Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

M. Christine wrote:Like a bird scratching in the garden, this debate has kicked up a few leaves. Grateful for the fresh air.

I'm glad you are finding it of benefit, Christine. I look forward to reading more of your contributions.
kind regards

Ben

Peter wrote:
Relevant to this thread, if one rejects all the Buddha's descriptions of arahantship then one cannot reasonably claim to be an arahant. It would be like saying "I reject the teaching that apples are red and have edible skin. I believe they are yellow and have inedible skin." What you're talking about is not an apple but rather a banana. Likewise, Ingram is clearly not talking about Buddhism but rather a religion of his own making. I think it is clear he is in fact saying Buddhism is false.

Rather than saying this is a book written by an arahant, it seems to be more accurate to say this is a book written by one who rejects the notion of arahantship as a false path.

I agree whole heartily with this post.
Ingram's 'enlightenment' has nothing to do with the Buddha's enlightenment.
He is making his own Buddhism in his own delusion.
Ingram's term is more along the line of the term 'enlightenment' used by Gnostics and Christian mystics.
This type of enlightenment is quite different than our supreme teacher, the Buddha's.
The Buddha's path is the only way to reach the Deathless.
Some Gods (Devas) and spiritual beings can bring the indescribable joy and bliss that felt quite uber-supramundane.
Some genuine seekers lost their way by misguided experience as such.
Unwise souls mistake the exprience as a true enlightenment and then the game is over.
The being is tied to Samsara now stronger than ever!

ps: I feel sorry for Ingram.
I wish him well and wish him to develope the power of wisdom and discernment.

Snowmelt wrote: I think that just letting your mind wander where it wants is highly detrimental to advancement on the Path, and reading endless texts purporting to be about Buddhism, particularly those whose authors contradict the most basic tenets of the Pali Canon, involves allowing your mind to do just that. I think the reason why people do this is because they haven't the wisdom to stay with the Pali Canon; in the best Western tradition, they want endlessly to leap to the next shiny bauble, hopelessly and desultorily searching for a magic bullet that will make them fully Enlightened without effort ("Quick, give me an Enlightenment pill, I've only got five minutes before the match starts on TV!") This is proliferation and distraction and delusion; it will *never* lead to Enlightenment.

Great post.
Majority of books on Buddhism in America has nothing to do with our supreme teacher, the awakened one.
Ignoring the various subjects that is not so popular in the mainstream society (such as Kamma, reincarnation, and etc.) will create (or already created?) the distorted Buddhism that will never lead anybody to the liberation.
Bhikkhu Bodhi said during one intervew few years ago that the dangers of Buddhism in America is it might become 'feel good, psychotherapy' like Buddhism that would bring no liberation.
I couldn't agree more with Bhikkhu Bodhi.
We should stick to the original teaching of Pali Canon no matter what others say.
If others want to 'feel good' about their mundane life and mundane limitations, then let them be.
However, we, the followers of the true Dhamma should never be bothered with their tempting words and fake consolations and reward them by buying their books and various programs.

imaginos wrote: However, we, the followers of the true Dhamma should never be bothered with their tempting words and fake consolations and reward them by buying their books and various programs.

Hi imaginos, I share your zeal in wishing to practice the true Dhamma. I hope you don't mind me pointing out, however, that the Teaching has been transmitted down via many generations of monastics over 2500 years, by monks of varying levels of insight. While I also decry the dilution of Dhamma principles for the sake of popularity, or the hijacking of the legacy of the Teacher by persons like Ingram falsely claiming to represent what the Buddha actually intended (?), I still don't assume that we sutta-ites are necessarily followers of the true Dhamma' either. We do our best, but with the founder so long gone, it's not a sure thing. We are putting alot of trust in many, many generations of monks, remember, trusting that nothing was added to, or taken from, or altered, in the Teaching...and since we DO find instances where this has happened, it means we should not be fundamentalist about being the closest to original Buddhism. Probably, but not definitely!

manasikara wrote:

imaginos wrote: However, we, the followers of the true Dhamma should never be bothered with their tempting words and fake consolations and reward them by buying their books and various programs.

Hi imaginos, I share your zeal in wishing to practice the true Dhamma. I hope you don't mind me pointing out, however, that the Teaching has been transmitted down via many generations of monastics over 2500 years, by monks of varying levels of insight. While I also decry the dilution of Dhamma principles for the sake of popularity, or the hijacking of the legacy of the Teacher by persons like Ingram falsely claiming to represent what the Buddha actually intended (?), I still don't assume that we sutta-ites are necessarily followers of the true Dhamma' either. We do our best, but with the founder so long gone, it's not a sure thing. We are putting alot of trust in many, many generations of monks, remember, trusting that nothing was added to, or taken from, or altered, in the Teaching...and since we DO find instances where this has happened, it means we should not be fundamentalist about being the closest to original Buddhism. Probably, but not definitely!

Hi Manasikara.
No, I don't mind at all about any constructive criticism.
You have valid point and I agree that probably there's no tradition that preserved the Buddha's teaching with 100% accuracy.
However, my comment was mainly directed to the new breed of straight up commercialism approach to Buddhism.
Since the best gift that one can give is the teaching of Dhamma, I think the worst thing that one can do to other human being is to lead him or her astray.
I found it very sad that some of the best selling books in the Buddhism section are the ones with little or zero difference with new age literature.
It is my opinion that the Dhamma is a genuine raft that is designed so marvelously that it can carry one across to the other shore.
But in order to function as a raft, it must be built with utter care following the original design.
Altough we'd never know the 100.00% accurate original teaching of the Buddha, our best chance for liberation is following the known original portion of the teaching (i.e. Pali Canon) as much as we can.
In Metta.

You have valid point and I agree that probably there's no tradition that preserved the Buddha's teaching with 100% accuracy

They all have, the Four Noble Truths

Imaginos wrote :

.....Since the best gift that one can give is the teaching of Dhamma, I think the worst thing that one can do to other human being is to lead him or her astray.
I found it very sad that some of the best selling books in the Buddhism section are the ones with little or zero difference with new age literature.
It is my opinion that the Dhamma is a genuine raft that is designed so marvelously that it can carry one across to the other shore.
But in order to function as a raft, it must be built with utter care following the original design.
Altough we'd never know the 100.00% accurate original teaching of the Buddha, our best chance for liberation is following the known original portion of the teaching (i.e. Pali Canon) as much as we can.
In Metta.

Fully agree, what can take one across is the original teaching of Buddha which is Vipassana I can only wish that people like Ingram come out of their delusions, his essay on Arhats clearly indicates that he has gone astray, I mean if Arhats can have sex, tell lies, take intoxicants even kill then whats left. As per him you can be an arhat and have lust, well thats dicotomy.

Metta to him, all of us and the poor souls who have got misguided by people like him.

Parth

clw_uk wrote:

You have valid point and I agree that probably there's no tradition that preserved the Buddha's teaching with 100% accuracy

They all have, the Four Noble Truths

Yes.
So although we are not as fortunate as the people who lived in Nothern India 2,500 years ago (i.e. those who met the Buddha in person), still, we are super-fortunate comparing to the people who lived there 2,600 years ago.
We have the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path and etc. etc.
We don't have every single account of the Buddha's words but still we do have major key teachings from him.
Metta.

I suggest anyone interested in advanced meditation practices read Ingram's book and make their own judgement. I think of myself of pretty tradtional and find the hard core dhama people follow the Mahasi Sayadaw meditation practices closely. Ignore most of what has been written in this thread.

Jack

Jack wrote:I suggest anyone interested in advanced meditation practices read Ingram's book and make their own judgement. I think of myself of pretty tradtional and find the hard core dhama people follow the Mahasi Sayadaw meditation practices closely. Ignore most of what has been written in this thread.

Jack

And I suggest that people read carefully what is written in this thread, starting from the very beginning, taking seriously the informed criticism of Ingram,, keeping in mind that Ingram claims to be an arahant while rejecting how the suttas characterizes being an arahant.


http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 308#p48308" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... ram#p48395" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And make up your own minds about what is written.

Seems pretty clear. I suggest reading Ingram directly for his meditation advice. tiltbillings suggests reading this thread's criticisms of Ingrams' understanding of arahants.

Jack

tiltbillings wrote:

Jack wrote:I suggest anyone interested in advanced meditation practices read Ingram's book and make their own judgement. I think of myself of pretty tradtional and find the hard core dhama people follow the Mahasi Sayadaw meditation practices closely. Ignore most of what has been written in this thread.

Jack

And I suggest that people read carefully what is written in this thread, starting from the very beginning, taking seriously the informed criticism of Ingram,, keeping in mind that Ingram claims to be an arahant while rejecting how the suttas characterizes being an arahant.


http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 308#p48308" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... ram#p48395" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And make up your own minds about what is written.

Jack wrote:Seems pretty clear. I suggest reading Ingram directly for his meditation advice. tiltbillings suggests reading this thread's criticisms of Ingrams' understanding of arahants.

Jack

Why would one want to take meditation advice from some one who distorts and twists the Dhamma? There are plenty of far better teachers out there.

I think Daniel was wrong to call what he says he attained "arahat". That term is not what he attained in my current opinion. He made a mistake in diagnosis. He got only half way there in my opinion. It can happen without a teacher there to put you right. He did though, in my current opinion, attain to a high stage of awakening. Just not the final stage of arahat. Lots of yogis are finding out he was probably wrong. There is still more to do, and I think because he had no-one pushing him to explore more at the time, he just mis-diagnosed. Same with Kenneth Folk. What Daniel's book talks about got him and many others to that stage. It is all valid and if you are able to leave aside his misdiagnosis, all the rest is useful. But each to his or her own.

This was not a lecture, tilt. I consider you an advanced yogi. An opinionated one, but who isn't?

Lots of love,

nibs

nibs wrote:I think Daniel was wrong to call what he says he attained "arahat". That term is not what he attained in my current opinion. He made a mistake in diagnosis. He got only half way there in my opinion. It can happen without a teacher there to put you right. He did though, in my current opinion, attain to a high stage of awakening. Just not the final stage of arahat. Lots of yogis are finding out he was probably wrong. There is still more to do, and I think because he had no-one pushing him to explore more at the time, he just mis-diagnosed. Same with Kenneth Folk. What Daniel's book talks about got him and many others to that stage. It is all valid and if you are able to leave aside his misdiagnosis, all the rest is useful. But each to his or her own.

Well, there is the point of not taking one "attainments" as being anything more than more stuff of which to let go. Is Ingram's book worth reading? Not for me, but others may feel differently.

This was not a lecture, tilt. I consider you an advanced yogi. An opinionated one, but who isn't?

The opinionated part is correct, but I always try to keep Seng-ts'an in mind.

Nibs Wrote :

I think Daniel was wrong to call what he says he attained "arahat". That term is not what he attained in my current opinion. He made a mistake in diagnosis. He got only half way there in my opinion. It can happen without a teacher there to put you right. He did though, in my current opinion, attain to a high stage of awakening.

Well somebody who declares that 'he is an Arhat' and states that Arhats can
1. lie
2. have sex
3. willingly consume drugs or intoxicating drinks
4. even kill

well forget reaching half way on path to enlightenment anyone with above beliefs does not even understand dhamma/ liberation. Even if I have an enemy I would not send him to this person to learn dhamma / meditation. Would repeat what Imaginos wrote : If the best gift is dhamma the worst curse / deed would be leading someone astray.

It is better if we just give metta to Mr. Ingram and other poor souls led astray by him (at a time when Vipassana can still be learnt in the world).

Regards

Parth