Announcements Announcements

DhO Hacked and Upgrade

General

ATTENTION!: It appears that our server has been hacked through this version of Liferay, meaning it is no longer secure, and so expect instability as we deal with this and attempt to upgrade to Liferay 7, which we failed to be able to do last year the last time the team attempted it, but we have no choice at this point, so bear with us as we try again. Save any long posts in a text file before posting them. You can follow me on Twitter at @danielmingram for updates if the site is down. Apologies for any complexity this causes. We will work as fast as we can. We have backups of the database, so hopefully nothing will be lost. Thanks to all helping with this complex process.

 

 

 

Message Boards Message Boards

Books and Websites

What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss

Toggle
What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss J J 12/13/14 11:39 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Karalee Peltomaa 12/13/14 1:09 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Andreas 12/13/14 3:32 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Chris Marti 12/13/14 4:44 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss J J 12/13/14 5:04 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Andreas 12/13/14 5:25 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss J J 12/13/14 5:28 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Andreas 12/13/14 5:46 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss J J 12/13/14 5:27 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Jason Snyder 12/14/14 12:22 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Karalee Peltomaa 12/14/14 1:05 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Daniel M. Ingram 12/16/14 9:32 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Not Tao 12/13/14 11:43 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Nicky 12/14/14 12:08 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Nicky 12/14/14 12:14 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Dada Kind 12/14/14 12:22 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss J J 12/14/14 2:00 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Bill F. 12/14/14 3:48 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Jason Snyder 12/14/14 10:54 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss J J 12/14/14 11:16 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Nikolai . 12/14/14 11:37 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Not Tao 12/14/14 11:49 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Andreas 12/14/14 12:09 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Jason Snyder 12/14/14 12:09 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Not Tao 12/14/14 12:23 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Ryan J 12/14/14 2:51 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Not Tao 12/14/14 3:03 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Eric M W 12/14/14 4:30 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Bill F. 12/14/14 5:36 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Not Tao 12/14/14 5:55 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Ryan J 12/15/14 12:00 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 12/15/14 1:06 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Eric M W 12/16/14 9:56 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Daniel - san 12/16/14 10:46 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Eric M W 12/16/14 11:07 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Daniel M. Ingram 1/5/15 4:30 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Karalee Peltomaa 1/1/15 10:39 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Dada Kind 12/16/14 11:20 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Nicky 12/15/14 2:54 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Dada Kind 12/14/14 8:22 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Not Tao 12/15/14 12:18 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Nicky 12/14/14 12:33 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Nicky 12/14/14 4:02 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Nicky 12/14/14 12:58 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Eric M W 12/14/14 7:04 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Eva Nie 12/15/14 1:18 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Daniel - san 12/15/14 12:05 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Nicky 12/15/14 2:57 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Daniel - san 12/15/14 5:01 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Eva Nie 12/15/14 11:27 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Daniel - san 12/16/14 10:37 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Eva Nie 12/16/14 1:10 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss Richard Zen 12/14/14 7:48 PM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss George S. Lteif 12/17/14 3:31 AM
RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/13/14 1:09 PM as a reply to J J.
Thank you and would like to read more feedback on this article.   I also shared it with Facebook friends.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/13/14 3:32 PM as a reply to J J.
That was a lot debunking of many buddhist traditions. Also there seem to be contradictions in what the buddha taught.
Somewhat confused. I'm as Colleen interested to know if there are any articles commenting the forementioned article available.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/13/14 4:44 PM as a reply to Andreas.
That is actually a debunking of Buddhist myths, not Buddhist Traditions.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/13/14 5:04 PM as a reply to Andreas.
A Google search for "What The Buddha Did Not Teach" by Christopher Titmuss will link to other forums or sites that comment on the article.

But there is nothing controversial or new about what he says. In fact all the knowledge and source material for "actual" (as in authentic) Buddhism is present online, for free. One need only read the Pali Canon, at least a good translation.

For example: the notion that someone attains stream-entry by "blipping" after meditating is found nowhere in the Pali Canon, stream-entry is not so much an "attainment" as it is (well it is a definite state of distinction) something one can declare of oneself after "knowing and seeing". A stream-enterer "knows and sees", has gained independence in the Dharma and is no longer in need of further instruction or "pointing out", they have certainty.

Moreover the qualifications for stream-entry are not noticing impermanence, or good concentration and insight (whatever those terms mean), but the four limbs of stream-winning (literally): wise faith in the Buddha, wise faith in the Dharma, wise faith in the Sangha and noble morality, untarnished, unbroken, unstained etc.

It is not a "meditative" attainment. The notion that one strives to attain streamwinning is really found nowhere in the Canon, one gains entry by "seeing", i.e "the arising of the Dhamma Eye".

I've pointed out things like this several times before on this forum but really no one cares, either that or they label me a troll.

For example Ingram claims that the Bahiya sutta contains qualifications for arahatship, it does not, it merely contains a VERY BRIEF set of instructions for practice. Ingram totally ignores the Uposatha suttas that explicitly claim that it is impossible for an arahat to: murder a living being, take the not given, engage in sexual intercourse, lie, drink alcohol, eat more than one meal a day and not at the right time, listen to music and/or dance, and sleep on a high and luxurious bed.

Moreover the Buddha states in the Tevijja Vacchagotta sutta that is not possible to become an arahat without giving up the laymen bonds.

People on this forum are secular, they claim rebirth was never taught by the Buddha or is nonsense, yet rebirth is foundational in right view.

People here are complicit with sensual pleasure, yet it is explicitly stated in the suttas that sensual pleasure is dangerous, and several metaphors are given for this.

People seem to think that lay practice is emphasized in the Canon, it is not, laymen are not supposed to lead spiritual lives, they are supposed to live good lives as laymen.

The interlocutors in most discourses are in fact monks.

The Buddha praised learning, in fact he often implied that great learning and careful reading lead to right view. Right view being one of forerunning factors for merit. Yet it is often implied on this forum that only "supramundane seeing" (which the Buddha denied existed, there is no "supramundane seeing of ultimate reality", there is only seeing accordance with what has become) leads to "insight". Yet "supramundane insight" especially of the "meditative kind" has nothing to do with Buddhism.

Buddhism is concerned with suffering and its end.

People here believe the Buddha taught no-self (nathatta), he did not, he taught the practice of relinquishing what is not yours (anatta), for the sake of liberation. He made no ontological statement as to the existence or non-existence of a self.

I could go on but I think you get the gist; this forum does not practice Buddhism.

I think one of the most harmful attitudes present on this forum is the disparaging of learning and reading the source material of Buddhism. Meditative insight is stressed instead. But the Buddha explicitly warns against taking up views in accordance with experience, see the Brahmajala Sutta and the Licchavi Bhaddiya Sutta---

Rather, what I'm saying is: the Buddha warns against extrapolating, based on experienced, implications as to the reality of the world.

Examples are people who meditate and have visions (that's another thing, the Buddha never gave explicit instructions as to the practice of meditation, except in the Anapanasati Sutta and possible the Satipatthana suttas) and then conclude that the visions mean something.

This post will likely disturb a lot of people, but before you respond read it carefully and check any sources I list, there is quite a bit of grounding in actual reality as to what I write.

Peace.

Bonus:

The Buddha also gives explicit instructions for determining if one is a stream-winner or above (a learner): http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.053.than.html

So there is no need to fret about whether or not one has blipped or whatever.

Actually it really is enough to just read the Buddhist teachings, agree with them, and then declare oneself a stream-winner. The Buddha refers to his followers as "noble disciples", who are learned and trained in his Dharma.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn25/sn25.001.than.html

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.070.than.html

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/13/14 5:25 PM as a reply to J J.
When googling I found that not a few people had the same impression that I had.
If one is to be crude one could easily say and with great confidence that the Buddha didnt teach much of what is actually in the Pali Cannon. The cannon came about much the same way as the new testament. They included what they like, wrote new stuff and it has changed through the years.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/13/14 5:27 PM as a reply to J J.
But none of that actually means that I think there aren't genuine practitioners of Dharma here, or that there are no stream-winners, once-returners, non-returners or arahats here.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/13/14 5:28 PM as a reply to Andreas.
Mmmm, yeah, I agree.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/13/14 5:46 PM as a reply to J J.
I liking it to how the haddiths came about in Islam. People claimed things, then they tried to trace its authencity backwards and then it became Muhammed did this. Think Islamic feminism has used this to identify that many of the misogynistic stuff actually came from the same "witness" which makes things less credible. One would expect to find different witnesses to different things. Wouldnt surprise me if the same "technique" wasnt used with Pali Cannon. 

Also there used to be many different versions of the Quran. But they were destroyed through the years. There was an german collector who had managed to save numerous versions of the Quran but sadly they all burnt up during the allies bombings.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/13/14 11:43 PM as a reply to J J.
This is all correct and matches the understanding I've gotten from my readings.  Vipassana meditation really has nothing to do with Buddhism.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 12:08 AM as a reply to J J.
J J:
Mindfulness is the most important link in the Eightfold Path. The Buddha has never isolated one link above the others. In the Discourse on the Four Applications of Mindfulness, he said that ‘mindfulness is cultivated to the extent necessary for knowing in order to abide freely and independently in the world.’ There is no instruction in the teachings of the Buddha to be ‘mindful in every moment.’ He could not live up to such an ideal. Nor can anyone else. It is an impossible undertaking. The Buddha was not always mindful of the consequences of his decisions and would change his mind later. To take one aspect of the path and elevate it above others abandons dependent arising. This would give selfhood to mindfulness. In MLD 117, the Buddha stated that right view, right effort and right mindfulness support each other while giving a comprehensive explanation of the mutual support and meanings of each link in the Noble Eightfold Path.

Moment to Moment Practice. The Buddha does not adopt such a view. He advocate the application of minfulness to body, feelings, state of mind and dharma. It is a means to realise a timeless liberation . He does not teach concentrating on mindfulness for its own sake. He does not give any kind of selfness to mindfulness. There are no words for moment to moment in any of the Suttas. One develops mindfulness along with six other limbs for awekening, namel inquiry, energy, deep happiness, calmness, meditative concentration and equanimity to reach true knowing of lliberation. (MLD 118).

These views seem unusual.

Mindfulness is certainly the most important factor of the path.

Although right view is called 'the forerunner', the path does not come into play until mindfulness is exercised.

This is why the teachings state: "All skilful dhammas are governed by mindfulness".

As for mindfulness in every moment, the Buddha did seem to say this perfection is possible.  emoticon

"O Bhikkhus. The footprints of all land-bound creatures fit within the footprint of the elephant; the elephant's footprint is said to be the supreme footprint in terms of size. Similarly all skilful dhammas have heedfulness as their base, converge within the bounds of heedfulness. Heedfulness may be said to be supreme amongst those dhammas." [S.V.43]

"I see no other dhamma which is as much a cause for arising of as-yet unarisen skilful  dhammas and the decline of already arisen unskilful dhammas as heedfulness. When one is heedful, as-yet unarisen skilful dhammas will inevitably arise and unskilful dhammas that have already arisen will inevitably decline." [A.I.11]

"I see no other dhamma that is so conductive to supreme benefit ..." [A.I.16]

"I see no other dhamma that is so conducive to the stability, the non-degeneration, the non-disappearance of the True Dhamma as heedfulness." [A.I.17]

"Looking at it as an 'internal factor' I see no other dhamma so conducive to supreme benefit as heedfulness." [A.I.16-17]
~~The Blessed One said, "Suppose, monks, that a large crowd of people comes thronging together, saying, 'The beauty queen! The beauty queen!' And suppose that the beauty queen is highly accomplished at singing & dancing, so that an even greater crowd comes thronging, saying, 'The beauty queen is singing! The beauty queen is dancing!' Then a man comes along, desiring life & shrinking from death, desiring pleasure & abhorring pain. They say to him, 'Now look here, mister. You must take this bowl filled to the brim with oil and carry it on your head in between the great crowd & the beauty queen. A man with a raised sword will follow right behind you, and wherever you spill even a drop of oil, right there will he cut off your head.' Now what do you think, monks: Will that man, not paying attention to the bowl of oil, let himself get distracted outside.

~~I have given you this parable to convey a meaning. The meaning is this: The bowl filled to the brim with oil stands for mindfulness immersed in the body. Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will develop mindfulness immersed in the body. We will pursue it, hand it the reins and take it as a basis, give it a grounding, steady it, consolidate it, and undertake it well.' That is how you should train yourselves.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.020.than.html

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 12:14 AM as a reply to J J.
J J:
http://www.dharmaenquiry.org/index.php/welcome/eng/whatthebuddhadidnotteach

Acceptance. In the 5000 discourses of the Buddha, it is not possible to find a Pali word for acceptance. He points to an inquiry that goes deeper than acceptance of what we cannot change

emoticon

~~He does not welcome the arisen gain, or rebel against the arisen loss. He does not welcome the arisen status, or rebel against the arisen disgrace. He does not welcome the arisen praise, or rebel against the arisen censure. He does not welcome the arisen pleasure, or rebel against the arisen pain. As he thus abandons welcoming & rebelling, he is released from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is released, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.006.than.html

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 12:22 AM as a reply to J J.
Although saying so probably isn't very skillful or helpful, this mini-rant has been building in me lately:

Who cares what the Buddha may or may not have taught? Who cares if the Buddha even existed? Why assume that 'Buddha' reached the pinnacle of enlightenment? Why assume methods ostensibly evolved from this ostensible figure are the best?

From my POV, here are infinitely more interesting questions: Who has attained what results using what methods and is alive and able to teach others the same? What do the 'mystical'/'spiritual'/esoteric traditions have in common? Is there an intrinsic aspect to 'enlightenment'?

Even Shinzen Young seems to have subtly fallen into the Buddhist-chauvinist view of enlightenment. He calls himself a 'Generalized Mystic' and says he doesn't identify as a Buddhist. But, in his BATGAP interview his 'Damascus test' for ultimate enlightenment is entirely predicated on the more enlightened ---> less suffering idea. There are many common elements between Buddhism and other mystical traditions. Fixation on suffering is not one of them. Buddhism: When advertisting ploys go wrong.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 12:22 AM as a reply to J J.
[quote=
]
I could go on but I think you get the gist; this forum does not practice Buddhism.



That's why I like it. It's pragmatic, its about what works in the 21st century. Buddhism has a lot to contribute, but it absolutely does not have the monopoly on non-dual awareness, which is what I'm interested in. 

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 12:33 AM as a reply to J J.
J J:
http://www.dharmaenquiry.org/index.php/welcome/eng/whatthebuddhadidnotteach

Being in the here and now. The Buddha does not give teachings to be here and now. Buddhist scholars have very freely translated ditthe dhamme as here and now. Ditthe means view and dhamme refers to dharma, namely all objects (in the mind and in the world, past, present or future), the teachings and truth. The Buddha did not give any kind of self entity or adopt a substance view to the present moment. Ditthe dhamma can also mean seeing with regard to the dharma.

The expression above seems pretty sloppy.

The scriptures do refer to seeing present realities and experiencing results in the present.

emoticon

~~You shouldn't chase after the past
or place expectations on the future.
What is past
 is left behind.
The future
 is as yet unreached.
Whatever quality is present
you clearly see right there,
    right there.
Not taken in,
unshaken,
that's how you develop the heart.

MN 131



~~Seeing danger in clinging,
 in the coming-into-play
 of birth & death, 
they are released from lack of clinging,
 in the ending
 of birth & death.
They, happy, arriving at safety,
fully unbound in the here-&-now,

MN 130

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 4:02 PM as a reply to J J.
J J:
http://www.dharmaenquiry.org/index.php/welcome/eng/whatthebuddhadidnotteach

~~7.Cause. The Buddha kept strictly to dependent arising. He does not adopt a simplistic cause and effect, A to B, thinking such as ‘this meditation technique leads directly to liberation. The Buddha referred to cause (Pali: hetu) as a distinctive condition (paccaya). He tended to put the two questions together. What is the cause? What is the condition? (ko hetu ko paccayo). Numerous causes or conditions for numerous effects are mentioned in the suttas. The Buddha does not apply any kind of simplistic model – this alone will cause that – for awakening. He refers to a direct path (eke-yana) to awakening

The above reads pretty trippy. emoticon

1. Dependent arising (paticcasummupada) refers to only one specific type of causation (iddapaccayata).

2. I trust the scriptures certainly use the word 'cause' (hetu) in isolation.

3. Whether the words hetu (cause), condition (paccaya), ahara (nutriment) or samudhaya (complete arising) are used or any combination of them depends on the context.

4. For example, in the 3rd Noble Truth, the word 'samudhaya' (refer to numerous causes & conditions) is used rather than 'cause'.

5. But I trust there are passage that use the word 'cause' alone.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 12:58 AM as a reply to J J.
J J:
http://www.dharmaenquiry.org/index.php/welcome/eng/whatthebuddhadidnotteach


8.Choice. The view that we are always free to make a choice does not accord with experience. We did not choose to be born, to stop growing old, to get sick or to suffer pain. We can’t choose to live for ever. We can’t choose to be happy in every moment of the day. We can’t choose the outcomes of events that effect our life. We might think we make free and independent choices only to find out later that the so-called free choice that we made turned out be a nightmare. Our so-called choices are limited. We make choices without knowing countless conditions influencing those choices either from the past, present or that might arise in the future. We are heirs to our karma and bound to our karma (MLD 135). Is this a choice? Is it wise to use the language of choice? Is the notion of consumer choice keeping us deluded and imprisoned as customers? The Buddha placed more emphasis on intention affecting body, speech and mind. In clarity, we naturally cultivate ethics, samadhi and wisdoml. It is a natural priority. Wisdom says that there doesn’t feel to be any choice about it. It is simply conducive to a liberated way of life. Deep down, there is really no choice.

9.Determinism and Fatalism. The past certainly can determine the process of dependent arising. The fact that the past can determine the present does not mean that we are prisoners, because the past is not an agent that ultimately can imprison us. This also means that there are no events that just happen without causes and conditions. The Buddha also does not teach fatalism. If the past absolutely determined our life, then the teachings of the Four Noble Truths are irrelevant. We would be a total prisoner to our past. Again, there would be no liberation from the past, from the unresolved forces of karma. The Buddha teaches dependent arising and liberation.


Sounding very contradicted above.

The Buddha taught we can and certainly do choose.

The ultimate teaching of karma is the karma (we chose to do) that ends karma.

We can choose to not suffer (by choosing to not egoistically cling to birth, aging, illness, physical pain & death).

I have read enough for now. emoticon

~~One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong view & for entering into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness.[2] Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view.

MN 118



~~But in the case of a well-taught noble disciple, O monks, when he is touched by a painful feeling, he will not worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. It is one kind of feeling he experiences, a bodily one, but not a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart, but was not hit by a second dart following the first one. So this person experiences feelings caused by a single dart only. It is similar with a well-taught noble disciple: when touched by a painful feeling, he will no worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. He experiences one single feeling, a bodily one

SN 36.6



Then the Blessed One spoke to the Venerable Ananda, saying: "Enough, Ananda! Do not grieve, do not lament! For have I not taught from the very beginning that with all that is dear and beloved there must be change, separation, and severance? Of that which is born, come into being, compounded, and subject to decay, how can one say: 'May it not come to dissolution!'? There can be no such state of things.

DN 16

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 1:05 AM as a reply to J J.
I think Buddha's great contribution that got carried forward is his emphasis on compulsiveness causing us to be limited and thus unhappy because we don't always get what we want and we want it because we are sensually compulsive. In other words, the thirst for sensation as a substitute for the real joy if we would only quiet our minds, and even vanish them.

So, wouldn't the measuring stick be, how quiet is my mind? Today my mind went noticeably and totally quiet for about 3 minutes and I was not diminished but my use of my mind was gone.  It felt a bit odd because I was just going to say something very "important" too  :-))

About past lives and rebirth I can understand why one would not wish to explore that, but eventually a good and right practice would gradiently lead one to not flinching at the thought and allowing -- even inviting -- the mind to divulge itself fully: as the storehouse of past importances. The whole universe is stored in that mind, moment by moment. A good practice though will make fairly short work of all of that. I am certain that Buddha recalled his past lives in a manner that relieved him of compulsively acting them out over and over again.

Yes, I heartily agree with JJ that supramundane insights are nice in one respect but not necessary for the vanishment of the mind. In fact they can simply support the ego of someone not yet wised up to the nature of the mind. It's nice to interact in the world on a more intuitive and insightful level. But as Nisargadatta would say, "that's not IT!", lol. I have fun with some mental constructs and take notes and it is nice to recover some abilities that I lost long ago, but not to stop there even if it is more freedom for me to play.

Buddha's other great contribution was to leave it up to us to find out who the creator is. Everytime I went up the hierarchy of life to register a complaint I was always told I could change it because I created it. I did not like hearing that. We gave ourself a big "must not know" and how are we ever going to change our minds about that?

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 2:00 AM as a reply to Dada Kind.
Re: skillful, helpful, don't worry about it I'm not bothered.

The reason I assume that the Buddha reached the end (which I don't assume, I actually do believe that, or know that, rather) is because he did. It's a fact, I don't really see the point in throwing away the insights of someone who I genuinely feel (or rather; know --- but saying that you know something (for sure) on this forum is a taboo) actually reached the end and articulated the way leading there.

The questions you ask in the second paragraph appear to be pragmatic, but in reality they tend toward the notion that no one has a monopoly on enlightenment, that all teachings have a common grain of truth and so on and so forth.

But for me there are no questions, the Buddha got it, his doctrine is the genuine teaching etc. We don't need to ask these questions, because historically speaking; there was someone who got it. And made it.

But the thirst for searching (bhava) is so intense in people that they would rather have it be a mystery.

It really is so crystal clear, read the Dhamma and practice in accordance with the Dhamma.

Re: Jason and non-dual awareness

Non-dual awareness (which itself is never strictly defined but I think I get what it means) is a common goal of many mystical traditions, but once again not the goal of Buddhism; to assume all mystical traditions have the same goal is once again naive and pluralistic.

There are hierarchies and stratification among teachings, some teachings contain the genuine truth (Buddhism), others do not. Some are more helpful and harmful than others, they are not all on the same plane.

Re: pragmatic attitude, i.e what works

This assumes that we can discover for ourselves, everything and work it ourselves. Basically; endless exploration.

I disagree with this, it has been found, I know the truth, I don't wish to gloss it over.

Peace.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 3:48 AM as a reply to J J.
I have been reading up on some of this stuff as well. For those curious to learn more about how what we call vipassana was popularized, the following article delves into some of that history, with a history of Mahasi style methods at the bottom:

https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/theravada-reinvents-meditation/

A couple more links from same author comparing modern Buddhist understanding of meditation and enlightenment.Also, if someone could explain an easy way to link directly to articles that would be useful. Thanks.
https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/what-got-left-out-of-%E2%80%9Cmeditation%E2%80%9D/

https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/epistemology-and-enlightenment/#whoisenlightened

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 7:04 AM as a reply to J J.
I like the article, but some in this thread seem to forget that the suttas are not perfect, complete, or divinely inspired. It is also quite possible that the Buddha was incorrect, as he was only a man, albeit an extraordinary one. It is amusing to see some tossing out the Theravada and Mahayana in favor of blind faith in the canon. It reminds me of the protestant movement, denouncing millenia of christian mystical practice and clinging to the bible as divinely inspired. These are the same people who believe the earth is 6000 years old.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 10:54 AM as a reply to J J.
[quote=
]Non-dual awareness (which itself is never strictly defined but I think I get what it means) is a common goal of many mystical traditions, but once again not the goal of Buddhism; to assume all mystical traditions have the same goal is once again naive and pluralistic.

I would argue by the Bahiya Sutta that it is the goal of Buddhism as well. And I would rather be naive and pluralistic than dogmatic and rigid. I'm a big "one mountain, many paths", proponent.  

There are hierarchies and stratification among teachings, some teachings contain the genuine truth (Buddhism), others do not. Some are more helpful and harmful than others, they are not all on the same plane.

Yawn. I have heard many fundamentalist Christians say the same thing. And they have the resurrection to prove it!

Re: pragmatic attitude, i.e what works

This assumes that we can discover for ourselves, everything and work it ourselves. Basically; endless exploration.

What's wrong with discovering things for ourself - are we infants? That is not to say that there aren't many qualified teachers (from diverse traditions) out there who can guide us on a path (up the same mountain) that fits our sensibilities. And it is not endless exploration, many people are waking up - just look at some of the practitioners on this site, or all the people being interviewed on BATGAP.... I am not searching, I am learning and progressing and tweaking, but not searching. 

I disagree with this, it has been found, I know the truth, I don't wish to gloss it over.

You know the truth, just like billions of others. 


RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 11:16 AM as a reply to Jason Snyder.
Hey Jason,

Too be honest I actually don't disagree with the aims of this site, it's motives or fundamental orientation at all. I think I was just stirring up trouble and controversy for no reason to be honest.

Carry on, carry on.

And please take what I wrote with a grain of salt I really didn't believe what I wrote at all.

Anyways I'm gonna duck out of this thread.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 11:37 AM as a reply to J J.
J J:
Hey Jason,

Too be honest I actually don't disagree with the aims of this site, it's motives or fundamental orientation at all. I think I was just stirring up trouble and controversy for no reason to be honest.

Carry on, carry on.

And please take what I wrote with a grain of salt I really didn't believe what I wrote at all.

Anyways I'm gonna duck out of this thread.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 11:49 AM as a reply to J J.
From my perspective, it's neither dogmatism nor clinging to the suttas that caused me to agree.  It's simply that vipassana and the progress of insight is completely counter to what I've found to work, and I've found that the early suttas match my own experience.

The Buddha said stream entry removes sceptical doubt.  What is this sceptical doubt?  It's doubt that a person can end stress.  I think you guys have either seen that it's possible, then drank the vipassana non-dual kool-aid and decided that being without stress was simply a conditioned state that broke the holy law of imperminanace, or you really are still ignorant of what can be accomplished.

Here, Droll, I'll match your rant.  I've realized I spend most of my time here pissed off by how conceited everyone is.  One mountain, many paths is completely myopic and a great way to justify ignoring things that are different.  If someone isn't following the holy book of the venerable Daniel Ingram (Arahant (but not really)) on here, then everyone will fill their threads with personal attacks, or debate to try to prove to themselves that it's not REALLY different so they can feel better about claiming to know the all-encompasing eternal wisdom.

Hell, maybe vipassana is woking for you, that's great!  Keep doing it!  But if you feel the need to prove, over and over again, that it's the only correct path and eveyone else is missing the point, then it's obviously not working and you have just given up on actually figuing things out.  You're trying to settle into the idea that your four blips and dissociated state is the best that can happen so you can say you're done without having accomplished anything.

Good luck everyone, I hope you find whatever you're looking for.  I'm certainly not going to find what I'm looking for here.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 12:09 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
From my perspective, it's neither dogmatism nor clinging to the suttas that caused me to agree.  It's simply that vipassana and the progress of insight is completely counter to what I've found to work, and I've found that the early suttas match my own experience.

The Buddha said stream entry removes sceptical doubt.  What is this sceptical doubt?  It's doubt that a person can end stress.  I think you guys have either seen that it's possible, then drank the vipassana non-dual kool-aid and decided that being without stress was simply a conditioned state that broke the holy law of imperminanace, or you really are still ignorant of what can be accomplished.

[...]

Hell, maybe vipassana is woking for you, that's great!  Keep doing it!  But if you feel the need to prove, over and over again, that it's the only correct path and eveyone else is missing the point, then it's obviously not working and you have just given up on actually figuing things out.  You're trying to settle into the idea that your four blips and dissociated state is the best that can happen so you can say you're done without having accomplished anything.

Good luck everyone, I hope you find whatever you're looking for.  I'm certainly not going to find what I'm looking for here.
When one reads about and their own writing people such as Cold Mountain, Big stick, Bokuju, Ryokan, Bankei etc, they seem to be happy, joking, in the world type of people that interact with folks and children. They are in and off the world. When one look at the dedicated vipassana people, most seem rather onedimensional, dull and somewhat disconnected. But thats my impression. Maybe hardcore vipassana attracts certain people or they havent gone beyound it. They ignore the last few of the ox hearding pictures.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 12:09 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
From my perspective, it's neither dogmatism nor clinging to the suttas that caused me to agree.  It's simply that vipassana and the progress of insight is completely counter to what I've found to work, and I've found that the early suttas match my own experience.

The Buddha said stream entry removes sceptical doubt.  What is this sceptical doubt?  It's doubt that a person can end stress.  I think you guys have either seen that it's possible, then drank the vipassana non-dual kool-aid and decided that being without stress was simply a conditioned state that broke the holy law of imperminanace, or you really are still ignorant of what can be accomplished.

Here, Droll, I'll match your rant.  I've realized I spend most of my time here pissed off by how conceited everyone is.  One mountain, many paths is completely myopic and a great way to justify ignoring things that are different.  If someone isn't following the holy book of the venerable Daniel Ingram (Arahant (but not really)) on here, then everyone will fill their threads with personal attacks, or debate to try to prove to themselves that it's not REALLY different so they can feel better about claiming to know the all-encompasing eternal wisdom.

Hell, maybe vipassana is woking for you, that's great!  Keep doing it!  But if you feel the need to prove, over and over again, that it's the only correct path and eveyone else is missing the point, then it's obviously not working and you have just given up on actually figuing things out.  You're trying to settle into the idea that your four blips and dissociated state is the best that can happen so you can say you're done without having accomplished anything.

Good luck everyone, I hope you find whatever you're looking for.  I'm certainly not going to find what I'm looking for here.
Okay, two mountains, many paths ;) 

Speaking for myself, I came to Vipassa for the dissociation, but stayed for the nihilism. Blips are icing on the cake. 

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 12:23 PM as a reply to Jason Snyder.
Jason Snyder:
Okay, two mountains, many paths ;) 

Speaking for myself, I came to Vipassa for the dissociation, but stayed for the nihilism. Blips are icing on the cake. 



Ha, good to see you can be honest. emoticon

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 2:51 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
To Not Tao's semi-rant,

Originally, I disliked topics that have a lot of debate and argumentation as they seem like a distraction from practice, but I've come full circle to say that I think these topics are great for practice, because conflict is unavoidable in daily life. Getting to read these posts and better yet, making a post, is a great way to trigger very difficult thoughts and emotions and then meditate on them. Furthermore, being in the arena of debate between different opinions is a great way to keep one from becoming inbred with their practice and conceptual worldview.

That being said, I think when having a discussion about what one should aim for and what is possible needs to be as fair as possible. Exact fairness is impossible, but good enough fairness is possible. Therefore, when people of vastly different outlooks come to discuss something like awakening and related topics, there needs to be a deliberate and conscious addressing of the discussion itself to be fair. What is fairness? Fairness is a willing to compromise and play with definitions, instead of automatically assuming you're right. Fairness is a willingness to question your deepest held assumptions, not because you think they're wrong necessarily, but being open to adaptation. Honestly, having talked with you with another topic, then later reading some of your responses in other topics after that, I just don't get the sense you are fair with your discussions. Now, because this is the internet, it's easy for me to misunderstand, so as tempting as it is to be harsh with my analysis, I won't. 

Anyone can be dismissive, including the more pragmatically minded on here, such as myself. But seeing your posts I feel you are more guilty of this than others, say Daniel, for example. This is some high level stuff in trying to discuss what we care about most in a civil manner, so I'm grateful to get to practice something so tough, but these are my impressions of the structure of discourse here. I will give a preemptive apology if I have casted you in an incorrect light. emoticon

Lastly, I found the original link and article to be interesting and informative and felt I gained something from it.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 3:03 PM as a reply to Ryan J.
If I haven't been fair recently, it's due to being dissolutioned about the overall fairness of other people who I've been talking to here.  I'm definately venting some steam, but the steam has come from holding my tongue too many times trying to be civil.

In the spirit of fairness, though, there has been civil debate mixed into the junk.  I guess that's just like any other forum.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 4:30 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
This community is devoted to hardcore meditation practice, mainly grounded in the Theravada school of Buddhism as it has developed during the last century in Burma. Why sutta fans and actualists keep showing up, I haven't a clue. There simply isn't much to support these practices here, regardless of the fact that this is a very open community.

The sutta fans don't have much in the way of a mature practice, tending instead to rely on blind belief in the ancient texts. I don't understand why this happens. Perhaps it is related to some kind of childhood development in regards to authority, or some other psych issue. After years of being sent to a fundamentalist Christian high school, I can only say that if you need an old book to tell you what to believe, something is probably wrong with you.

The actualists had their day, around 2011 or 2012 if memory serves, but most of them have since moved on. It turns out that PCEs are temporary (impermanence!) and "actual freedom" is hard to come by. Most parties involved ended up renouncing their claims to actual freedom and vanishing from cyberspace, though I am not inclined to mention any names. As for Richard and the rest, they certainly seem to have their fair share of emotions despite their claims, especially Vineeto. 

I crossed the A&P and experienced the later stages of insight without having a clue what was going on. I was shocked to see how much my experiences lined up with the progress of insight. I was also astounded to realize that, truly, this is universal path. It does not require a practitioner to believe in it in order for it to work. 

Despite the complex consequences of the dark night, I am deeply grateful for the profound insights I have experienced, and remain a shameless fan of the Theravada tradition, but only because it coincides with my own experiences. I am in awe of the fact that such a simple technique can produce such profound insights and altered states of consciousness.

Thus, I I am devoted to lifting the hem of my robe and shitting on anyone who comes stumbling into this obscure corner of the dharma world and trying to disparage the frameworks and techniques that have provided me, and many others, with deep insight into the nature of reality, which in turn provides greater levels of happiness, tranquility, and peace.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 5:36 PM as a reply to Eric M W.
My own experience aligns to some degree with Eric's. I had been practicing for four years when I met with Vince Horn, and began to describe for him my own experience with meditation. Vince pointed me to the progress of insight and I saw that described in broad terms what I had just been describing to him. With the exception of perhaps the "stage of disgust", when asked to describe to him my meditative experience I described the chronologiclal stages of insight up to, and including, reobservation. I did not have previous knowledge of the stages. What I read from Buddhism was not technical, I had just learned about Daniel Ingram and Kenneth Folk, so I wasn't framing my practice in that way, and I had not been practicing noting. Seeing what I had been experiencing laid out was incredibly useful as it provided a conceptual framework for understanding what I had been experiencing. I thought before then I had just been going through a difficult few years. 
Though I don't note anymore as practice, or hew closely to traditional Theravada, I can not deny that the noting practice brought about powerful, and ultimately positive changes in the way that I experience reality. My practice piror to then was primarily anapanasati, and it was simply not doing the same things, or at least a much slower rate.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 5:55 PM as a reply to Eric M W.
Ok, then change the intro of the forum to say, "We practice vipassana meditation as outlined by Mahasi, and if you have any experience that defies this understanding, then piss off - we lift up our robes and shit on anything that denies we're practicing the one true path of insight that leads to the one true understanding about the world."

Right now, the point of the forum seems to be about open pragmatic practice "that actually leads to beneficial, fundamental mental, perceptual and emotional transformations. It is a place where everything related to the support of practice may flourish..."

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 7:48 PM as a reply to J J.
People need to remember that many practices are similar to Advaita Vedanta and Ramana Maharshi. Despite those methods not being Buddhism they do work wonderfully and are better than doing nothing.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/14/14 8:22 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
I'm somewhat glad to have contributed to kicking off a few mini-rants. Better out than in.

I'm not sure if it's being implied that I subscribe to the 'one mountain, many paths view' or that I claim to know the answer. In any case, I'll throw my opinions in.

Sometimes I think 'enlightenment' is completely intrinstic, other times I think it has one intrinsic aspect and practically infinite constructed aspects, other times I think it has many intrinsic aspects and practically infinite constructed aspects, other times I think it has practically infinite intrinsic aspects and practically infinite constructed aspects. Sometimes I think that everyone has their own little microcosm that begin approximately equal in which the possibilities of change are only limited by maintaining contact with the other microcosms, and every microcosm happens on its own.

My original post was only intended to convey: I think poring over centuries-old texts translated from dead guys that waited a couple hundred years to write down what was ostensibly taught by even deader guys is practically useless. And, relying on only 'Buddhist' texts, teachings, and frameworks makes no sense to me; it just becomes another stagnant belief system.

To even see people use the term 'Buddhist' frankly embarrasses me. I respect many people who do use that label, and I'm infinitely appreciative of the techniques. But, that label seems to attract hordes of aging Boomers who feel subtly superior for rebelling against prevailing Judeo-Christian attitudes, while still dragging on all of its consequences: life-negative, sex-negative, neurotic about morality, guilt, etc.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/15/14 12:00 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
Ok, then change the intro of the forum to say, "We practice vipassana meditation as outlined by Mahasi, and if you have any experience that defies this understanding, then piss off - we lift up our robes and shit on anything that denies we're practicing the one true path of insight that leads to the one true understanding about the world."

Right now, the point of the forum seems to be about open pragmatic practice "that actually leads to beneficial, fundamental mental, perceptual and emotional transformations. It is a place where everything related to the support of practice may flourish..."
I don't think this is entirely false, that there will be an emphasis towards this style of practice and thinking about practice. So in reply I will say a couple of good things and a couple of disagreements I have about the DhO ethos.

Having spent most of my time lurking this forum via google to find answers to questions I have, even though perhaps this can be an opinionated place, it quite frankly is far less dogmatic, in my opinion, than other places like Dhammawheel or the speculative non-Buddhists. Those two groups represent two extreme ends. Having seen how they think, and talk, as much as I would love to bring out my full rhetorical force and go at it with either group, it simply isn't worth it. I mean the ethos of those places, not 100% of their members. This place is tame in comparison. It could be much worse!

Now, I wish I had a decades worth of more experience, but I suspect that the MCTB progress of insight model is inadequate in that it's too linear. That it probably captures some basic patterns, but in it's excessive simplicity can be misleading as to what to expect and how things will unfold. But since it's its 'good enough' in that it roughly approximates a sizable population of people, people use it. I don't. Or, at least, I rarely think about it. I'm glad I know it and feel it has helped me, but only so much. I plan to mention Stephen Jourdain on this site more as understanding what he was is a project of mine, but his existence totally goes against the progress of insight, but he is a 1 in a billion exception, probably rarer.

What we need, and Daniel himself suggested this if I remember, is capturing more data from many people. I think until there is a grand project where many, many people from many different styles of practice give detailed explanations of their development, we have only crude guesses at best.

Lastly, I am not a fan of perennial philosophy, actually. Differences do matter, in some sense, but a sense not large enough for me to invest a lot of time in discussing quite yet. David Chapman makes very good points in this regard. I am a fan of his, and yet, I also have my disagreements with him, too. 

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/15/14 12:18 AM as a reply to Dada Kind.
I'm starting to think, "better out than in," is a good idea. I thought I was flaming you guys, then you gave me some good answers. emoticon

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/15/14 1:18 AM as a reply to Eric M W.
This is my general view as well, that Buddha was a person, very likely quite wise with many useful things to teach, but probably also not perfect or perfecty correct 100% of the time.  As well, there are probably many useful and correct things to learn that he did not teach, simply because he was but one man that lived in a time and place and circumstance far removed from where most of us are now.  His teachings are of much use I think to many but I don't personally choose to make a religion out of them.  I also try not to make a religion out of any of my current beliefs and opinions about him and his teachings, the nature of reality, or any of that stuff.  Sure I have my opinions but if I get too attached to them and defend them too vigorously then I find it makes me unable to learn or grow or understand new things. 
-Eva
[quote=
Eric M W]I like the article, but some in this thread seem to forget that the suttas are not perfect, complete, or divinely inspired. It is also quite possible that the Buddha was incorrect, as he was only a man, albeit an extraordinary one. It is amusing to see some tossing out the Theravada and Mahayana in favor of blind faith in the canon. It reminds me of the protestant movement, denouncing millenia of christian mystical practice and clinging to the bible as divinely inspired. These are the same people who believe the earth is 6000 years old.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/15/14 12:05 PM as a reply to Eva Nie.
This idea around one mountain many paths is both true and false
It is true in the sense that, as spiritual people, religious people or mystics, we are after the Truth
There are not two truths
That is not to say that the truth or even nibbana looks very different to different people, I think that could be the case, from my studies anyway
There are some basic truths to the human condition and life in general, the Buddha pointed out some of those truths
One is that the cause of stress is ignorance. He also said the cause was desire and clinging. That doesn't make either of those statements less true
It seems to be the truth that once we transcend our egos and our selfishness we obtain freedom. That has been the experience of mystics from Buddhists to Actualists
Still, no one can ever type a true sentence, it's not possible
Those that believe that the truth can be written down and codified are called fundamentalists
A much more wiser approach (IMO) is the don't know mind. Is Theravada more true than Mahayana? Don't know
Is Christian doctrine and mythology true in a general sense? Don't know
Is rebirth a fact of existence? Don't know
Those that know the answers to these questions, or any others, are very quiet, you don't usually hear from them
That is because at the root of trying to be the most correct one in the room, or trying to put forth an argument, lies a very subtle dis-ease because some portion of you is still unsure. This is why people argue
If someone were to walk up to me and tell me that I'm not typing on a computer right now, that I'm actually underneath the ocean, I wouldn't respond to them at all? Why? Because they are clearly a crazy person
Those that know the truth have no need of arguing and those that don't like to do it all day long
The Buddha warned against the thickets of views because they are not conducive to knowing freedom within one's own heart, they are only conducive to more thickets. 
If you don't know something 100% it's best to stay silent. Funny that the ones that stay silent are actually the ones that know things 100%
 

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/15/14 1:06 PM as a reply to Eric M W.
Eric M W:
This community is devoted to hardcore meditation practice, mainly grounded in the Theravada school of Buddhism as it has developed during the last century in Burma. Why sutta fans and actualists keep showing up, I haven't a clue. There simply isn't much to support these practices here, regardless of the fact that this is a very open community.
I specifically asked Daniel Ingram about whether Actualism is on-topic for the DhO. I thought it wasn't, but he thought it was. I'm not sure you noticed, but the front page used to read (emphasis mine):
The Dharma Overground is a resource for the support of hardcore meditation practice. It is a place where everything related to the support of practice may flourish, including where to go on retreats, what techniques may lead to what, an in depth look at the maps of possible states and stages, discussions about how to determine what experience was what, and in general anything that has to do with actually practicing rather than what typically occurs in standard meditation circles. Here you will find a robust and variable community of people with a wide range of experience levels, perspectives and interests, though all loosely bound by the same basic principles of empowering, helpful, engaged dharma and exploration of the possibilities of the mind. [link]
I suggested that as actualism wasn't a meditation practice, it was off-topic here. Daniel countered that it does lead to beneficial mental transformations. That's when I suggested re-writing that paragraph, which now reads:
The Dharma Overground is a resource for the support of practices that actually lead to beneficial, fundamental mental, perceptual and emotional transformations. It is a place where everything related to the support of practice may flourish, including where to go on retreats, what techniques may lead to what, an in depth look at the maps of possible states and stages, discussions about how to determine what experience was what, and in general anything that has to do with actually practicing rather than what typically occurs in, for example, standard meditation circles and forums. Here you will find a robust and variable community of people with a wide range of experience levels, perspectives and interests, though all loosely bound by the same basic principles of empowering, helpful, engaged knowledge and exploration of the possibilities of the mind and how it may be modified to reduce suffering and enhance wisdom. [link]
So the word is in: actualism is on-topic. Whether actualists or anybody else will find any benefit of posting about actualism here is another matter of course.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/15/14 2:54 PM as a reply to Eric M W.
Eric M W:
This community is devoted to hardcore meditation practice, mainly grounded in the Theravada school of Buddhism as it has developed during the last century in Burma. Why sutta fans and actualists keep showing up, I haven't a clue. There simply isn't much to support these practices here, regardless of the fact that this is a very open community.

The sutta fans don't have much in the way of a mature practice, tending instead to rely on blind belief in the ancient texts. I don't understand why this happens. Perhaps it is related to some kind of childhood development in regards to authority, or some other psych issue. After years of being sent to a fundamentalist Christian high school, I can only say that if you need an old book to tell you what to believe, something is probably wrong with you.


Well.....the topic of the thead was about what the Buddha did or did not teach (rather than about Burmese techniques or your personal pyschological experiences). This I assume is the reason why sutta fans have appeared on this thread; because only the suttas can form the basis of such a topic. Sometime sutta fans do not post much here but pop in occassionally, where they think they may be useful in contributing.

Also, you seem to be inferring the suttas are not a description of practise and cannot form the basis of a discussion about practise.


RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/15/14 2:57 PM as a reply to Daniel - san.
Daniel Leffler:

There are some basic truths to the human condition and life in general....the ones that stay silent are actually the ones that know things 100%
 

Interesting post but, in reality, few practise aimlessly. For example, the Burmese methods are generally extremely structured, far more structured than the instructions given in the suttas.

My point is that discussion is often required; words are often required. Burmese teachers generally use far more words than say the more renowed Thai teachers, who often employed a 'Zen-like' approach.

My guess is this thread was started on a certain topic, which as quite straightforward, but few if any here were equipped to discuss it.

My guess is it was those that should have stayed silent that did not stay silent.

If the rationale of most replies on this thread is followed, the whole thread, particularly the opening post, might as well be deleted.

All the best. emoticon

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/15/14 5:01 PM as a reply to Nicky.
Ha!
I was using a little poetic license here Nicky - still I've found your contributions very useful and insightful 
I am a big fan of the suttas myself, and I personally tend toward the Buddha-got-it-right crowd
I can't be 100% though so I'll shhhhh...   emoticon

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/15/14 11:27 PM as a reply to Daniel - san.
Daniel Leffler:

There are some basic truths to the human condition and life in general, the Buddha pointed out some of those truths
One is that the cause of stress is ignorance. He also said the cause was desire and clinging.
OK, but what then causes desire and clinging?  Does desire and clinging cause ignorance and ignorance cause desire and clinging? 

Those that know the answers to these questions, or any others, are very quiet, you don't usually hear from them
That is because at the root of trying to be the most correct one in the room, or trying to put forth an argument, lies a very subtle dis-ease because some portion of you is still unsure. This is why people argue
People also argue because they have a pony in the race, ie they have emotional investment in specific answers or types of answers or specific appearances of seeming to know the answers.  But some issues have been hashed over and over with no new input, and after a while, one might easily get tired of the same old arguments or it might be an area that a person is not super interested in.  

If someone were to walk up to me and tell me that I'm not typing on a computer right now, that I'm actually underneath the ocean, I wouldn't respond to them at all? Why? Because they are clearly a crazy person
Such a statement also is not likely to be a threat to your core identity in any way.  But if a person were to say, accuse you of meditating incorrectly, being rude to someone, not working hard enough, not being very smart, not being loyal, etc, then what?   It's the things that threaten sense of identity that typically illicit emotional response. 
Those that know the truth have no need of arguing and those that don't like to do it all day long
The Buddha warned against the thickets of views because they are not conducive to knowing freedom within one's own heart, they are only conducive to more thickets. 
If you don't know something 100% it's best to stay silent. Funny that the ones that stay silent are actually the ones that know things 100%
If the ones that don't know 100% were to stay silent and then also the ones that (apparently) do know, also stay silent well then seems to me there would hardly ever be a word spoken again, the internet would disappear, no books would be written, and there would be nothing but the sound of crickets. 
;-P
-Eva
 

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/16/14 9:32 AM as a reply to J J.
I am extremely familiar with both Christopher Titmuss, having sat over 50 days on retreat with him total (two 9-days, one 17-day, one 27-day (during which I got stream entry) and also conversed with him at length about teaching when I was on retreat at Gaia House (and during which time he gave me permission to teach), and so I will briefly say this:

He is a study in contraditions, as once rebel and traditionalist, at once very into the Pali Canon and also totally in some other direction, at once powerful and realized dharma teachers and also guy who has gotten in trouble again and again for his fondness for young, pretty female retreats. I am familiar with all of those points he makes on his website, as he made them in person during Dharma talks and more.

He will say things like, "This Christopher is NOT suffering!", and then write books of poetry such as Fire Dance and Other Poems (good book), some of which is unabashedly sensual and sexual in nature.

In short, using him as an example of supporting Buddhist traditionalism is a double-edged sword.

I got a ton out sitting with Christopher and highly recommend him, with the qualifier that, if you are a pretty woman, best to keep your wits about you if you start to receive undue attention and make good decisions that you will be happy with years later. I presume you are all adults and can make adult choices. He is getting older now, but whether or not that has slowed him down I have no idea.

His no-bullshit approach to Buddhism and meditation in general lent me a lot of license and support to also call it like I see it, and sites like the Dharma Overground and my book are influenced by his basic spirit to a high degree.

Still, he is very much a non-map guy, which is quite Thai of him, as his training was as a Thai monastic, which is fine, but to negate the verifiable truths of parts of the Abhidhamma and the Visuddhimagga, neither of which I totally buy either, would be foolish, as you actually can verify much of what you find there.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/16/14 9:56 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
So the word is in: actualism is on-topic. Whether actualists or anybody else will find any benefit of posting about actualism here is another matter of course.

Alright, let me clarify, since I sounded like an asshole in my original post...

The Dho is open to any practice that provides lasting, positive change, this is true. But it was founded on the heels of MCTB, which obviously recommends vipassana. Thus, there tends to be a skew towards this particular practice and the maps that come with it, for better or for worse. 

In this sense, the Dho is a bit like a Unitarian Universalist church-- open to everything, but with Christian frameworks, views, etc.

And as a fan of Theravada techniques, I have no shame in beating my drum and shitting on other techniques, regardless of whether they work or whether my attitude is skillful or helpful.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/16/14 10:37 AM as a reply to Eva Nie.
Eva M Nie:
OK, but what then causes desire and clinging?  Does desire and clinging cause ignorance and ignorance cause desire and clinging?  

yes and yes

Such a statement also is not likely to be a threat to your core identity in any way.  But if a person were to say, accuse you of meditating incorrectly, being rude to someone, not working hard enough, not being very smart, not being loyal, etc, then what?   It's the things that threaten sense of identity that typically illicit emotional response.  

That's true Eva, showing that our identity views cause suffering. My example was how an enlightened response might be, when totally uninvested in one's own image and ideas. I experienced this when a client of mine was angry and basically said I wasn't good at my job. I was internally bent out of shape for some time as I ruminated over and over it (but I am good at my job, they're wrong!). After some introspection I came to the conclusion that maybe they were correct, maybe in that instance I wasn't being good at my job, and so what. Sometimes I am and sometimes I am not - that sounds more true. When I accepted that my view of myself (and most likely their view of me) wasn't 100% true 100% of the time, it brought clarity. The result was peace and maybe a little humility (me hopefully being more aware of how I could do a better job in the future)

If the ones that don't know 100% were to stay silent and then also the ones that (apparently) do know, also stay silent well then seems to me there would hardly ever be a word spoken again, the internet would disappear, no books would be written, and there would be nothing but the sound of crickets.  

That would certainly be the case, maybe even the crickets would be silent  emoticon

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/16/14 10:46 AM as a reply to Eric M W.
Eric M W:
And as a fan of Theravada techniques, I have no shame in beating my drum and shitting on other techniques, regardless of whether they work or whether my attitude is skillful or helpful.

That's nice. Maybe you should get some jerseys printed up with numbers on the back
When everyone feels like you (most do) all we hear is the cacophonous noise of drums and the only smell is shit 
Less metaphorically, being careless and unconcerned with whether or not your attitude is helpful or skillful to others (whose techniques may even be of value and 'work') doesn't sound like a Theravada technique to me, even though you're clearly a big fan

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/16/14 11:07 AM as a reply to Daniel - san.
Less metaphorically, being careless and unconcerned with whether or not your attitude is helpful or skillful to others (whose techniques may even be of value and 'work') doesn't sound like a Theravada technique to me, even though you're clearly a big fan

A fan but not a follower-- I remain an iconoclast at heart. As for being unconcerned, I do take the morality aspect of the three trainings quite seriously. I am, however, not really inclined to keep my light under a bushel while on the internet, especially in an open community such as this one.

At any rate, the verdict seems to be in-- nice try, Titmuss, but no cigar.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/16/14 11:20 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Pragmatism prevails! emoticon

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/16/14 1:10 PM as a reply to Daniel - san.
Daniel Leffler:
Eva M Nie:
OK, but what then causes desire and clinging?  Does desire and clinging cause ignorance and ignorance cause desire and clinging?  

yes and yes
Sneaky little trap isn't it!
-Eva

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
12/17/14 3:31 AM as a reply to J J.
Thank you.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
1/5/15 4:30 AM as a reply to Eric M W.
Quote by Eric M W: "The Dho is open to any practice that provides lasting, positive change, this is true. ButIn this sense, the Dho is a bit like a Unitarian Universalist church-- open to everything, but with Christian frameworks, views, etc.
And as a fan of Theravada techniques, I have no shame in beating my drum and shitting on other techniques, regardless of whether they work or whether my attitude is skillful or helpful."

As to the Unitarian aspects, I get what you are saying, and historically and in some ways thematically this is true. That said, the history of this place shows that plenty of things that might best be described as actively hostile to things Buddhist have also thrived here at times, Actualism being the most striking example, and I hope similar things happen in the future, as good practitioners exploring what works for themselves is far more important to me than maintaining some sort of permanent dogma.

RE: What The Buddha Did Not Teach - Christopher Titmuss
Answer
1/1/15 10:39 AM as a reply to Daniel M. Ingram.
I personally appreciate you for that, for although I began with and operate within the framework of Buddha's basic concepts as I objectively and subjectively understand them to be, it is no longer for me about the Buddha or any of my teachers, although I still have high affinity and appreciation for their devotion to saving their own souls and then sharing as best they could.  I appreciate you for this too.

The time of poring through texts and transcripts and long hours of discussion seems to be over for me and the struggle now is to actually do the practice through to completion of objective vs the other "important" things I want to do.