My biggest confusion about the "spiritual scene," especially Buddhism

What I like about Daniel Ingram and Kenneth Folk, and many people affiliated with them, is the clarity of the intent of the teachings, discussions, practices. Whether someone is "non-dual" or on the "four path model" or whatever, everyone is talking about DOING SOMETHING to get liberation from suffering and as much insight into their true nature as possible. It's great, I love being a part of it, it is the most important thing to me.
However, when I listen to talks or read books from all kinds of Vipassana, zen, or other Buddhists, even those very well known (mostly those), I really don't understand what they are up to, you know?
This is the same thing that Daniel talks and writes about and it has me very confused.
What are they doing, really?
I'll listen to a podcast from Tara Brach (who I imagine may at least have stream entry for reasons that aren't important right now) and it all seems to be about a variety of vague methods to "stay in your body" or touch "presence" or something but with no clear ultimate intent. I don't mean to focus on her because I do like her and get something from her talks, but .... it is the same with others, even American zen people. Ms Brach asked one of her students what her goals where and she answered something like "to be able to stay with my emotions" and Brach complimented her on her "beautiful goal." Great.
But, I really do believe that if the reaching isn't in the context of "here is something that will help you to get it done" then what is it? My answer -- I think it's just a buddhist influence self help program.
cont.

I got a book "best buddhist writing 1986" and one of the award winning articles was a man's journal of a ten day silent vipassana retreat with Goldstein at Spirit Rock. Not once did he mention the three characteristics, or enlightenment or his sensations. He just marveled at how he was able to get over some stuff having to do with past romances. That is it.
What is going on with these students and teachers?

This is the "mushroom culture" isn't it?

I think what's happening is that the actual, concrete, changes in consciousness brought about by "Bodhi" are being devalued or sort of ignored. The teachers may be influenced by Western Culture and either wondering if there is such a thing, or if there is, whether they can sell it. For the most part, no one wants to claim to be enlightened, and tell people that they can achieve it too. They are therefore "skipping to the end" and describing post-enlightenment practice and experience. However, "staying with your emotions" means something entirely different for a Roshi than a newbie. One definition of Zen was "Doing one thing at at time." Given the contextual experience, that makes sense - but without it, it's nonsense (which is kind of the point with that definition).

The students on the other hand, seem to be engaging in a form of escapism - avoiding the concrete realities of their lives while they pursue vague, insubstantial "spiritual" goals. Some of them create a kind of alter ego that is quite accomplished in the "spiritual realm" (often to compensate for their rather meager real lives). The amazing thing is the degree to which this kind of self-indulgence is tolerated by "spiritual teachers"!
(I suppose confronting it might be bad for business).
D

I realize this is not a new topic, but the only person I've ever seen talk or write about it was Dr. Ingram.
And ever since I heard him, it's really bugged me and I want to hear other opinions, if possible. Thanks.
Mike Monson

Yes, Mike!

Much of what passes for Buddhist teachings in the popular literature is really more like pop psychology. It's no wonder people don't make more or faster progress. They are not being told how.

"
Yes, Mike!

Much of what passes for Buddhist teachings in the popular literature is really more like pop psychology. It's no wonder people don't make more or faster progress. They are not being told how.



"

I don't think they even have an idea of what progress even might mean.

Well, the "Jed McKenna" books come to mind.
Cheers,
Florian

"Well, the "Jed McKenna" books come to mind.
Cheers,
Florian"

I'm not familar with those. How do they relate?

I think alot of the popular teachers focus on sila applications; but not on the prajnic and samadhic engines that drive them.

Then people think of the dharma in a glossed-over simplified way, similarly to how most of us think of these incredibly powerful supercomputers that we're all just using for Internet browsing and word processing. (well, that is what I'm mainly using mine for.)

Here is what I REALLY think:
Every dharma talk shoukld be in the context of "here is how you get liberated from suffering." It should be open and acknowledged that the context of all talks is that one basic subject. The talk could approach the subject from many different angles and techniques, and talk to different places the student might be, but that should be what is being talked about.
And, every point made should be connected back to that main subject matter.
If a talk is just about basic self-help techniques that could be obtained in other (therapuetic) settings, it should be labelled as such - truth in advertising.
The only exceptioin I can think of is if it is a real religious community -- like a zen temple -- and the talk is about the rituals, history, and dogma of that religion.

"I'm not familar with those. How do they relate? "

Well, regarding what Daniel calls "mushroom culture", the Jed McKenna books, or "enlightenment trilogy", portray the same stance as MCTB, as far as I can tell. From what I've read (first book), the enlightenment trilogy does not go to the geeky technical details of the path or the practice like Daniel does. But it's a good read, and a "second opinion" in support of the spiritual scene social criticism found in MCTB, if you're looking for such a thing.

Cheers,
Florian

"Here is what I REALLY think:
Every dharma talk shoukld be in the context of "here is how you get liberated from suffering." It should be open and acknowledged that the context of all talks is that one basic subject. The talk could approach the subject from many different angles and techniques, and talk to different places the student might be, but that should be what is being talked about.
And, every point made should be connected back to that main subject matter.
If a talk is just about basic self-help techniques that could be obtained in other (therapuetic) settings, it should be labelled as such - truth in advertising.
The only exceptioin I can think of is if it is a real religious community -- like a zen temple -- and the talk is about the rituals, history, and dogma of that religion. "

Hi Mike,

Since the Buddha taught Three Trainings (Morality, Concentration, Insight), it's reasonable to assume that one of the Trainings will get more attention than the others in dharma groups. Our little online communities focus heavily on insight. And as you noted, most pop-dharma is more concerned with morality (kindness to one's self and others).

Because the majority of people practice exoteric religion (focusing on the exterior), we'll probably always see an abundance of morality teachings. It's simple economics: supply and demand.

Those who practice esoteric spirituality (focused on the interior) are always the minority. Of course we'd love to see more teachings on Insight, but teachers tend to deliver what the students want to hear. Otherwise, they won't have any students. Without their students, their livelihood is in jeopardy.

So here we are, the minority. It's likely to stay that way. Let's make the best of it.

Jackson: that makes sense in a way.
I think I can make peace with all this no problem.

(didn't the buddha teach the three trainings all as a way to elimnate suffering?)

"(didn't the buddha teach the three trainings all as a way to elimnate suffering?)"

Yes. The Three Trainings is really the Eightfold Path, and the Eightfold Path is the Fourth Noble Truth -- the way to the cessation of suffering.

I'm sure that most Buddhist folks know about the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. The majority of them seem to be more inclined to the Morality training, so that's what they practice and talk about. And, I think the majority of people have fantastical views of what in means to be enlightened, which have a lot more to do with emotions and actions than Truth realization.

It's good that there are communities such as this one, which (if stumbled upon) can point spiritual people to practices that will wake them up. But not everyone is in to that sort of thing. A lot of people are content with having a shiny, fluffy, and highly spiritualized ego. If that's what people want, they can find it in abundance, even by mistake. Sites like this one are rare.

I think Jackson is making a very important point. People seem to opt for the easier road when provided a choice. I believe most people who call themselves Buddhists do likewise. I've been a participant in a different, more "mainstream," online Buddhist forum for many years. It's hidden behind the need to login to its host system ( www.well.com ) but if you were able to read the discussions there 99% of them revolve around morality as being the Path, and a form of what I would call psychology as being the work of the Path. I've tried a number of times over the years to get discussions going in a more insight-driven direction, only to be rebuffed. I think we here have to be aware that most practitioners just don't grok (I love that word, thank you Robert Heinlein) what we believe is the Path -- an action and progress oriented spiritual practice based on investigating the nature of reality and arriving at the Truth of our existence.

To be fair, I don't think the vast majority of Buddhists in America don't know what's actually available to them in the way of finding Truth, and I think the real shame (to use a perjorative term) for that falls on Buddhist teachers, not students. Let's just thank the universe at large that we have people here like Kenneth and Gozen, real teachers, who are willing to help us focus on finding Truth beyond that "shiny, fluffy, and highly spiritualized ego" Jackson described so well.

Being, as I am, a student of perspectives, I like to look at this issue through 3 distinct but complementary lenses. From the Absolute perspective, it's very simple and yet very illusive: things are as they are and the only reasonable thing to do is to find out firsthand. Since the reality of this highest form of enlightenment can't be conceived, let alone articulated, teachers resort to mythology and snake oil to spread the good news. Since teachers need to earn a livelihood, they can choose to either tell it like it is and have few students, or sugarcoat and embellish it for the masses. Too many teachers choose the latter.

From the Transcendent perspective, which I call 2nd Gear, it's possible to honestly say that you can have a really groovy experience while transcending the difficulties of the mundane world. This is a little easier to sell, but results in teachers putting too much emphasis on the "Witness," and not clearly explaining that 2nd Gear is more a means than an end.

From the 1st Gear perspective, it's best to see developmental meditation as the biological process that it is. I call it a "physio-energetic" process, because I want the language to reflect its organic, biological nature. As Haquan points out, this has been described as an extension of Piaget's developmental psychology, but one that is optional and somewhat rare.

Any one of these perspectives can be corrupted and sold as exoteric religion, in which teachers, eager to please students, talk about get-rich-quick spirituality that amounts to specious promises of happily-ever-after. I remember seeing a Pearl S. Buck movie when I was a child, and being struck by the use of the word "rice Christians," who came only for the free rice. Similarly, most Buddhists are "rice Buddhists," who come only for the false promises of happy-all-the-time. Very few of us will make the leap to true spirituality.

Mike, we are the mad guys! Most are very happy with their "I'am ok you're ok" pop-dharma.

I like that, Alex. We're nuts. Crazy!

I just found Kack Kornfield's most recent Monday night talk at Spirit Rock, from November 9, 2009.
I listened mostly for the general enjoyment but also in the context of the question of this thread.
As most of you probably know Spirit Rock is a thriving vipassana practice center in Marin County, CA and Jack Kornfield is a very popular writer, speaker and teacher on Buddhism, Vippasana, etc. I think he speaks almost every Monday night there in addition to leading retreats.
Well, the talk was lovely. I've heard many talks by him and seen him on video and he is really good at what he does. His voice is soothing, his stories and quotes from other teachers/writers are apt and often hilarious and/or moving. And, the message is one of hope and beauty and dignity and other wonderful things -- though he doesn't shy from talking about negative things.
Anyway, no, he didn't speak of "enlightenment" or "realization" or something like that and give pointed advise on how to get there. (Though I think 'liberation' or some such word comes in occassionally, tangentially) His talk could very easily have been given by a minister or religious leader in any Church I think. On leaving, I think any sensitive person would have a lot of inspiration for ways to enrich their daily lives.
The main point, for him, I think (and I think it is Tara Brach's as well and she is his student) is to learn how to be "present," to live truthfully in your mind and body without flinching, without delusion, without lies, etc.
Nothing wrong with that, of course. Makes me feel good and certainly has a positive effect on my basic practice as well.
I imagine for some people around Kornfield there is more going on (actually insight progression, etc.), but in this talk and I'm sure many others, this is the main take-away -- stay present, stay in your body.

Yeah. I really like Jack Kornfield, too. I've listened to many a Kornfield podcast and read a lot of his books.

"The main point, for him, I think (and I think it is Tara Brach's as well and she is his student) is to learn how to be "present," to live truthfully in your mind and body without flinching, without delusion, without lies, etc.
Nothing wrong with that, of course. Makes me feel good and certainly has a positive effect on my basic practice as well."

Heh. "live truthfully in your mind and body without flinching, without delusion, without lies". Sneaky, isn't it? Because, if taken as hard-hitting practice instructions, that is actually the core of the thing.

"truthfully in your mind and body" - what is truth? What is mind? What is body? What is "your", you?

"Without flinching" - develop a steady "gaze", a practice routine, stamina, equanimity and so on.

"Without delusion" - so what is delusion? To live without it first one has to find out what it is, how it works. Heavy-duty practice.

"Without lies" - what is truth, again. What is lie. Who is being lied to, who is the liar. What is being lied about.

The thing is, most people just aren't interested in that kind of practical interpretation, so Jack Kornfield makes it easy for them to choose the other, comforting shade of meaning in these words. I remember reading "A path with heart", and wondering why Daniel speaks highly of the book. So I looked closer, closer - aha! It's all in there, but spun of pink candy cotton, so to speak. There really is hard Dharma underneath the candy in there. Most readers are likely to just see the candy, and nod in agreement. A few I imagine will try to actually taste the candy and some of those might actually discover the cutting edge underneath. The thing is, most "spiritual" people won't even try to taste the candy. Also, Jack has to make a living, don't forget that.

Cheers,
Florian

I agree Florian, thanks.
And yes, Kornfield SHOULD make a living because he is really good at what he does and is responsible for thousands of people getting exposed to vipassana and buddhism in general.
With his books and Spirit Rock, and talks, etc., he is really a major religious figure and one of the best speakers I know of.
For some reason I picked up "Living Buddhist Masters" by him at a bookstore in Orange County, CA in the late 70s and my life was never the same.
The book had instructions from most of the masters and I tried them all.
One day I tried the "bellows breathing" vipassana method from Sunlun Sayadaw and had what I think is my first real insight -- I did the hard breathing and then when I settled in to the straight awareness of the sensation of my breath in my nostrils I (and this is impossible to really describe of course) realized suddenly that I wasn't just a thinking entity way up in my brain lost in my thoughts, but that I was actually also a body and breath existing in some kind of actual reality that had nothing to do with my thoughts. Stage one: mind and body.
However, the book didn't have any maps (as far as I can remember, maybe it did somewhere) so I didn't know what had happened exactly and how to deal with it. But I knew something had happened and that way more was possible.

Link to the book:

books.google.com/books?id=8InEkEp5FtEC&p...v=onepage&q=&f=false

!Notice the footnote on page 84. Mahasi is about to describe "nibbana" and Kornfield edits that out, with a footnote explaining that "it is dangerous to know too much" !!!! The mushroom culture in action.

A. Basically, this is external referencing.
B. During practice I set aside all of these concerns and followed the instructions.
C. This kind of focus can arise in any setting. And, enlightenment is possible in any setting.
D. If you want more directed intimate feedback then ask for it, find a place or teacher and ask. I've seen and heard many complain about this but they do not raise their hands and ask the teacher out right what they need to know. Or they do not write a letter to the teacher for whom they are directing the criticism and express their concerns. A few venues are more open to questions about insight training. (Yes, I see you are doing this here, etc'¦)
E. Mostly, teachers will just be with you. If you really want to do a certain practice then you need to tell them and they can meet you with that.
F. I found at Spirit Rock that they meet you where you are with the level of commitment and readiness that YOU bring to the table. And, now in teaching, I see the wisdom in this. I don't know all the balancing acts that a student is playing out. It is up to them to 'put it out there' and ask for what they need and want.
G. I loved it when the teachers said at the end of a month long retreat at Spirit Rock, 'We did the best we could with what we were given.' That pretty much sums up the best way for a teacher to work.
H. I have read straight from Mahassi in teaching. It is priceless. If students can't see the gold, then they are not ready. (continued on next post)

(Continued)

I. I hear the complaining about the dharma talks being more morality based. In the end, that is the deal, and it is ongoing. It's all good, and casts a wider net. Deep insight practice lends itself to a more direct, individual, responsive and intimate relationship. Even in Malaysia when they gave direct instruction at dharma talks, I'd heard it all before (Practical Insight Meditation is a short book), it was a good reinforcement and, I learned more from my own practice and from being with the teacher as the process evolved.
J. I feel a good teacher simply holds the space for you to practice.
K. One way to get over this kind of criticism is try and do it. Set up a group and try teaching for yourself. Or just imagine it, empathize more. It isn't easy at all.
L. What Daniel and Kenneth have done is creatively participate in a new way, not in the mushroom culture ways. And, there are limitations to relying solely on this kind of venue for many.
M. It's up to you! What are you going to do about it?
I wonder if you have accepted the form your own practice is taking and the limitations that either you have imposed and/or that are being imposed by your life situation. In either case it is helpful to own up to it, and focus on your own aspirations primarily. If you are going to focus on what others are doing or not doing, than are you willing to register your complaints at the appropriate target? In the Alanon program, a long time member can pick up easily when this kind of dishonesty (external referencing) is occurring'”and remind them of the slogan: Let It Begin With Me.

I hope this is helpful, and does not create further external referencing, dualistic thinking or denial.

Constance, thanks.
I'm curious: would you say I am in denial or externally referencing if I said:
- I'm getting good directed feedback right now
- I read Practical Insight Meditation a lot and use it for my practice
- I have no complaints about dharma talks being morality based
- I don't FEEL critical, I'm just intrigued and confused and using this forum as a way to hopefully work out that confusion. And, it has helped a lot. I'm much less confused now. Plus, I really like the teachers I've mentioned (and others) but have wondered about their focus. I imagine they are very good teachers.
- What am I going to do about it? Just think about it and talk about maybe a little more.
- I like my practice right now. Very much.
- I"m suprised that you've called me dishonest. Is it because you think I have some inner problem with my practice and I'm denying it by "criticizing" some of these teachers? And this "denial" is dishonest?