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

[Reductor]

Hey this is Clayton, I was the third voice in that recording. I had quickly risen up to the state which we refer to as the 8th jhana... experiencing neither perception nor non perception. Coming out of it I mentioned it for the recording. We practice something called dynamic jhana which is not as absorbed as the jhana talked about in the suttras. Now I can get much more absorbed than we were, but we just wanted to give everyone a taste of the jhanas or strata of mind.

Clayton

Pardon my doubts, Clayton. I have a few.

But as your practice doesn't impinge on my own, I suppose you are welcome to see what you want as you want. As for giving everyone a taste: I don't know that 'taste' comes by ear at all, let alone by ear alone. So pardon me in thinking that much of this is simply talk, or perhaps a redefining of what these attainments are.

But considering that you have volunteered a defense of the recording, I will ask you a question.

In what sense are we to understand the word 'dynamic'?

Thanks for your answer.

[alan]

That is the funny thing about delusion--you don't know when you're in it.
Dynamic Jhana--wow! You must be so cool. Sure wish I could go there.

[Clayton]

Pardon my doubts, Clayton. I have a few.

But as your practice doesn't impinge on my own, I suppose you are welcome to see what you want as you want.

No need to pardon anything. I would be worried if you didn't have doubts.

As for giving everyone a taste: I don't know that 'taste' comes by ear at all, let alone by ear alone. So pardon me in thinking that much of this is simply talk, or perhaps a redefining of what these attainments are.

Uhh... I am well aware of how the sense doors operate. This was something my dharma brothers and me thought might be helpfull for those who wished to get a broad auidio overview of what we experience the nanas and jhanas to be.

But considering that you have volunteered a defense of the recording, I will ask you a question.

In what sense are we to understand the word 'dynamic'?

Thanks for your answer.

I have volunteered no defense of this recording. I have tried to make a simple clairification. I am not here to defend what we believe/experience against what the Dhamma Wheel community believes/experiences. Like you, other's method of practice doesn't really affect me. I just thought I would try to resolve that ambiguity.

The word dynamic has been clarified rather well by a quote on the previous page. I guess the simplest way to explain it is to see concentration and vipassana as two ends of the same spectrum. The harder the absorbtion is the less you can tear it down based on the 3 characteristics. If there is just the vipassana with near no concentration that can stall out rather quickly. So for me dynamic simply means being in the stratum of mind which can be turned into an absorbtion, but not getting so absorbed that the 3 characteristics are not clearly percieved.

[Clayton]

That is the funny thing about delusion--you don't know when you're in it.
Dynamic Jhana--wow! You must be so cool. Sure wish I could go there.

Yeah I am pretty cool, thank you for noticing. You know what I don't think is cool though, Slander...

Do not consider the faults of others
Or what they have or haven’t done.
Consider rather
What you yourself have or haven’t done.

- The Dhammapada

[alan]

Make sense, please.
No one is making any sense.
P.S. Slander--that is a serious charge. But you haven't read the Suttas, have you?

[Ben]

Hi Clayton and welcome to Dhamma Wheel,

The word dynamic has been clarified rather well by a quote on the previous page. I guess the simplest way to explain it is to see concentration and vipassana as two ends of the same spectrum. The harder the absorbtion is the less you can tear it down based on the 3 characteristics. If there is just the vipassana with near no concentration that can stall out rather quickly. So for me dynamic simply means being in the stratum of mind which can be turned into an absorbtion, but not getting so absorbed that the 3 characteristics are not clearly percieved.

This indicates to me, based on my readings and understanding of the Pali Canon and commentarial literature, as well as my own experience, that what you are referring to is not jhana. I agree with assertions made here that there seems to be a redefinition of certain attainments within the hardcore movement as they bear very little relation to the recorded wisdom and lived experience within the Theravada. That is not to say you are not experiencing exotic states of mind, but I would caution you that it may not be evidence of liberation nor progress towards liberation.
One thing we should always to is to scrutinize any unusual meditative experience we may have. As I have mentioned time and again, the Buddha warns us in the Brahmajala Sutta that meditative experiences are a primary source of wrong view. We should scrutinize the experience and examine whether it evokes a pleasurable sensation and if so whether the sensation is derived as a result of the experience appealing to our own predispositions. Be mindful Clayton that not everything is what it seems, particularly so in the realm of the mind.
kind regards

Ben

[alan]

In other words, its a fraud.

[Clayton]

Thank you for your respectful response Ben. I understand your position. You are correct that what I call Jhana does not line up with some of the Suttras and Commentaries. I accept that. Indeed it is important to tend towards caution when assessing our progress. I have checked my experience with not only my friends in the hardcore community but also strict Vinaya Monks... its good to get a 2nd opinion...

Clayton

[Reductor]

Uhh... I am well aware of how the sense doors operate. This was something my dharma brothers and me thought might be helpfull for those who wished to get a broad auidio overview of what we experience the nanas and jhanas to be.

Sorry, my humor is a little different.

I mean that discussion of your experiences as they unfold seems a pretty ineffective way to instruct, but would be a good way to impress. In addition to that would be miscommunication of what you're experiencing, as in the quote about you being "in the eight". Phrased in the present tense, this suggests that you are speaking from the attainment and gives no hint that you've come out if it and are speaking in normal space (so to speak).

But considering that you have volunteered a defense of the recording, I will ask you a question.

In what sense are we to understand the word 'dynamic'?

Thanks for your answer.

I have volunteered no defense of this recording. I have tried to make a simple clairification.

To make a defense does not mean that you are 'defensive' in the emotive sense of an aversive reaction to perceived attack. I mean that there is a criticism made and you responded to allay the cause of that criticism.

The word dynamic has been clarified rather well by a quote on the previous page. I guess the simplest way to explain it is to see concentration and vipassana as two ends of the same spectrum. The harder the absorbtion is the less you can tear it down based on the 3 characteristics. If there is just the vipassana with near no concentration that can stall out rather quickly. So for me dynamic simply means being in the stratum of mind which can be turned into an absorbtion, but not getting so absorbed that the 3 characteristics are not clearly percieved.

My trouble with your above statement is that the eighth attainment does not provide a clear position from which to evaluate the experience. Rather there is only the sense that phenomena continue in a shapeless, nebulous, way. How then, from such a state, can there be vipassana?

Which brings me to my next question. What is the characteristic of the eighth absorption, according to the hardcore folks?

[owenbecker]

Hey Clayton,
Probably best not bothering with these guys. They seem to have overdosed on the medicine.
-o

[tiltbillings]

In other words, its a fraud.

One might want to be a little more temperate with how one expresses this. Fraud would indicate a deliberate misleading of other. As indicated, what we have with the self-described hard-core movement is a wholesale redefining of terms such as jhana and arahant to fit with the experience of its leaders. I think they mean well, but are a bit mistaken.

[tiltbillings]

That is the funny thing about delusion--you don't know when you're in it.
Dynamic Jhana--wow! You must be so cool. Sure wish I could go there.

Yeah I am pretty cool, thank you for noticing. You know what I don't think is cool though, Slander...

Do not consider the faults of others
Or what they have or haven’t done.
Consider rather
What you yourself have or haven’t done.

- The Dhammapada

Like the inaccurate, but nasty referring to those who do not see a need to blab their attainment as mushroom people fed on merde?

Kenneth: There’s a kind of a culture that has grown up in Theravada Buddhism that it is shameful to admit that you have attained any of this. That nice people don’t talk about this, kind of in the way that nice people don’t look up ladies’ skirts. This is a shameful thing, and probably this came about from the rules for monks. Monks are not allowed to claim any state or attainment except to other monks. And for better or worse, I think for worse, we developed, especially in the West, what Bill Hamilton called the “mushroom culture.” By mushroom, he said, “Keep them in the dark and feed them stuff.”

Vince: You mean shit? [laughs]

Kenneth: That’s exactly what I’m talking about.

http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/02/bg ... alization/

[tiltbillings]

Thank you for your respectful response Ben. I understand your position. You are correct that what I call Jhana does not line up with some of the Suttras and Commentaries. I accept that. Indeed it is important to tend towards caution when assessing our progress. I have checked my experience with not only my friends in the hardcore community but also strict Vinaya Monks... its good to get a 2nd opinion...

Clayton

I think is a good point, which points the fact that the hard-core-ites are not talking about Theravada or the suttas or the commentaries or Buddhism in general. This is essentially an admission that they are talking about Folk and Ingram's reinterpretation of Buddhism, which, as we have seen here, has little to really do with the teachings of the Buddha.

[tiltbillings]

Hey Clayton,
Probably best not bothering with these guys. They seem to have overdosed on the medicine.
-o

You are completely missing the problem. Actually a number of us have. It is spelled out neatly here:

Thank you for your respectful response Ben. I understand your position. You are correct that what I call Jhana does not line up with some of the Suttas and Commentaries. I accept that. Indeed it is important to tend towards caution when assessing our progress. I have checked my experience with not only my friends in the hardcore community but also strict Vinaya Monks... its good to get a 2nd opinion...

Clayton

In other words we are not talking about the same things at all. Folk and Ingram have simply re-interpreted the vocabulary of the Dhamma to become something else altogether.

[elcfa]

Folk and Ingram has simply re-interpreted the vocabulary of the Dhamma to become something else altogether.

This is exactly what bothers me a lot and used to confuse the hell out of me.

I was trying very hard to see where I got my understanding of the suttas (as well as my meditation practice) so different from their interpretation.

It was until I heard Ingram in his latest talk about AF (Actual Freedom) posted in his website saying "Neither what I called Arahat ... lined up with the Arahatship found in the old texts" (found at 4'50'' on this first talk with Tarin Greco, if you think I am misquoting him) that I came to the same conclusion that the whole thing is just 'Freestyling' Dharma.

[gsteinb]

Actual Freedom because the freedom discussed in the suttas (arahantship) wasn't really the freedom of the eradication of the grasping and clinging because that's not really possible except with this new thing discovered by some guy a couple of years ago?

[Kenshou]

I think I realize what exactly is so funny about all of this hardcore stuff to me, in part at least.

It is said that patterns of self-identification, self-contraction, whatever you call it, remain but are not identified with, not stuck to, etc., right? This is the impression I've gotten from Ingram, Folk may be different, I simply haven't had the energy to read his material thoroughly.

But anyway, I have realized that that is simply an oxymoron. You cannot be self-identifying and yet also not. You either are or you aren't. You can't both be making a self and yet not be making a self out of the self-making. If you are self-making, you are self-making, and that's all there is to it. You may see it with a degree of wisdom and not be entirely hoodwinked by it, but if you are doing it, the fact is that no matter how you twist the words, you are doing it. If arahatship were gained, ignorance defeated, self-making would have no fuel to bubble up, at least in my comparatively traditionalist understanding.

If I'm misrepresenting anyone, don't hesitate to say so.

[tiltbillings]

Actual Freedom because the freedom discussed in the suttas (arahantship) wasn't really the freedom of the eradication of the grasping and clinging because that's not really possible except with this new thing discovered by some guy a couple of years ago?

The poor Buddha, he did not really understand what actual freedom was.

It seems that "Actual Freedom" is a point of disagreement between Folk and Ingram:

http://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/t ... er+context" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What is interesting is that Folk states on page 2:

I can only speculate. I believe that Daniel is just now discovering the timeless perspective. The problem is that his Buddhist model has no place for the timeless. Since his arahatship, he has consistently railed against any understanding that does not fit within the conservative Theravada view. Timeless perspectives are vilified as "the dogma of the radical nowists," and mocked as "such bull---t." Those who speak of primordial awareness are dismissed and relegated to the realm of the perpetually unenlightened; although an anagami might speak of awareness, Daniel has argued, all such delusional notions are overcome by arahatship.[Emphasis added]

Ingram, as can be seen in the very early part of this thread, certainly does not hold a conservative Theravada view, which suggests that none of these guys really knows what they are talking about.

[manas]

The Buddha, while alive, was very strict indeed regarding the misrepresentation of his Teaching:

"Is it true, Ari.t.tha, that you have conceived this pernicious view: 'There are things called "obstructions" by the Blessed One. As I understand his teaching those things are not necessarily obstructive for him who pursues them'?" — "Yes, indeed, Lord, I understand the teaching of the Blessed One in this way that those things called 'obstructions' by the Blessed One, are not necessarily obstructive for him who pursues them."

6. "Of whom do you know, foolish man, that I have taught to him the teaching in that manner? Did I not, foolish man, speak in many ways of those obstructive things that they are obstructions indeed, and that they necessarily obstruct him who pursues them? Sense desires, so I have said, bring little enjoyment, and much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater. Sense desires are like bare bones, have I said; they are like a lump of flesh... they are like a snake's head, have I said. They bring much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater. But you, O foolish man, have misrepresented us by what you personally have wrongly grasped. You have undermined your own (future) and have created much demerit. This, foolish man, will bring you much harm and suffering for a long time."[3]

So, misrepresentation of the Buddha was happening while he was physically present....and 2500 years have passed since then! And the Teaching, well before KF or DI had ever set eyes on the Dhamma, had already branched into the many varied sects even within the Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana (etc) schools.

The suttas in the Pali Tipitaka are the closest and most reliable source of the authentic teachings of the historical Buddha (but would we want any from any 'other' Buddha?). They are probably not perfect, they might have a few corruptions (I am not qualified to judge though), but they are still the best we have. Delusion being so tricky to overcome, we surely need the aid of a Buddha, not just contemporaries who feel they have either rediscovered, redefined, or even surpassed the Teaching of One whom, by all accounts, was singularly impressive in a really huge way. He sent waves through the spiritual dimension of humanity, and the ripples can be perceived even now. I feel them whenever I read the words of the Dhammapada, for example. Such beauty, truth, and power. And the words of the Buddha (as we have them) keep my mind from straying into it's own self-serving version of truth (delusion is very tricky...).

So what I find so irritating about the redefining of the Dhamma that is going on in some circles is the presumption that ANY of us have the same singularly massive spiritual footprint of a Tathagatha. We don't. When a true One arises, we will know (not in this lifetime). Until then, I will continue to use the teachings of the most recent One as my guide.

[M. Christine]

My daughter was 4 when she became obsessed with Jackie Chan. There was no rest until we enrolled her in A Shaolin northern long arm school.

One class and she was done. "Kung Fu is HARD. I just want to make up my own moves." OK, but that's not Kung Fu.

As it turned out she became a disciplined practitioner.



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