, what was to be done is done, there is no further living in this world.'"
"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.
"[1] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to intentionally deprive a living being of life. [2] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to take, in the manner of stealing, what is not given. [3] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse. [4] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to tell a conscious lie. [5] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to consume stored-up sensual things as he did before, when he was a householder.
"[6] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on desire. [7] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on aversion. [8] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on fear. [9] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on delusion.
I mean if you just look these topics up in the Suttas on access to insight they basically are opposed to everything Mr Ingram is saying about what enlightenment is & what an enlightened person is like.
I mean if you just look these topics up in the Suttas on access to insight they basically are opposed to everything Mr Ingram is saying about what enlightenment is & what an enlightened person is like.
how so?
example: It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on aversion.
this only mean that he will recognize the aversion for what it is. it doesn't mean that he wont feel aversion. If it did mean he wouldn't feel any aversion anymore, then it would have been phrased as follow:
It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to feel aversion.
But, i'm not enlighten. I have some very valuable experiences with deep meditation but am not even a stream winner yet. So im not competent to answer this question, i can only hypothesize. I suggest you take this last post and ask it directly in Mr Ingram forum where you will receive very intelligent and educated answers, from very generous and experienced people who probably have already considered such question. i would assume this kind of questions must be fairly common over there. I would be curious to read their answer as well.
Comments
i think it is a safe measure to see if an enlightened being has a softness to them. it may not be apparent, but there are soft sides to hard objects as well =].
on a forum though and even in zen there isn't much emphasis on the heart. sure we glance over compassion and how it's important, but it is mostly meditation and insight.
when we get into the heart, we get into a lot of interesting things that honestly i believe most people do not want to deal with.
jack kornfield agrees that the heart's awakening is enlightenments maturity.
just to poke fun. i believe or rather i have a theory that this is head orientated buddhism is the expression of men. men do not know how to love, they are taught how to lust.
as i've been getting older (23 years of age LOL) i have been finding that men express their love quite differently than women do. not to say that women are completely different but we do express it differently.
total acceptance is how we express love. this love moves through kindness. =]
food for thought.
i am basing my conclusions on this kenneth folks 7 stages of enlightenment.
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Kenneth Folk
which is different from the traditional buddhist stages.
the arhat in buddhism is the complete end of the path for the Theravada traditions.
7 stages is catchy and I am sure he does well from it, but there is really no need IMO. (IMO)
As to Zen, we teach right to the heart, right straight in - but it's not always evident. But to imagine it was missing is off mark IMO ..
IOW there is no way that we can avoid matters of the heart if we really practice Zen...but I have been very fortunate with good guides, friends and teachers so perhaps I speak from that bias only, and it is my understanding that not every one has had these encounterances..
With bext wishes, (young one!
Abu
PS On Buddhist models as such, it is better not to compare IMO. Each Buddhist system has been set up for a particular reason and has its own context. Thus to look and try to blend/understand different models is not necessary.
Rather if one digs, one can dig the deep hole rather than review the multitude. Then we can all enjoy ourself at the Earth's core. At that stage, no stages need apply - we can certainly be aware of them but we also have enough faith and trust to know that only our practice is most important, and what will unfold, will unfold.
As to the new age relays, I am not so akin to them, what is there is already well enough from all our ancestors and I have read enough of the other presentations to find fundamental aspects missing. I have not read the link you refer to.
Thanks as always for your inquiry, comments, your presence here, and shine.
An enlightened being doesn't worry about what other people are like. only an unenlightened being worries about what other people are like.
If your view differs, I'd like to know where you think I'm incorrect, instead of simply posting a dismissive line like that.
That assumes I would believe that you know what an enlightened being worries or does not worry about and a (so called) unenlightened person worries or does not worry about.
Which I do not - so I will end this line here, with your forgiveness.
Abu
Those who worship them go to hell as a result."
Ornament For the Essence, Manjushrikirti
But I don't believe the Buddha ever sugar-coated his teachings, or dressed them up with embellishments or elaborations.
He would never tell a toddler there's no santa claus...my guess is he would remain silent...
No?
Anyway thankyou one and all for your time and input and discussion.
Abu
Of course not. However, suffering is not just a "relative truth", it is an absolute one.
You wrote that people can misapprehend what an enlightened being might say to them, so much that they perceive a complete jerk and asshole. And yet, you write that it goes without saying that an enlightened being acts skillfully. This apparent contradiction could be resolved if, for instance, an enlightened being might intentionally act like a complete jerk and asshole. This is traditionally called "expedient means" I believe.
Are you a believer in the expedient means thang?
The perception of whether an enlightened being is or isn't being a jerk or @$$hole, rests with the perceiver, who judges the matter with a clouded, deluded mind.
I don't believe I have ever met an enlightened being, therefore all the jerks and @$$holes I have met, have as far as I'm aware, are really jerks and @$$holes.
And you know what?
That's STILL my perception....
The teaching of buddhism is that we have a faculty of discernment. And you have to trust that because otherwise you have no hope. At the same time our own confusion means we can be wrong at times.
I would say don't hold company with who you consider an asshole because it would harm you. At the same time keep an open mind; an enemy can become a friend in an instant and vice versa.
If you discount your own discernment or gut feelings, those little red flags that pop up occasionally, you're signing up for major vulnerability. Don't let anyone talk you into taking off and throwing away your thinking cap.
It turned out to be a saffron-robed monk who apparently spoke no English, appeared to be endlessly curious about and fascinated by everything at the airport, and who was barely visible through and dwarfed by a small entourage of very attentive students and translators. I've no idea who he was. Physically he looked like an ordinary Buddhist monk, but he was no ordinary Buddhist monk and no ordinary human being; not with light that could fill up that much of a crowded airport.
The light does give one a feeling of peace and joyfulness if you stand in it; it's why I followed it through a large crowded international airport to see where it led. If there are enlightened beings, beings who stand in the light and who yet walk this earth, that is the closest I have ever been to one. The peace and joyfulness and the light that accompanies such a being is quite palpable and is no figment of anyone's imagination.
Is it possible for any being to stand in and emanate the light and behave like a complete jerk? Not that yellow/orange/gold light, no, because it goes through them and they are part of it. But any jerk can put on a costume and a mask and stand in a spotlight and gather a fan club and try to do an impersonation of the real thing...
and some people might actually be fooled.
A real teacher may test the student but it is up to the good fortune and karma of a student to be under the wings of a real and genuine, as opposed to a masquerade - and if it were so that one was in the presence of a masqueraded mask one could not necessarily be very safe in their actions. To say that it is the perceiver's problem in that instance may not be appropriate. To say that it is the perceiver's ego in the case of the former may be more apt. But which is which - that is the challenge for most students.
Regardless, the problem with generalisations - especially of this nature: 'It is about the perceiver with their deluded mind' is that they are not quite complete IMO.
Your initial argument that an elightened being tells it "as it is", is a presupposition of yours on how (so called) enlightened beings act or do not. Which, as I explained, I do not subscribe to.
And at the end of the day as I said one's practice is the golden light that will reveal truth from falsity, and the good hearted from those that still need fine tuning. Which is why so much of the encouragement is to watch ourself I guess. :wave:
I have also had the great good fortune of meeting many people with said light. Not physically as you describe it but an unmistakeable, completely undeniable light of being... This is something completely different -- a joyousness, a ... I could not describe it. One was an old Thai Forest Ajahn who spoke of things many people would consider completely weird (and there we were, a bunch of international and British folk listening like he was talking about something as ordinary as poppies), and another is my teacher himself. In their presence and just having met them, you cannot not be changed no matter. I have also met others online who have had this effect.. and I have had enough .. revelations and been through enough different things to not deny the .. potentiality that you point to. Light and joy indeed..of course. Thanks again for sharing!
Best wishes,
Abu
Gassho.
http://personallifemedia.com/podcasts/236-buddhist-geeks/episodes/42637-unusually-hardcore-dharma/play
where he says something about how he is the living proof that it is possible to be aharant and a jerk.
What was not ordinary was to see it physically, moving, (around a corner!) and halfway across an airport with one's back turned. When I finally caught up to them... he was just this little old ageless ordinary looking monk, but he was not like any other monk I've ever seen. His light blessed everyone and everything he passed by, and it was a visible, tangible, phenomenon.
metta
Aura
Anyway, thanks for the discussion.
Metta.
Abu
if anything, Daniel has only ever made friends and i never see any teachers say anything bad about the guy.
Ajahn Brahm say all kind of stuff about himself as well, plus many hilarious jokes that could certainly be offending to many.
For Floating Abu:
About Jack Kornfield, you think he is full of it as well?
Vincent Horn is now a meditation teacher, he got the permission to teach from Jack Kornfield himself after many years of practicing under him.
But mr Horn was also a student of mr Ingram and got the permission to teach from him as well.
Don't you think that if mr Ingram was full of it like you believe, mr Horn and so many other students of mr Ingram, who many have experiences with teachers from around the world, would be ringing some bells instead of praising the benefits they have received from mr Ingram's teaching?
Good to see you.
Daniel Ingram's writings are .. at the most basic level, incorrect and misleading. They have so many incorrect representations and other disassociated jumbles in them that I would not know where to start in dissecting it effectively. It sounds more like he has tried to put together a raft of concoctions and formulae he has picked up from reading various books/spiritual themes and tries to portray this as his theory (but it is worse than that, because he appears to have no actual comprehension of what he is talking about and many of his points are certainly inconsistent with the Buddhist teachings on many accounts)
However, frankly, his writings seem so elementary and easy to discard that I do not believe they, and he himself are worth the effort of detailed dissection and explanation. If people really cannot figure that out on their own, then they are certainly free to buy his books and line his pockets.
patbb - I respect you, but your suggestion that by Kornfield supporting Horn through a community character reference, infers that he also approves of Ingram and FURTHER lays weight to your claim that "no" Buddhist teachers speak poorly of him, does not seem accurate at all I'm afraid.
I feel that Ingram does no genuine service to the Buddhist community, I feel in his attempts at claiming status to what he does not have, and in talking about terms he has no experiential insight into, in jumbling together concepts and frameworks in a mismatched rehash, and basically posing as a good expert where he is not - well perhaps I do see his potential in the "Self Help" section..He does no favours by his works and representations. Perhaps it would have been more appreciated if he was someone who had a taste of genuine practice and understanding, but he most definitely does not and I would recommend those who are still open to find another teacher.
And finally again, really, his mistakes and ramblings are so elementary, they are almost laughable but since (some) people seem to take them seriously, then in this case, I have responded. I can see why he appeals since he really does the common man approach tone, but if he was more honest, he would stay in the Self-Help and Opinion section. Naturally, he has books to sell though and a reputation to hopefully establish for himself.
Best wishes,
Abu
There is no faking this stuff, it is very precise knowledge that arise from experiencing the things yourself. what is so elementary and easy to dismiss? i respect you as well, but not this poorly tough out bash.
You make many very serious claims with zero arguments backing them.
This is particularly important since I believe mr Daniel fill a void that was there before. Presenting the same situation from a different point of view which may help many to be a able to see the whole picture.
People praising him and the help they received from his free book are abundant, people claiming it save them years of hard work etc...
Please try to find some respected teachers saying anything bad about him, then we can begin to discuss (not interested in followers of other people bashing him, since the "my team is the best" mentality is very common for beginner and intermediate meditators)
I suspect the reason for your urge to bash him with what seem to be an empty bag of arguments is because he present an image of enlightenment, and an image of the path that doesn't match the picture you have of it in your imagination.
Like a Christian getting angry at someone arguing that reality may be different than what he imagine it to be.
listen to this podcast and it may change your point of view a bit if your main concern is the claims to enlightenment.
http://personallifemedia.com/podcasts/236-buddhist-geeks/episodes/3717-enlightened/play
it's only 10 minutes.
(this was part 2 of 3 part interview.
part 1 : you can do it
http://personallifemedia.com/podcasts/236-buddhist-geeks/episodes/3720-do/play
part 3: http://personallifemedia.com/podcasts/236-buddhist-geeks/episodes/3715-models/play
cheers
given the wide variety of teachers and students,
and the various issues they present one another...
who can say what sort of teacher any given student might need at any given time?
Even the most corrupt of all false gurus
might be the very best teacher of all...
for providing a very valuable lesson
on the wisdom of not following false gurus!
Who can say?
No one can say.
When all of life is your teacher
the most important question of all
becomes what one seeks to learn,
and the greatest teacher of all,
is the one who helps you to learn it.
Truly, when the student is ready the teacher appears.
In the meantime, however...
in the gameshow of life, until they ring that final gong:
"It's time for our next contestant..."
There are a lot of vulnerable people out there. We shouldn't be encouraging them to completely suspend their critical thinking skills. In fact, judging by some of the stories I've heard, some people need encouragement to build up some defenses, where they have none.
http://www.spiritrock.org/page.aspx?pid=315 for Teacher Code of Ethics
the whole idea that the Buddha suffered after his Enlightenment is directly opposed to the 3rd Noble Truth.
Ajahn Sumedho, the Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh etc have never as far as I have seen gone on record criticising any teacher. Even the famous Geshe Roach whom was widely discredited in the Tibetan schools was not publicly criticised or commented about in the Tibetan school especially by the senior leaders. Today he still "teaches" as I understand despite a tenuous record and grounds. It seems to be just the general ethos and if serious teachers really went around criticising and critiquing others, it would be messy and to be honest best steered clear of. It is also impossible, I think, to control what goes in the world and charlatans are a dime a dozen. There is always someone who wants to follow someone else, no matter whom or where. I am sure every good teacher already knows this, and accepts and works within their own systems. That, and they themself have finite energy so I assume they focus just on their own work and deeds. And probably, practice.
I don't "attack" him because he doesn't fit my image, but because my impression of what he says is: it may appear OK on the surface to those whom like delivered packages of work/presentation and/or are trying to figure out practice themself - but in substance it seems to be more a mismatched and rehashed jumble of a lot of different ethoses and concepts he has picked up, espouses on, but seems to have very little experiential/genuine comprehension of. In terms of catch phrases, I do believe he has enough to get certain peoples' attention. But in terms of practice reality, I would recommend against it personally.
I speak up because I feel that he is a poor representation of Buddhist literature for those who are interested in its practice. And as I said, I would not recommend his works.
I would agree if you criticise me on preferring systems and guidance that I feel are more in line with the outcomes, insights and spirit of how the Buddha taught.
That in itself is wide open to criticism and of course I am but one measly writer on the internet - another anonymous face with a voice - so I am happy for you to dismiss my views entirely and believe your own reasons for my motivations.
After all you could be right, and I, completely wrong. That is fine also if it is true.
Also, I recognise in advance that without the detailed analysis, scripture comparison, quote versus quote versus teaching of respected teachers, this post and the other remains only a personal aspersion. Therefore, it is weaker.
I do have various points but if I were to go ahead and write a proper, substantive analysis I would have to spend time and effort on a person and writings I feel has little credibility or genuineness behind it in the first place. And I am just not interested enough in him, and I am happy if he really does for some reason help another, but I would steer clear myself particulary if he is the only source of practice one uses, with the potential to confuse people (at least if it is regards to Buddhist practice).
The argument that he has not had any teachers criticise him as representing validity on his part though is not very valid for the reasons outlined above - and the Kornfield community reference via another gentlemen is tenuous at best - if applicable at all. I will never make a statement though that there is one way to the genuine outcomes so Good Luck to all those seeking.
I would agree with aura as s/he sees it and says it in the immediate post above.
@pattb, discussed in friendship - FWIW.
_/\_
Abu
I agree. Thanks for your contribution.
Curious: What nationality was the monk you saw?
I spent a lot of time thinking about this last night & I felt this important enough to comment on again in hopes that you or someone else who is following Daniel Ingrim and the like would be able to comment. Now these my be my errors in thinking & understanding so I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
A few main points he makes during this talk are:
1. Arahats continue to make unskilful choices
2. Arahats continue behind closed doors to have neurotic behavior, negative mental states & suffering aka still have mental defilement
3. The Buddha suffered at various point after his enlightenment and at his death.
These all seem to be diametrically opposed to the Buddhas own teachings on what Enlightenment and Arahatship is and what it means. Saying the Buddha said he suffered or that suffering still existed in the mind of the Buddha after his Awakening is 100% diametrically opposed to more or less the most important core teaching of the Buddha... that suffering can be permanently ended and that he had achieved this, re: 3rd Noble Truth.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.152.wlsh.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.152.wlsh.html
I mean if you just look these topics up in the Suttas on access to insight they basically are opposed to everything Mr Ingram is saying about what enlightenment is & what an enlightened person is like.
example:
It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on aversion.
this only mean that he will recognize the aversion for what it is.
it doesn't mean that he wont feel aversion.
If it did mean he wouldn't feel any aversion anymore, then it would have been phrased as follow:
It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to feel aversion.
But, i'm not enlighten.
I have some very valuable experiences with deep meditation but am not even a stream winner yet. So im not competent to answer this question, i can only hypothesize.
I suggest you take this last post and ask it directly in Mr Ingram forum where you will receive very intelligent and educated answers, from very generous and experienced people who probably have already considered such question. i would assume this kind of questions must be fairly common over there.
I would be curious to read their answer as well.