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

[mikenz66]

Personally I don't really care what Daniel claims to be. Other teachers I have experienced, read, or listened to, may or may not have some sort of attainments. I don't obsess about it. It seems pointless. I do know that my own teachers have experience with the things that come up for me, so they've clearly done some work on it...

Daniel's book collects together advice that I've mostly already heard elsewhere in a readily digestible (though sometimes annoyingly provocative) form. There are some useful little technical hints about how one might observed the three characteristics, which could have come right out of a talk by U Pandita, Patrick Kearney, etc. On a Mahasi or Goenka retreat you'll hear, if you pay attention, the exact same advice to: "Quit whining about your `stuff' and `just observe'". That's pretty much what my teachers will say (nicely) if I start conceptualising during a retreat interview.

Metta
Mike

[Guy]

Hi Mike,

As a general rule I don't care either whether a teacher is enlightened or not, that's not really the issue I was raising, if what they teach is useful to my own practice then I will take what they say to heart and if not then I will discard it. However, if someone writes a book where on the front cover they claim to be an Arahant I don't think they are really doing their cause of teaching Dhamma (if that is their cause) any favours. Maybe my thinking is wrong, but wouldn't it be better to not claim Arahantship and just teach rather than risk having to prove it?

With Metta,

Guy

[DNS]

As a general rule I don't care either whether a teacher is enlightened or not, that's not really the issue I was raising, if what they teach is useful to my own practice then I will take what they say to heart and if not then I will discard it. However, if someone writes a book where on the front cover they claim to be an Arahant I don't think they are really doing their cause of teaching Dhamma (if that is their cause) any favours. Maybe my thinking is wrong, but wouldn't it be better to not claim Arahantship and just teach rather than risk having to prove it?

I agree. Never mind the possible truth to the concept that a lay person who becomes enlightened must ordain or die in 7 days (from commentaries, not suttas); just the fact that conceit is one of the final fetters to be relinquished is probably enough evidence to know that anyone claiming enlightenment is probably not enlightened.

In nearly every case I have seen where a lay person has claimed enlightenment, there has been a barrage of comments and challenges presented to the so-called enlightened person to which he (it is usually a 'he') responds with angry retorts and gets very defensive, often blowing his top off (with the keyboard).

[Ben]

Hi Accinteyo
The claim of arahantship leads me to consider whatever Ingram says with a grain of salt.
As Mike has indicated, Ingram may indeed be teaching standard Burmese Theravada, but i would hesitate to rely on it.
metta

Ben

[tiltbillings]

Type

Ingram

into the search function.

About three pages come back

Ven D's comment:

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... caf#p10475" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=843" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[acinteyyo]

Hi Accinteyo
The claim of arahantship leads me to consider whatever Ingram says with a grain of salt.
As Mike has indicated, Ingram may indeed be teaching standard Burmese Theravada, but i would hesitate to rely on it.
metta

Ben

Hi,
I'm of the same opinion, Ben. After reading about 40 min. in this forum about Ingram, I consider those discussions not supportive for my practice and I'm not willing to go in for it. For me what I found is enough to know about.

best wishes, acinteyyo

[Abyss]

Mr. Ingram seems to be of the opinion that an arahat can still

feel the following emotions: lust, hatred, irritation, restlessness, worry, fear, pride, conceit, desire for the formless realms, desire for the formed realms, or any other "bad" emotion.

Source

So what's the point of becoming an arahat at all? But he also says that an arahat can still lie, so there is hope for us that he is just telling lies.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Abyss,

Thank you for that... very to the point.

Metta,
Retro.

[yuuki]

In his book, Mr. Ingram states that non-duality models of awakening are "without doubt [his] favorite of them all." As indicated by Mr. Ingram, there aren't specific moral changes in a non-dually awakened person's capabilities (i.e. not being able to lie) or experience (not feeling sensual desire). I've watched youtube videos of a couple other people who claim non-dual awakening, such as Jeff Foster: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCGqQNUD2Dw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All of these people say that nothing really changes outwardly, except that there is a sort of disassociation from oneself. For my own part I haven't done much thinking about nibbana, but two descriptions stick out to me from the canon: the cutting of the fetters, and completion of one's task in this life.

There is one way of thinking about the fetters: cutting the fetter of ill will means that one no longer experiences ill will. Another way of thinking about it is that ill will can arise, but that one isn't attached (fettered) to the ill will, as if someone else is experiencing the ill will. I don't know for myself. I guess either interpretation sounds both reasonable and unreasonable to me.

As for completing one's task in life, it seems that the Buddha still did things and made mistakes (for example, gave Vinaya rules which were later repealed by himself) after his enlightenment. Mr. Ingram certainly makes it clear that living in the world, and sila practice in general, is still as tough as it was before his awakening.

I have to admit that I'd be a little disappointed if enlightenment was only the kind of disassociation from one's self that is expressed by Jeff Foster (although he seems like a nice person!). It also seems to me that there are far easier ways to non-dual awakening than the Buddhist way.

Mr. Ingram's method of choice is vipassana meditation. I personally am a little hesitant to practice vipassana, because I can't find its source in the suttas and when I consider the method conceptually it seems that it leads precisely to the non-dual awakening mentioned above.

Couldn't the Buddha have just given Right Noting as the path and Non-Duality as his description of nibbana, if things were so simple (and had so few consequences)?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings yuuki,

I personally am a little hesitant to practice vipassana, because I can't find its source in the suttas?

What about...?

MN 10: Satipatthana Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro.

[yuuki]

Greetings yuuki,

I personally am a little hesitant to practice vipassana, because I can't find its source in the suttas?

What about...?

MN 10: Satipatthana Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro.

Hey Retro. I'm not sure about the Satipatthana Sutta. I was hoping someone would comment rather on non-duality and nibbana. What do you think?

[Ben]

Hi Yuuki, Retro and all..

Greetings yuuki,

I personally am a little hesitant to practice vipassana, because I can't find its source in the suttas?

What about...?

MN 10: Satipatthana Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro.

For clarification on this issue, may I point you towards:

- The heart of Buddhist meditation by Nyaniponika Thera
- Satipatthana: the direct path to realization by Analayo Bhikkhu
- Satipatthana Vipassana by Mahasi Sayadaw

These excellent manuals of meditation, which are also excellent scholarly works, should allay your concerns that the Buddha taught vipassana.
metta

Ben

[tiltbillings]

In his book, Mr. Ingram states that non-duality models of awakening are "without doubt [his] favorite of them all." As indicated by Mr. Ingram, there aren't specific moral changes in a non-dually awakened person's capabilities (i.e. not being able to lie) or experience (not feeling sensual desire). . . . .

Mr. Ingram's method of choice is vipassana meditation. I personally am a little hesitant to practice vipassana, because I can't find its source in the suttas and when I consider the method conceptually it seems that it leads precisely to the non-dual awakening mentioned above.

The late Austrian Hindu scholar and practitioner Agehananda Bharati stated in his book THE LIGHT AT THE CENTER that if you were a stinker before your enlightenment you would be a stinker afterwards, and this is from a man coming from a non-dual tradition. The Theravada and vipassana is not a non-dual tradition, nor is it a pluralistic tradtion.

Ingram is telling us a lot here. One thing he is telling us is that he disregards the Pali sutta tradition, which characterizes the arahant as one who is morally transformed. Moral transformation is something that is part of the practice leading up to awakening as it is a result of the awakening. He is also telling us that the basis of his “awakening” is not vipassana; rather, it is jhana, of which he claims to be a master.

Jhana experience has the capacity to mimic what one might think is awakening, the suppression of negative states of mind and jhana can give one “a sort of disassociation from oneself” or a disassociation from those aspects of oneself one finds problematic - a sort of “conversion experience” where one perceives oneself as radically changed. Jhana experience, especially spontaneous jhana experience, has that as a danger. While one, as the result of such an experience (or a cluster of such experiences), may now have a very different view and “understanding” of oneself, the stuff suppressed by the jhana experience(s) can - and will - come back, and thus we get this list:

Here are a number of bogus myths and falsehoods about arahats, each of which violates one of more of the First Principles in addition to simply being untrue:
1.Arahats cannot lie.
2.Arahats cannot have erections or have sex.
3.Arahats would never do drugs or drink.
4.Arahats cannot kill anything ever.
5.Arahats cannot state they are arahats.
6.Arahats must ordain within 7 days of becomming an arahat in the Buddhist order of monks or they will die.
7.Arahats cannot think the thought "I am an arahat."
8.Arahats cannot feel the following emotions: lust, hatred, irritation, restlessness, worry, fear, pride, conceit, desire for the formless realms, desire for the formed realms, or any other "bad" emotion.
9.Arahats cannot like music or dance.
10.Arahats love forests.
11.Arahats cannot have jobs or normal relationships.
12.Arahats do not really exist today.
13.Arahats must work hard to maintain their understanding, and it is this that makes them unable to do so many things. http://www.interactivebuddha.com/arahats.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What this list tell us is that while one may imagine oneself awake based upon a profound and supposedly transformative non-dual experience(s), one has to also explain away, in terms of one’s new self-image, all the stuff that comes back after the effects of the jhana/conversion experience(s) wears off.

“Mr. Ingram's method of choice is vipassana meditation.” Any methodology is susceptible to being twisted to meet one’s needs, which is why working with a teacher is important, but even that is no guarantee, which is why understanding that any experience is just another thing of which to let go.

As for the Mahasi Sayadaw style of practice, please take a look at U Pandita’s THE STATE OF MIND CALLED BEAUTIFUL, and Ven Nyanaponika’s THE POWER OF MINDFULNESS

I can't find its [vipassana] source in the suttas Do not confuse certain techniques with what is core to the vipassana traditions, which are found in such suttas as the Satipatthana sutta and the Bahiya Sutta and the Kalaka Sutta, and the perception of impermanence should be cultivated for the removal of the conceit 'I am.' For when one perceives impermanence, Meghiya, the perception of not-self is established. When one perceives not-self one reaches the removal of the conceit 'I am,' which is called Nibbana here and now." Ud 37 (4.1)

[acinteyyo]

[Moggalana]

Hi Yuuki, Retro and all..

Greetings yuuki,

I personally am a little hesitant to practice vipassana, because I can't find its source in the suttas?

What about...?

MN 10: Satipatthana Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro.

For clarification on this issue, may I point you towards:

- The heart of Buddhist meditation by Nyaniponika Thera
- Satipatthana: the direct path to realization by Analayo Bhikkhu
- Satipatthana Vipassana by Mahasi Sayadaw

These excellent manuals of meditation, which are also excellent scholarly works, should allay your concerns that the Buddha taught vipassana.
metta

Ben

This might also be useful: http://theravadin.wordpress.com/2009/02 ... ana-lover/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;