Greetings Ron,
Ron Crouch wrote:However, you've closely skirted the line in flat-out calling me a fraud by insinuating that I'm slandering the buddha or that I'm misrepresenting what I teach.
I haven't called you a fraud.
What I have done is share with you teaching of the Buddha (i.e. actual Buddha-dhamma) that explains the
duty of followers of the Buddha, when someone claims to be speaking the Buddha's dhamma. Listen carefully to the Blessed One's words...
Mahaparinibbana Sutta wrote:Then the Blessed One said: "In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.'
"In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."
I have provided you the opportunity to see for yourself, that in the Buddha's teaching and in Theravada which accepts the Sutta Pitaka as Buddha-vacana, that unless someone's teachings are traceable back to the Buddha's discourses, they are not to be regarded as Buddha-dhamma. This isn't against you, it is impersonal... it is assessing your teaching against the Discourses as an objective exercise of traceability.
Your teachings may well be Dhamma for all I know... they may well be the best teachings on mankind since the Buddha died. Dhamma is the natural law, property of no one. Not mine, not your's, not the Buddha's... we can only hope that our understandings align to the natural law as best as we can.
But insight-knowledges (vipassana nanas)... they are not traceable back to the Buddha's discourses or Vinaya. Dark nights... they are not traceable back to the Buddha's discourses or Vinaya either, though I have given you ample opportunity to show how they are, and how they relate back to phenomena the Buddha actually taught.
I'm not saying insight-knowledges, dark nights etc. are fraudulent, and I'm not saying they're not Dhamma... I'm simply saying
they're not recorded anywhere as being the Buddha's teaching. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest he taught those things, which you classify on your website as Buddha-dhamma. So... given that, the question must arise as to why you call them that? Why "muddle the issue" by doing so? I don't know your intentions for doing so - perhaps you'd like to tell us? Here's your chance to make crystal clear your intentions.
In summary, I have suggested you be more clear and transparent about where these teachings come from, lest you misrepresent noble teachers. There is nothing unreasonable about any of that. I have not regarded your Dhamma "with approval, nor with scorn"... and whilst you persist on calling it Buddha-dhamma, I may perfectly reasonably expect (particularly in a Theravada forum) that you should be capable of demonstrating that what you teach is actually the Buddha's teaching in accordance with the criteria established in the Buddha-dhamma of the Mahaparinibbana Sutta.
Until then, it is Ron-Dhamma...
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."