Culadasa Misconduct Allegations - Discussion
Chris Marti:
JMHO --
If there's nothing else you get out of this latest example of a dharma teacher taking advantage of their position to do some form of harm to other humans, this is it: stop putting these people on a pedestal. They have demonstrated that they are as human as everyone else, and just as prone to lapses in judgment, to err, to cause harm to others.
I don't think we're doing anyone any favours by simply shrugging our shoulders when men setting themselves up as spiritual exemplars show an inability to understand very basic moral principles.
If there's nothing else you get out of this latest example of a dharma teacher taking advantage of their position to do some form of harm to other humans, this is it: stop putting these people on a pedestal. They have demonstrated that they are as human as everyone else, and just as prone to lapses in judgment, to err, to cause harm to others.
I think a lot of people should be happy they have a good wife and have sex. If one wants to renounce sex then a disgust practice has to be in place or it's not likely to work. Sex is one of the most powerful desires, which is why we are all born.
EDIT: Even more important: Keep practicing as if you are never Enlightened. There's always room for improvement. The feeling of "done-ness" must be an illusion.
Not too good, not too bad, just a human being.
This last time, for diferent sutations in my life I trying to understand what is desire and why is an strong impulse that drives to act in certain ways.
When I was traveling 2 years ago in south-asia I was in Thailand and someone recomend me a temple in Udon Thani. People said that the monk master was full awakened and has powers and everything, the full pack. So I went there with the idea to learn Jhanas, so we have like two meetings a week, every time I ask about how to enter into the Jhanas He start speaking about Sila and the four immeasurables, how important is compassion and love, give oneself to others etc. I got pissed off becouse he always talk about that and he didnt tell me to much about jhana. He always repeat the same thing in all the talks we have: "Sila is my shield".
This last time this "Sila is my shield" start to make more sense to me, and I see how important is. A shield to protect ourself but also to protect others. At the end I think is about being honest and clear with onself and do our best with our defects of character without trying to hurt other people.
Ironically the most "good persons" I know; people who has genuinely a good heart, that gives with expect nothing in return, that have always time for you, that radiates compasion and love; they never done any kind of meditation practice and dont know nothing about that topic. This made me think a lot about that. I meditated quite a lot and I still see myself selfish and self-centred ( here Im talkin about me hehe) driven by plesure and my own personal benefits.
So yeah...why he did all this stuff? Who knows, maybe subconsciously he wanted to sabotage himself and kill the character he created or other people push him to be. Or maybe he just want to have sex and enjoy life. Being the "archetype of Buddha" is not easy. Culadassa goes back to stage 1 haha! No-no just joking...
Anyways what he has given with his book, talks, inspiration and everything is in some way is immeasurable too
This last time, for diferent sutations in my life I trying to understand what is desire and why is an strong impulse that drives to act in certain ways.
When I was traveling 2 years ago in south-asia I was in Thailand and someone recomend me a temple in Udon Thani. People said that the monk master was full awakened and has powers and everything, the full pack. So I went there with the idea to learn Jhanas, so we have like two meetings a week, every time I ask about how to enter into the Jhanas He start speaking about Sila and the four immeasurables, how important is compassion and love, give oneself to others etc. I got pissed off becouse he always talk about that and he didnt tell me to much about jhana. He always repeat the same thing in all the talks we have: "Sila is my shield".
This last time this "Sila is my shield" start to make more sense to me, and I see how important is. A shield to protect ourself but also to protect others. At the end I think is about being honest and clear with onself and do our best with our defects of character without trying to hurt other people.
Ironically the most "good persons" I know; people who has genuinely a good heart, that gives with expect nothing in return, that have always time for you, that radiates compasion and love; they never done any kind of meditation practice and dont know nothing about that topic. This made me think a lot about that. I meditated quite a lot and I still see myself selfish and self-centred ( here Im talkin about me hehe) driven by plesure and my own personal benefits.
So yeah...why he did all this stuff? Who knows, maybe subconsciously he wanted to sabotage himself and kill the character he created or other people push him to be. Or maybe he just want to have sex and enjoy life
. Being the "archetype of Buddha" is not easy. Culadassa goes back to stage 1 haha! No-no just joking...Anyways what he has given with his book, talks, inspiration and everything is in some way is immeasurable too
curious:
But the rather pious dharmic condemnation in the letter doesn't sit well with me.
Fair enough. But do notice that the letter was written by Culadasa's students, and that kind of piety was inculcated into them, or at least systematically reinforced, by Culadasa himself.
curious:
There are worse things in the Suttas.
Oh, absolutely. There's loads of bollocks in the suttas. That's not a very strong defence, though, is it?
curious:
But let's not cloak it in the dharma.
I am not a Buddhist, nor am I a particularly big fan of the word dharma, so I don't have much a dog in that fight.
There are more basic and universal laws than the dharma, one is if you talk the talk the talk, you've gotta walk the walk. This is a principle of dignity, virtue, and personal responsibility that applies to all domains of life and human interaction. Since Culadasa makes it all about 5 hindrances, 10 upasaka vows, and 10 fetters, he has to stand up to his own standards.
(Besides, again, I believe that there are more serious flaws in Culadasa, TMI, and his TT.)
curious:
With deep respect to you Neko (and I do mean that)
Appreciated and reciprocated.
neko:
There are more basic and universal laws than the dharma, one is if you talk the talk the talk, you've gotta walk the walk. This is a principle of dignity, virtue, and personal responsibility that applies to all domains of life and human interaction. Since Culadasa makes it all about 5 hindrances, 10 upasaka vows, and 10 fetters, he has to stand up to his own standards.
Neko, you are right. If that is how he is presenting himself, that is how he should live.
An interesting contrast would be Drukpa Kunley's Flaming Thunderbolt of Wisdom - he talked the talk and walked the walk. Of course it was a rather different regularly intoxicated and extremely polyamorous talk, but he was at least consistent ... I am surprised he doesn't get more discussion in western buddhism.
Poem about happiness
I am happy that I am a free Yogi.
So I grow more and more into my inner happiness.
I can have sex with many women,
because I help them to go the path of enlightenment.
Outwardly I'm a fool
and inwardly I live with a clear spiritual system.
Outwardly, I enjoy wine, women and song.
And inwardly I work for the benefit of all beings.
Outwardly, I live for my pleasure
and inwardly I do everything in the right moment.
Outwardly I am a ragged beggar
and inwardly a blissful Buddha.
Drukpa Kunley
curious:
An interesting contrast would be Drukpa Kunley's Flaming Thunderbolt of Wisdom - he talked the talk and walked the walk. Of course it was a rather different regularly intoxicated and extremely polyamorous talk, but he was at least consistent ... I am surprised he doesn't get more discussion in western buddhism.
Poem about happiness
I am happy that I am a free Yogi.
So I grow more and more into my inner happiness.
I can have sex with many women,
because I help them to go the path of enlightenment.
Outwardly I'm a fool
and inwardly I live with a clear spiritual system.
Outwardly, I enjoy wine, women and song.
And inwardly I work for the benefit of all beings.
Outwardly, I live for my pleasure
and inwardly I do everything in the right moment.
Outwardly I am a ragged beggar
and inwardly a blissful Buddha.
Drukpa Kunley
Oh, absolutely: If someone publicly presented himself thusly, it'd be totes kosher AFAIC. Let consenting adults do consenting adult stuff.
neko:
curious:
An interesting contrast would be Drukpa Kunley's Flaming Thunderbolt of Wisdom - he talked the talk and walked the walk. Of course it was a rather different regularly intoxicated and extremely polyamorous talk, but he was at least consistent ... I am surprised he doesn't get more discussion in western buddhism.
Poem about happiness
I am happy that I am a free Yogi.
So I grow more and more into my inner happiness.
I can have sex with many women,
because I help them to go the path of enlightenment.
Outwardly I'm a fool
and inwardly I live with a clear spiritual system.
Outwardly, I enjoy wine, women and song.
And inwardly I work for the benefit of all beings.
Outwardly, I live for my pleasure
and inwardly I do everything in the right moment.
Outwardly I am a ragged beggar
and inwardly a blissful Buddha.
Drukpa Kunley
Oh, absolutely: If someone publicly presented himself thusly, it'd be totes kosher AFAIC. Let consenting adults do consenting adult stuff.
It's an interesting phenomenon where the people who we thought of as pristine, go down hard for things like adultery (think Tiger Woods, Hugh Grant). But JFK, rock stars, get away with it without much of a second thought. It's almost part of their charm. Same with spiritual teachers.
Osho demanded blowjobs at forty-five minute intervals from his acolytes, but he owned it and boasted to have had more sex than any man in history.
We care more about the supposed inconsistency than we due about the action itself.
Kim Katami:
Presumably everyone here knows what the term buddhahood alludes to.
Everyone knows what it alludes to, though I expect most have different ideas of where buddhood begins. IMHO, expecting anyone who appears to inhabit a human body to behave impeccably (according to YOUR standards) is simply folly, regardless of your aspersions about their attainment. Some of the greatest teachers have seemingly had very human failings. What is more important, from my perpective, is what these apparent failings show us about our OWN characters, not about theirs. We are always surrounded by dharma.
-
General Question: Was the dharma from Culadasa good enough for you BEFORE these allegations?
Stirling Campbell:
Kim Katami:
Presumably everyone here knows what the term buddhahood alludes to.
Everyone knows what it alludes to, though I expect most have (1) different ideas of where buddhood begins. IMHO, expecting anyone who appears to inhabit a human body to (2) behave impeccably (according to YOUR standards) is simply folly, regardless of your aspersions about their attainment. (3) Some of the greatest teachers have seemingly had very human failings. What is more important, from my perpective, is what these apparent failings show us about our OWN characters, not about theirs. We are always surrounded by dharma.
-
General Question: (4) Was the dharma from Culadasa good enough for you BEFORE these allegations?
1. What do you mean with "different ideas of where buddhahood begins"? I'm not a scholar but out from the top of my head I can't think of any differing views about this within mahayana schools.
2. No, I don't think it is foolish to expect perfect behaviour from buddhas, incl. those who inhabit physical body. However, it's a completely different question who are buddhas and who are samsaric beings. Even a drop of poison spoils a tank of clear water.
3. Do you mean "greatest teachers" who were attained buddhas or just people who were great teachers? Who do you mean specifically?
4. I have his book which I've read a bit and watched a bunch of his lectures online. I always liked him and his style of teaching. I even applied for his teacher training, though was rejected.
Kim Katami:
1. What do you mean with "different ideas of where buddhahood begins"? I'm not a scholar but out from the top of my head I can't think of any differing views about this within mahayana schools.
2. No, I don't think it is foolish to expect perfect behaviour from buddhas, incl. those who inhabit physical body. However, it's a completely different question who are buddhas and who are samsaric beings. Even a drop of poison spoils a tank of clear water.
3. Do you mean "greatest teachers" who were attained buddhas or just people who were great teachers? Who do you mean specifically?
4. I have his book which I've read a bit and watched a bunch of his lectures online. I always liked him and his style of teaching. I even applied for his teacher training, though was rejected.
Kim,
1. I mean in general, or amongst those on this board - not specifically in the Mahayana view. I personally agree with Dogen, and actually think this applies nicely to the entire question of Culadasa's behavior:
As all things are buddha-dharma, there is delusion and realization, practice, birth and death, and there are buddhas and sentient beings.
As the myriad things are without an abiding self, there is no delusion, no realization, no buddha, no sentient being, no birth and death. - Dogen, Genjo-koan
2. Arhats are considered Buddhas in some traditions. An arhat would abide in no-self (IMHO) but still act as a human, flaws and all. I am not saying that this is Culadasa. As for a true "Mahayana" Buddha... I have not met one to the best of my knowledge, so cannot comment.
3. I think you could say it was either. Even the Buddha lost his temper, if we are to believe some accounts. I consider both Sogyal Rinpoche (who I have seen teach) and Chogyam Trungpa to be some of the greatest teachers (as an example) and yet many would agree that both had their flaws from a human behavioral perspective.
4. I meant to ask this question to the entire board, so don't feel singled out. Thank you for your answer.
Your question, as simple and "no brainer" as it seems, got me thinking here, in a good way :
Holding teachers to the same standard as everyone else is actually a good way to keep teachers both feet planted on the ground. It counters rationalizations that some teachers may have such as "when you realize emptiness every actions is enlightened action, including having an affair with students' wives": which is not the case with Culadassa but many other eachers have thought along those lines. Students were told to focus on their own practices and use the opportunity to work on their attachments, while the teachers were doing harm. This won't happen so easily if the student holds the teachers to the same standards as everyone else. The student would be able to say, "hey, that's not right and I don't accept that."
Also, it would counter unfair pressure on teachers to act 24/7 like fictional-level saints.
It would keep students both feet on the ground as well.
It would also help people be compassionate toward teachers when they screw up instead of blaming them for not acting up to their projections.
What I would say also though is, teachers are probably better to be held to the same standard as everyone else on the path, but have certain additional rules appropriate to their position.
As a therapist, for example, my clients can express all sorts of feelings toward me (love, romance, anger, fear, etc). This actually helps their process if I respond properly, like helping them explore their projections behind such feelings and inner life in a way that leads to growth. However, it is not ok for me to express my own feelings toward them, as this would completely sabotage the therapy. It would in fact be a betrayal of them, and hence bad ethics.
So teachers need certain rules that are different from students in order to remain effective teachers, especially as it relates to relationship with students. This being said, I'm aware that in the case here the teacher was not misbehaving toward the students. It was outside of such relationship.
In any case, I appreciate the reflection on ethics and student projection that this whole thread is doing.
:Holding teachers to the same standard as everyone else is actually a good way to keep teachers both feet planted on the ground. It counters rationalizations that some teachers may have such as "when you realize emptiness every actions is enlightened action, including having an affair with students' wives": which is not the case with Culadassa but many other eachers have thought along those lines. Students were told to focus on their own practices and use the opportunity to work on their attachments, while the teachers were doing harm. This won't happen so easily if the student holds the teachers to the same standards as everyone else. The student would be able to say, "hey, that's not right and I don't accept that."
Also, it would counter unfair pressure on teachers to act 24/7 like fictional-level saints.
It would keep students both feet on the ground as well.
It would also help people be compassionate toward teachers when they screw up instead of blaming them for not acting up to their projections.
What I would say also though is, teachers are probably better to be held to the same standard as everyone else on the path, but have certain additional rules appropriate to their position.
As a therapist, for example, my clients can express all sorts of feelings toward me (love, romance, anger, fear, etc). This actually helps their process if I respond properly, like helping them explore their projections behind such feelings and inner life in a way that leads to growth. However, it is not ok for me to express my own feelings toward them, as this would completely sabotage the therapy. It would in fact be a betrayal of them, and hence bad ethics.
So teachers need certain rules that are different from students in order to remain effective teachers, especially as it relates to relationship with students. This being said, I'm aware that in the case here the teacher was not misbehaving toward the students. It was outside of such relationship.
In any case, I appreciate the reflection on ethics and student projection that this whole thread is doing.
Ben V.:
Your question, as simple and "no brainer" as it seems, got me thinking here, in a good way :
Holding teachers to the same standard as everyone else is actually a good way to keep teachers both feet planted on the ground. It counters rationalizations that some teachers may have such as "when you realize emptiness every actions is enlightened action, including having an affair with students' wives": which is not the case with Culadassa but many other eachers have thought along those lines. Students were told to focus on their own practices and use the opportunity to work on their attachments, while the teachers were doing harm. This won't happen so easily if the student holds the teachers to the same standards as everyone else. The student would be able to say, "hey, that's not right and I don't accept that."
Also, it would counter unfair pressure on teachers to act 24/7 like fictional-level saints.
It would keep students both feet on the ground as well.
It would also help people be compassionate toward teachers when they screw up instead of blaming them for not acting up to their projections.
What I would say also though is, teachers are probably better to be held to the same standard as everyone else on the path, but have certain additional rules appropriate to their position.
As a therapist, for example, my clients can express all sorts of feelings toward me (love, romance, anger, fear, etc). This actually helps their process if I respond properly, like helping them explore their projections behind such feelings and inner life in a way that leads to growth. However, it is not ok for me to express my own feelings toward them, as this would completely sabotage the therapy. It would in fact be a betrayal of them, and hence bad ethics.
So teachers need certain rules that are different from students in order to remain effective teachers, especially as it relates to relationship with students. This being said, I'm aware that in the case here the teacher was not misbehaving toward the students. It was outside of such relationship.
In any case, I appreciate the reflection on ethics and student projection that this whole thread is doing.
:Holding teachers to the same standard as everyone else is actually a good way to keep teachers both feet planted on the ground. It counters rationalizations that some teachers may have such as "when you realize emptiness every actions is enlightened action, including having an affair with students' wives": which is not the case with Culadassa but many other eachers have thought along those lines. Students were told to focus on their own practices and use the opportunity to work on their attachments, while the teachers were doing harm. This won't happen so easily if the student holds the teachers to the same standards as everyone else. The student would be able to say, "hey, that's not right and I don't accept that."
Also, it would counter unfair pressure on teachers to act 24/7 like fictional-level saints.
It would keep students both feet on the ground as well.
It would also help people be compassionate toward teachers when they screw up instead of blaming them for not acting up to their projections.
What I would say also though is, teachers are probably better to be held to the same standard as everyone else on the path, but have certain additional rules appropriate to their position.
As a therapist, for example, my clients can express all sorts of feelings toward me (love, romance, anger, fear, etc). This actually helps their process if I respond properly, like helping them explore their projections behind such feelings and inner life in a way that leads to growth. However, it is not ok for me to express my own feelings toward them, as this would completely sabotage the therapy. It would in fact be a betrayal of them, and hence bad ethics.
So teachers need certain rules that are different from students in order to remain effective teachers, especially as it relates to relationship with students. This being said, I'm aware that in the case here the teacher was not misbehaving toward the students. It was outside of such relationship.
In any case, I appreciate the reflection on ethics and student projection that this whole thread is doing.
Now this is very constructive thinking, I’d say. This is how we learn from what’s happened. Of course that doesn’t help with the close relationships affected by this, but it is not for us to take on that learning either.
Sugar Dharma Daddy:
I also see the point in the argument behind this. There are structures at play that enable people in some positions to get away with things that are harmful to others. Being a teacher in the dharma is one such position, and it also interacts with other positions with regard to power structures such as gender inequalities, racism, class, and ableism. I think it is important to be aware of these structures and mindful of how they affect us. By making excuses we contribute to structures that enable this to happen. Especially if we do it differently for different people. I cannot tell to what extent we are doing this, but to some extent I think it is likely that we are (as a collective).
Tom C:
Your reply deals with the content or actions of humans - I'm more interested into the mechanism behind these then the actions or the content themselves. I simply posit the question;
If free from craving, aversion & delusion... what is the mechanism or process that compels a human male into seeking prositutues behind their wives back?
I myself and know many others who have seen plenty of prosititues - I am yet to find anyone that found it meaniful or easn't completely deluded around the whole process to due to craving, aversion and delusion. We aren't talking about subtle delusion or craving, aversion.. this is a big gross form.
Craving, aversion and delusion of what? Aversion to the current feelings and sensations that make up our experience... resulting in craving of pleasant sexual feelings and sensation....deluded that the pursuit of these feelings and sensations leads to anything but suffering (they are void, empty and dukkha).
(Hint: the process/mechanism is exactly the same one as before. The only difference is the reason why the Arahat does the prostitutes behind his wife's back. Normal people don't tell their wife because then she is angry at them. Arahats don't tell their wife out of compassion because they know that she would suffer if she knew.)
neko:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Look, you seem to be a good guy. I don’t think you meant any harm. It’s just... remarks like that are not as harmless and fun as they may seem to those who are not targeted. The abundance of them hurts a lot and contribute to harm.
Look, you seem to be a good girl, but I wasn't targeting Greta Thunberg (thanks Chris), I was targeting people who listen to climate scientists talking about heart surgery, people who listen to heart surgeons talking about quantum mechanics, people who listen to quantum physicists talking about Pokémons, and people who listen to little kids talking about climate science.
Luckily, climate scientists are still doing their thing without listening to what Greta Thunberg has to say on climate science, which is why we still have climate science, instead of some weird discussions about how climate science brings an end to suffering and makes you walk on water.
Look, you seem to be a good binary, but as a former Pokémon master in my last life, I have to disagree. There's no such thing as 'Pokémons', there's only Pokémon...
Thank you for bringing up 'selective mutism', though, I learned a new word today, although I'm not entirely sure why - maybe you were alluding to the possibility that Greta Thunderberg uses this feature as a sales pitch which is about as credible as writing a book about losing weight if your favourite colour is blue?
The source material is irreparably flawed, internally contradictory, and it carries a burden of dogma and superstition, evolved through millennia of memetic selection in response to the needs of some of the darker sides of the human psyche that seeks non-answers and non-solutions to its issues, and you can't beat millennia of selection of stupidity with common sense, as experience has painfully shown time and again. But don't take me for a pessimist on this. Personally, I don't worry too much about it, since I don't identify as Buddhist (nor as Hindu, Christian, Jew, Muslim, and so on), and I am not at all interested in coming to a consensus with those who do.
This sounds like you have a lot of aversion. You need to meditate more and have faith in the Buddha's teachings, then you can finally be liberated.
People who invest 1000s of hours in learning the Buddhas teachings and following the practices and then saying they're not Buddhists are like people who spend 1000 of hours studying different variants of tail call optimization and then say they're not nerds
neko:
Tom C:
Can Daniel or something else who is 4th path clearly explain.
No. There is no commonly accepted definition of "4th path". If you go to the suttas, the definitions are full of contradictions, as well as supertitious crap.
Because of this, when Daniel says the words "4th path", and when Culadasa says the same words, they are talking about two completely different things. So we have two problems:
- (1) Nothing that Daniel says on what he calls "4th path" can shed any light on what Culadasa means when he says "4th path", and
- (2) nothing that Culadasa says on what he calls "4th path" can shed any light on what Daniel means when he says "4th path".
Actually, you can generalise these statements any two Buddhist meditation teachers X and Y:
- (3) For all X and Y (with Y ≠ X), nothing that X says on what he calls "4th path" can shed any light on what Y means when he says "4th path".
Unfortunately, in the case of Culadasa, we have one additional problem:
- (4) Not much of what Culadasa says on what he calls "4th path" appears to shed much if any light on what Culadasa means when he says "4th path",
as far I can tell, having braved through tens of hours of Culadasa talking about 4th path and making very little sense. In fact, Culadasa talks about what he calls "4th path" as
- (i) Something that is related to ethics, behaviour, emotion, actions, and morality, and
- (ii) something that he goes in and out of all the time.
Thanks Neko, I enjoyed your post, both the content and tone
I will state - there seems to my eye be a huge disparity between the way Daniel and maybe others describe 4th Path and the reason why we are all here; suffering.
Daniels book from a quick scan doesn't talk in terms of suffering, the reduction or end of suffering, more a perceptual shift in reality, which somewhat ambiguously implies reduction in suffering, but isn't explicit or explain how so. In fact Daniel doesn’t seem to talk at all explicitly in terms of aversion, craving or suffering. Just the change in the way reality is perceived.
I can understand how hard it is to standardised goals and terminology. For me personally understanding a path or goals, it makes it easier to reference foremost reductions in craving, aversion (delusion), and suffering. Speaking outside of this framework leaves room for ambiguity and clarity on the goals we are all here to try to achieve.
Quite a contrast to the Buddha who explicitly spoke about suffering and the end of suffering.
Tom C:
@Shargol thank you I read his descriptions
Thanks Neko, I enjoyed your post, both the content and tone
Thanks Neko, I enjoyed your post, both the content and tone
I will state - there seems to my eye be a huge disparity between the way Daniel and maybe others describe 4th Path and the reason why we are all here; suffering.
Daniels book from a quick scan doesn't talk in terms of suffering, the reduction or end of suffering, more a perceptual shift in reality, which somewhat ambiguously implies reduction in suffering, but isn't explicit or explain how so.
He actually does. The problem is that what Daniel means when he uses the word "suffering" and what you mean when you use it are, once again, two very different things. The "suffering" that you get rid of when you get into what Daniel calls 4th path is a kind of "suffering" you will never realise that you had until you see the world through that lens which does not have it. Which is why I add the "end of suffering" sales pitch to the list of things not to talk about. Much better descriptors of what can be attained are:
* Highly recommended, can't tell you why (Bill Hamilton).
* The Ultimate Duh (Daniel).
* That thing you're babbling on about, it ain't the real thing (Laozi).
* The suffering you will lose is not one you know you have (myself, I believe, unless I am plagiarising someone else).
In fact Daniel doesn’t seem to talk at all explicitly in terms of aversion, craving or suffering. Just the change in the way reality is perceived.
Quite a contrast to the Buddha who explicitly spoke about suffering and the end of suffering.
Yes, but don't forget that the Buddha is a collective pseudonym like Nicolas Bourbaki or, perhaps more appropriately, Alan Smithee. What was going on through the mind of the dude who signed himself as The Buddha when he wrote "end of suffering" is anyone's guess. Perhaps he was very depressed and even more hopeful. Or perhaps his monastery was not getting enough donations.
neko:
Tom C:
@Shargol thank you I read his descriptions
Thanks Neko, I enjoyed your post, both the content and tone
Thanks Neko, I enjoyed your post, both the content and tone
I will state - there seems to my eye be a huge disparity between the way Daniel and maybe others describe 4th Path and the reason why we are all here; suffering.
Daniels book from a quick scan doesn't talk in terms of suffering, the reduction or end of suffering, more a perceptual shift in reality, which somewhat ambiguously implies reduction in suffering, but isn't explicit or explain how so. In fact Daniel doesn’t seem to talk at all explicitly in terms of aversion, craving or suffering. Just the change in the way reality is perceived.
He actually does. The problem is that what Daniel means when he uses the word "suffering" and what you mean when you use it are, once again, two very different things. The "suffering" that you get rid of when you get into what Daniel calls 4th path is a kind of "suffering" you will never realise that you had until see the world through a lens that does not have it. Which is why I add the "end of suffering" sales pitch to the list of things not to talk about. Much better descriptors of what can be attained are:
* Highly recommended, can't tell you why (Bill Hamilton).
* The Ultimate Duh (Daniel).
* That thing you're babbling on about, it ain't the real thing (Laozi).
* The suffering you will lose is not one you know you have (myself, I believe, unless I am plagiarising someone else).
Quite a contrast to the Buddha who explicitly spoke about suffering and the end of suffering.
Yes, but don't forget that the Buddha is a collective pseudonym like Nicolas Bourbaki or, perhaps more appropriately Alan Smithee. What was going on through the mind of the dude who signed himself as The Buddha when he wrote that is anyone's guess.
Neko, thanks for responding. I am not disagreeing with anything you wrote so please don't take as such, just seeking clarification in a way that might make sense to my mind.
The list of phrases you provided I find extremely ambiguous and slightly unhelpful. You are almost insuanating that what is reduced by reaching 4th path can't be explained or quantified. This is also seems extremely unhelpful let alone explain why someone should or would pursue it.
What exactly is reduced? Can anyone give concrete real world examples of how things would have been before or after 4th path - namely perception and reaction, and how suffering would have been in both cases so we can understand some sort of tangible difference.
Tom C:
The list of phrases you provided I find extremely ambiguous and slightly unhelpful.
Yes, they are! But at least they are not misleading, lies, or manipulative sales pitches, which is worse. If you can do better than what I have done, I am all ears.
And thanks for the "unhelpful" bit, which I consider a compliment, since the dao that can be talked about is not the real dao*, and hence, if I said something that sounds helpful, it would actually be a red herring.
Tom C:
You are almost insuanating that what is reduced by reaching 4th path can't be explained or quantified.
Totally.
Tom C:
This is also seems extremely unhelpful let alone explain why someone should or would pursue it.
So you believe that something more helpful can be said. Awesome! What is that? I'd love to hear it.
Tom C:
What exactly is reduced? Can anyone give concrete real world examples of how things would have been before or after 4th path - namely perception and reaction, and how suffering would have been in both cases so we can understand some sort of tangible difference.
In my not-so-humble opinion, trying to practice to attain a reduction in, let alone an elimination of, suffering is very counterproductive, so I would suggest to just drop that idea, and instead take a good look at how your perceptions work, including that thing that you call suffering, which can certainly be investigated in extreme painstaking detail, down to the micro-moment and the micro-location, which is certainly a very useful thing to do.
__________
* I am not a daoist either.
