Johnny Froth:
Ingram says that as part of his early path, he and his friend "reasoned that some sort of non-dual wisdom ... was the only way to go". I'm wondering if the "non-dual" is significant.
It's a useful pointer.
What are those profound, amazing, glorious results?
"Enlightenment".
What does it mean to have your psychological trip together? Mere absence of a DSM-noted malady? Or what? Is there a recommended self assessment approach to make an informed decision about proceeding or not?
A common-sense approach is sufficient.
Is he therefore saying that the traditional lists in part I are examples of the "trappings" that can be dispensed with?
That part of the book shows how to unravel the tighly-coiled teachings contained in those little lists, to bring them down to earth and into one's own practice.
I think the word "spiritual" is used in a wider sense there.
MCTB is not written in some machine-readable code, you know. It is fairly comprehensive and cohesive, but if you go at it at that level of exegesis, you're probably wasting time better spent actually doing some practice.
What are other examples of "spiritual trappings"? Chanting in zen, for example? The big hats in Tibetan traditions?
Sure, depends on your taste and so on. If it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling, it's probably trappings. You can then go on to investigate the warm fuzzy feeling, and at that point, it's no longer trappings, since you are using it to fuel your practice.
He notes that you can achieve the results (whatever they are) using the practices *plus* the "spiritual trappings"; or you can do it with the practices alone. Can anyone suggest why one would take the first approach? What extra benefits, if any, does the spiritual stuff provide?
Motivation. Whatever keeps you engaged with your practice.
Here's an example (from a Jed McKenna book):
You could buy a nice meditation cushion, incense sticks, a Buddha statue, and a meditation timer, furnish a temple room in your house, and sit for an hour a day.
Or you could go to your bathroom, scrunch up a used towel to sit on, spray a bit of perfume into the air, put a rubber duck on the toile seat and bow to it, and sit for an hour a day.
Which one is more fun? What other differences do you notice? Etc.
How does one distinguish between the spiritual trappings (which are said to be dispensable), and aspects of some practices that *look* spiritual but are in fact essential. Again, for example, chanting in zen?
Finding out would be a nice starter practice.
So my question is, *is* training in morality actually important?
Yes, because you, like me and everybody else, have this huge capacity for acting like a jerk.
In talking about how we should "try to make it a habit to try to take into account the feelings, opinions and welfare of those around us", he then notes: "The obvious trap here is to fail simultaneously to take into account our own needs." It occurs to me that when it comes to our own needs, the greater danger is to pay too much attention to them, and so if one is going to err it’s probably better to err on the side of self sacrifice in favor of others. Anyone see a problem with that?
There are no bonus points for self-punishment. Your body can be treated well, just like every body. Likewise, your mind. You are nothing special, and should not be singled out for preferred status or inferior status.
Cheers,
Florian