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

[tiltbillings]

Bhante Dhammanando,

The point I am trying to make is in the hypothetical case of a healthy arahat (monk or not), being able or unable to take a glass of water, with just a single molecule of Xanax's active ingredient, in a life or death situation, unrelated to any need of Xanax.

I am trying to reduce to the absurd the notion that an arahat is absolutely incapable of breaking the precept that relates to taking intoxicants. I believe it to be extremely unlikely, but not an inviolable law, as if it is the gravitational force. And if it is not impossible for an arahat to drink the above mentioned water, then this subject can be discussed in a different manner. At which exact number of mollecules would an arahat refuse to drink the water. Water with 2 mollecules? 3? 10? 100? 99?

A glass of water with one molecule of Xanax is not an intoxicant. Thus your Xanax business is silly. Now, why don't you ask if an arahant with sacrifice her life for another by taking an OD of heroin? If the answer is yes, it still does not support your support for Ingram's contention that an arahant can willfully kill another living being or would willfully do drugs, an expression (used by Ingram) that implies doing drugs for recreational purposes.

[Mkoll]

It may be the simplest explanation, but it's not true.

So you say. But the difference in your behavior in this thread compared to all the other threads I've seen you post in is remarkable. I don't think I've ever seen you throw around accusations in any other thread nor have I seen you post with such frequency over a short period of time in any other thread. This leads me to conclude that this subject is especially important to you. Idolization is the simplest and most reasonable explanation for what's happening considering this thread is about an (in)famous person.

I've idolized people before only to look upon them less favorably later. And of course while idolizing them I would never admit to myself that I was, i.e. it was subconscious. Heck, I can still catch myself doing that these days if I start building up a fairy tale in my mind about someone. I'm not ashamed to admit that. I think many human beings have similar experiences.

I realise I didn't textualy said it, but yes, I read suttas years and years before I even considered Ingram.

Thanks for answering my question.

You said: "The difference is that my guess supported by an interpretation of the suttas with no ulterior motive other than understanding them." I tried to explain why this is as much your motivation as it is mine. If my argument is collored by the belief in the possibility of Ingram being an arahat, yours is collored by a strong aversion that, a while back, impeded you to even read my posts with due consideration.

I've already told you that I read your posts carefully but you continue to accuse me of lying about it. I'm not sure what else I can say other than that perhaps you're confusing "oh that guy disagrees with me" with "oh that guy isn't carefully reading what I'm writing."

And you are still making character evaluations. You are dealing with me as if I have an evil intention of distorting the dhamma. Which makes no sense at all.

You're absolutely right: that makes no sense at all because it's completely false. I haven't once thought that of you or even of Ingram. I think that you and Ingram honestly believe what you're saying is true, correct and good.

I do not deny that, because it is accurate. And, imo, also unavoidable from a strictly logical, or philosophical point of view. The degree to which this is relevant to the arahat is an interesting question. But not if you phrase it as an arahat being insecure of his liberation.

I don't think an arahant is insecure of his liberation. But I also think Ingram is not an arahant and I think he is uncertain about his "liberation." And given that he's open to the possibility that he's not "liberated," so does he.

[chownah]

Is all the talk about Ingram not being sure of his attainments based on one remark which was made one time? I have only seen the one reference concerning this issue and frankly what I made of it was that he was speaking theoretically with an issue which other people might raise....but I wasn't really reading it carefully so I might be wrong about that. Anyway....it seems a bit much to make such a big deal about one comment made one time....if he has repeatedly commented that he is unsure of his attainments then it would be more of an issue I think.
chownah

[Mkoll]

Is all the talk about Ingram not being sure of his attainments based on one remark which was made one time? I have only seen the one reference concerning this issue and frankly what I made of it was that he was speaking theoretically with an issue which other people might raise....but I wasn't really reading it carefully so I might be wrong about that. Anyway....it seems a bit much to make such a big deal about one comment made one time....if he has repeatedly commented that he is unsure of his attainments then it would be more of an issue I think.
chownah

You don't have to read it. Watch and hear him in the interview that I posted.

[Mkoll]

A robotic, emotionaly apathetic arahat that must be the same in every instance doesn't fit with the enormous organic richness of the human experience.

So, you are saying that you need some of that good old greed, hatred, and delusion to not have a "A robotic, emotionaly apathetic arahat ?"

Hah! I read this in an amazon review of Ingram's book:

The canonical texts are very clear where the bar of arahantship is, the author admitted himself that he is nowhere near the bar, and he claims to have attained arahantship by drastically lowering the bar for himself. Great job! For example, according to canonical texts, an arahant is someone with perfect mastery over emotions (mainly, an arahant no longer has sensual desires nor ill-will). Author's reasoning for calling himself an arahant without having achieved emotional master is a long, angry rant that basically summarizes to:

1. Author is an arahant.
2. Author is nowhere near emotional mastery.
3. Therefore, emotional mastery must not be part of being an arahant.

I think that about sums up the argument you're responding to.

[chownah]

Is all the talk about Ingram not being sure of his attainments based on one remark which was made one time? I have only seen the one reference concerning this issue and frankly what I made of it was that he was speaking theoretically with an issue which other people might raise....but I wasn't really reading it carefully so I might be wrong about that. Anyway....it seems a bit much to make such a big deal about one comment made one time....if he has repeatedly commented that he is unsure of his attainments then it would be more of an issue I think.
chownah

You don't have to read it. Watch and hear him in the interview that I posted.

So, is this interview the only time he made this kind of comment? This is the one I read about here on this thread. Can you tell me which page the link is on so I can watch the video....and at about what time in the video is the comment made?
chownah

[SamKR]

'An essay about arahats' - http://www.interactivebuddha.com/arahats.shtml"

Does he still maintain that he is an "Arahat"? The above link/page has been edited, and his website now mentions nothing about him being an "Arahat", although he still mentions that he is enlightened.
...

On his personal page at Dharma Overground he has said the following:

I make the following claims to attainments:

•I am an arahat, having attained that in April, 2003.
•I have mastery of the samatha jhanas, including Pure Land One and Pure Land Two, The Watcher, and Nirodha Samapatti
•I have some experience with some other traditional attainments.
•I can access the state that this place calls No Dog.

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dharma- ... iel+Ingram

.

Thanks, Aloka. Yes, this page still mentions it, though it seems to be somewhat old page, and it's interesting to see no mention of his "arahat" claim in his new website.

[SamKR]

Hah! I read this in an amazon review of Ingram's book:

The canonical texts are very clear where the bar of arahantship is, the author admitted himself that he is nowhere near the bar, and he claims to have attained arahantship by drastically lowering the bar for himself. Great job! For example, according to canonical texts, an arahant is someone with perfect mastery over emotions (mainly, an arahant no longer has sensual desires nor ill-will). Author's reasoning for calling himself an arahant without having achieved emotional master is a long, angry rant that basically summarizes to:

1. Author is an arahant.
2. Author is nowhere near emotional mastery.
3. Therefore, emotional mastery must not be part of being an arahant.

I think that about sums up the argument you're responding to.

[daverupa]

Daverupa,

The problem is that the main proof presented to disprove Ingram's claim is the sutta that says that an arahat is incapable of breaking the 8 precepts... a reduction to the absurd

So let's have this document.

And let's consider the textual bracket to which we are making reference, etc. It's just too frivolous to argue against phantasms, I think.

[SamKR]

A robotic, emotionaly apathetic arahat that must be the same in every instance doesn't fit with the enormous organic richness of the human experience.

The words "robotic" and "emotionally apathetic" are not correctly describing the Arahant of the Pali canon. And, the Buddha's teaching in the suttas clearly is not directed towards the cultivation of "organic richness of the human experience", rather it is clearly encouraging to disentangle oneself from the trap of such "richness".

[Viscid]

I hope you all recall that the first schism was (supposedly) caused by disagreement over the fallibility of arahants.

We all have an implicit understanding about the nature of arahantship. Some of us inform that understanding through a strict interpretation of suttas, while others will incorporate observations made external to the texts. Quibbling over whose understanding is correct is unbuddhist, as are all the ridiculous ad hominem attacks rampant in this thread.

I now see the appeal of Rinzai Zen: you should all be thoroughly beaten.

[tiltbillings]

I hope you all recall that the first schism was (supposedly) caused by disagreement over the fallibility of arahants.

We all have an implicit understanding about the nature of arahantship. Some of us inform that understanding through a strict interpretation of suttas, while others will incorporate observations made external to the texts. Quibbling over whose understanding is correct is unbuddhist, as are all the ridiculous ad hominem attacks rampant in this thread.

I now see the appeal of Rinzai Zen: you should all be thoroughly beaten.

That is helpful. So, everyone who claims to be ariya can present their vision of the Buddha's teachings and and it should not be commented upon. Don't like this thread, don't read it.

[tiltbillings]

I hope you all recall that the first schism was (supposedly) caused by disagreement over the fallibility of arahants.

It was not over the "infallibility" of the arahants. It was, depending upon which version one considers, over either how strict one must be with the Vinaya rules or whether or not an arahant can fall from being an arahant.

[Alex123]

Hello all,

There is another issue: What is your goal? Is your goal to become someone who still has lobha/dosa/moha? Or is your goal to become so wise and skillful that lobha, dosa, moha never arises and you are fully peaceful inside?

Easier goals are easier to reach, but are they really worth it?

[Aloka]

.

I now see the appeal of Rinzai Zen: you should all be thoroughly beaten.

Unfortunately your passive-aggressive remark adds nothing of value to the discussion.


.