the anti-mushroom culture

I guess the rule we're alluding to here is this one:

www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/than...1/bmc1.ch04.html#Pr4

I notice that it's a rule for monastics. So why lay teachers would follow it is unclear. I also notice that it is not formulated as strictly as it is applied.

Cheers,
Florian

That's a good point MM, it really doesn't say anything about lay practioners or lay teachers. Unfortunately, the way it's written it doesn't have a rider "but if you make an honest mistake it's okay, it happens, no harm done" -I can't help but think that if it was written in the spirit it was meant this whole situation would never have come about. But if you take it literally the passage has a lot of gravity to it.

Again, as I stated previously *twice* I find the whole thing comical, so I don't care much more about it than you do Mike, and I am here at kennethfolkdharma for the same reason you are. But I think it's worth understanding why things are the way they are, and this particular passage in the Vanaya is the cornerrstone of the whole mess. I guess the reason why Buddah added the rule is that there were a lot of deluded yo-yo's in his day running around claiming to be enlightened, and he didn't want any of his followers to be in that category. From his point of view it's understandable, and from our point of view it makes no sense that we keep buying into this, esp considering all of the misconceptions that have arisen from it historically.

I'm not trying to argue, just trying to understand how it got so messed up before I cast in my lot on how to fix it. If I care aobut anything in this situation it's that our teachers in the west get the respect which they deserve from their peers. Their efforts and attainments are just as worthy.

"For some people the Mushroom Culture is a happy convenience. Think about it." -- Chris

"Can you say more about this, Chris? I sense a very thought-provoking post on the way." -- Kenneth


Yes, I can, Kenneth.

The Mushroom Culture fosters it, maybe even causes it, or vice versa. I'm not sure. Anyway, attainment, progress in practice, awkening itself, honesty about that kind of thing, is deemed a topic unfit to discuss in polite company. I've experienced this in online communities as well as in person. The Mushroom Culture thus protects practitioners who are in this "fight" not necessarily to awaken, assuming they even believe awakening is possible in this lifetime. It allows people to hide, even to shade the truth a bit. Everybody plays the game, everybody is assumed politely to be at roughly the same level of attainment. To act otherwise is deemed rude, offensive, not nice, not what good Buddhists do. It's like water seeking it's natural level. It pools up in the lowest point. In the case of western Buddhist gatherings and online communities, it tends to pool at the lowest common denominator. This is convenient for some folks.

Even teachers play along, and they, too, can hide behind what I called the "happy convenience" of never having to actually say even one profound, honest, insightful, original thing that did not previously utter from some other person's lips.

This means people cannot be, or just plain won't be, honest.

"I guess the reason why Buddah added the rule is that there were a lot of deluded yo-yo's in his day running around claiming to be enlightened, and he didn't want any of his followers to be in that category. From his point of view it's understandable, and from our point of view it makes no sense that we keep buying into this, esp considering all of the misconceptions that have arisen from it historically."

Here's my contrarian POV: if people were honest about this stuff there would be far less need for worry about the odd screwball pretending to be enlightened when they're not. For example, enlightened teachers and others, if honest, might be quick to point out the folly of those imposter-type folks. Now, not so much. Why? It's rude, not done in polite company. I submit to you that the dishonesty built into the mushroom culture that won't talk about the truth is potentially quite harmful.

Ask the random Buddhist about awakening and what you will get from them is a bucket full o' myth and misunderstanding. Why is that? A question that, I think, is very much worth pondering because there is, outside the unwillingness to just tell the truth, little reason for the ascendance of myth to the detriment of truth.

It's all pretty weird, I think, given the nature of Buddism, its basic tenets and the bluntly honest self-inquiry required of actual practice. It's almost as if most folks just don't really want to, ya know?

"
"I guess the reason why Buddah added the rule is that there were a lot of deluded yo-yo's in his day running around claiming to be enlightened, and he didn't want any of his followers to be in that category. From his point of view it's understandable, and from our point of view it makes no sense that we keep buying into this, esp considering all of the misconceptions that have arisen from it historically."

Here's my contrarian POV: if people were honest about this stuff there would be far less need for worry about the odd screwball pretending to be enlightened when they're not. For example, enlightened teachers and others, if honest, might be quick to point out the folly of those imposter-type folks. Now, not so much. Why? It's rude, not done in polite company. I submit to you that the dishonesty built into the mushroom culture that won't talk about the truth is potentially quite harmful.

Ask the random Buddhist about awakening and what you will get from them is a bucket full o' myth and misunderstanding. Why is that? A question that, I think, is very much worth pondering because there is, outside the unwillingness to just tell the truth, little reason for the ascendance of myth to the detriment of truth.

It's all pretty weird, I think, given the nature of Buddism, its basic tenets and the bluntly honest self-inquiry required of actual practice. It's almost as if most folks just don't really want to, ya know?

"

Palabra.
Palabra.
Palabra.

I've conceded that most folks just don't really want to. That's all fine and even understandable to me. It's human nature not to want to go to dark places where there is pain, even if the pain is a down payment on the happiness that knows no conditions. Who wants to torture themselves for what appears to be no good reason? Couple that natural instinct and aversion with a unwillingness or inability on the part of most teachers to push folks in the right direction and you get what we've got. So unless you have a deep burning desire, a flame that you can't extinguish in any other way, you will not get there from here. That flame is most likely some serious anguish or pain, an almost unbelievable level of curiousity, or you got well into the thing and caught insight disease before you knew it would put you through the ringer that is a real, true, honest to goodness practice.

So.... we have Mushroon Culture because, as Mike said already, eastern religion is what some cool cats do.

(I'm starting to sound like Daniel Ingram. Jeebus.)

Man, do I wish to have joined this discussion prior to all the great points being made. Much comes to mind regarding this issue...

It seems we are all roughly in agreement about the correct source of action - WISE honesty about attainment.
Why else we would hang out on this particular forum?

One of the important points that keeps coming back to me is WHY?
Why is it that it's all so secretive? Mark brings up the point of being in the suttas, Florian talks about the interpretations of such and Chris puts it in a psycho-social context. These are all great angles at which to tackle this complicated issue.

It is certainly worth to keep in mind the motivation and reasons of this rule appearing in the Pali Canon. Pardon the redundance, but I particularily agree about the desire to minimie the number of "yo-yos claiming high attainment" to get bling.

On the other hand there are ... what 227 or so rules for the Theravadin Monk? I can't source this particular story but didn't the Buddha said on his death bed that not all of the precepts were essential? Except then he didn't say which ones were.

It seems like this all comes from the vinaya (again - redundant), which begs the question of why keep this particular precept? Maybe when looking at this through a post-modern prism, our contemporary, information-filled society makes it much easier to counter and contain the charlatans, than in was in the past.

I agree with the "polite conversation" point particularily because of the vast literature (in psychology among others) supporting the existence and powerful nature of "group think" and hegemonic cultural indoctrination/control techniques as a way of reinforcing current mores. Dynamics of changing this type of culture are somewhat discussed in Thomas Kuhn's "Nature of Scientific Revolutions", particularily the part about everybody's favorite term (paradigm shift):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

"As a paradigm is stretched to its limits, anomalies '” failures of the current paradigm to take into account observed phenomena '” accumulate. Their significance is judged by the practitioners of the discipline...In any community of scientists, Kuhn states, there are some individuals who are bolder than most. These scientists, judging that a crisis exists, embark on what Thomas Kuhn calls revolutionary science, exploring alternatives to long-held, obvious-seeming assumptions. Occasionally this generates a rival to the established framework of thought. The new candidate paradigm will appear to be accompanied by numerous anomalies, partly because it is still so new and incomplete. The majority of the scientific community will oppose any conceptual change, and, Kuhn emphasizes, so they should..."

So what we might be attempting to do here is formulate a new framework that fits reality better than previous models. That is essentially what jumps out for me from Kenneth and Daniel's experiences and interpretation/expression of the dharma. The old views simply seem inadequate to describe the world.

Pardon me for repeating many of excellent points made previously by others. For some reason I feel particularily compelled to join in on this topic. Here's to
Open Source Dharma

Andrew

"Here's my contrarian POV: if people were honest about this stuff there would be far less need for worry about the odd screwball pretending to be enlightened when they're not. For example, enlightened teachers and others, if honest, might be quick to point out the folly of those imposter-type folks.

"

That's true if the power balance is like that. The contrarian contrarian POV is that enough unenlightened folks could team up and point out the so-called folly of the enlightened teachers. I can even imagine the con-con-contrarian POV where enlightened folks with a similar remaining character flaw/shadow team up on unenlighten people without that flaw. I'm sure every version of this has happened.


It struck me recently that the whole value of anti-mushroom culture is -- and let me claim this as just my view, I don't know how broadly it is true -- to get across the simple idea that there is something to the practices that goes beyond moment by moment stoicism. Maybe stoicism is actually more complex than I'm giving credit, I'm using the term to mean dumb endurance.

I got this idea as I was reading Kenneth's latest interview on Buddhist geeks. I was imagining someone reading the description of first gear practice and it struck me that without the idea of enlightenment -- some quantum jump in perception/understanding -- it doesn't come across as particularly compelling. Objectify, objectify, ad nauseum... The benefit is you get better at objectifying. On the surface, not so compelling. A good practice, but maybe the cost benefit is one where it doesn't make senes to devote much time to, maybe just enough to smooth over the rough patches.

But testimony that says there are quantum leaps (paths) and there is completion (4th path) is the miraculous thing to me. It was what was missing in terms of my own motivation to practice.

... and it's important that it happened not just to a mythical figure in the distant past.

So even though no one can describe the nature of the excellent attainment of enlightenment, the declaration of attaining it tips the scales for me just slightly enough to make a difference.

Funny though... I can see how making the claim, not being able to explain it, measure it, qualify it, etc. might turn people off even more.

Since I referred to 'the embarrassment of enlightenment', I thought I would list them, per Bill Hamilton's useful book, "Saints & Psychopaths":
"Some are embarrassed because they are not enlightened, some because they are enlightened, and others because they do not know whether or not they are enlightened. A few reasons why people become embarrassed about enlightenment are: They think that they cannot become enlightened. They assume that the enlightened will conform to their arbitrary models. They assume that the enlightened will seem reasonable and rational. They assume that the enlightened will conform to standards of the Theravada Commentaries. They want to be enlightened and are not. They think they are enlightened and are not. They do not know whether or not they are enlightened. They are enlightened, but do not want to say that they are enlightened. They are partly enlightened, but not fully enlightened. They think certain people must be or cannot be enlightened because of the amount of time they have meditated."

"So what we might be attempting to do here is formulate a new framework that fits reality better than previous models. That is essentially what jumps out for me from Kenneth and Daniel's experiences and interpretation/expression of the dharma. The old views simply seem inadequate to describe the world."

Some really good points there Andrew. One thing that you'd have to say about the Vanaya is that it has done it's job. It's job was none other than to keep the Buddha's teachings alive through transmission for the past 2500 years, and on into the future. I feel a lot of gratitude to the monastics who have followed it and kept the dharma alive, but I have to admit that some aspects of the culture which has grown up around it are better left behind by those of us who really mean business.

And I count myself as someone who means business, and also, knowing the rest of you, I count myself in good company.

It seems to me that this little piece is key to understanding 'the mushroom culture': embarrassment is a powerful motivator for keeping things dark, for conveying a sense that there is something wrong or rude about having or expressing a view. The trouble is that views are like certain body parts-- we all have them: a fact unchanged by denials or proclamations.
But to get all het up about how "they" are keeping me in the dark, misses a much more crucial point: that it is I who am staying in the dark, I who believe that others can prevent my seeing for myself, who am unwilling to make the effort to find out.
Maybe I'm unusually bull-headed-- very likely, in fact-- but I'm not about to take anyone else's word for it, about their enlightenment or my own. This is not a matter of a lack of respect for others or knee-jerk cynicism: it's a matter of a kind of self-respect and confidence in my own nature that was a long time coming. If I'm practicing 'being a lamp unto myself' no one can keep me in the dark. However, I also will not have a fall-guy when I see what there is to be seen-- the good, the bad, and the wot-the-hell?

Roomy, I agree. Dharma is not a group activity. Assuming it is, and assuming that any group of people can somehow, in concert, enlighten themselves or each other is a major issue. Dharma is an individual endeavor, always has been, always will be. We all have to be responsible for our own development. Embarrassment: yep, that's a big part and it's magnified by the inclination of groups of people to assume certain things about their members that may or may not be true, and then magnified again by individuals who hide behind the group's presumed status or attainment, or whatever you call it.

Betawave -- yes, awakening is not a linear experience. There are any number of phase shifts, enormous bottlenecks, breakthroughs and earth shattering changes on the magnitude of super-volcanos and asteroid strikes. It is literally mind blowing how the perception can be so freaking different even though the proximity is a hair's breadth away. I know that's weird sounding but that's how it is. So to KNOW that, to have that explained to you, to just be aware of it, really is important. If a teacher isn't capable or just plain won't say that to students then those students are, to use a common term, screwed.

JMHO, of course.

Also -- I have a personal weakness for a lot of the old suttas and history - the myth, the legend, the poetry of it. I know many of you do not,and I fully appreciate and respect that. One of the things that spoke to me many years ago was the myth that surrounds the dharma. It's an old, old oral tradition. It is, to my way of thinking, to be appreciated for what it is but not to be re-enacted in the 21st century. That won't work very well here in the west, although it does seem to provide some nice opportunities for the dudes and dudettes who like to wear the robes

rvamag.com/articles/full/7736/buddhism-s...godzilla-brad-warner

This is a link to a Brad Warner interview that touches on a lot of these issues. He is sort of half in and half out of the mushroom culture. He is out in that he loves to destory the myths and stereotypes about Buddhism and Zen, especially the "models." But he is in in that he is against talking about "enlightenment." -- but, at least on the subject of enlightenment he is willing to explain why he thinks it is a bad idea, he doesn't just try to ignore the subject all together.
Here and in many other places he is steadfastly critical of many other teachers that he thinks are liars, thieves, cheats, etc. I can never decide whether I really agree with home on all the specifics but it is fascinating nonetheless and cool that he is willing to be blunt.
I love blunt.

Without the trappings--the upaya that have at least helped to draw newcomers to the dharma for 2,500 years--Buddhism likely would have disappeared. This stuff no longer captivates me the way that it once did, but when I was younger I needed it as some kind of bridge. People are at different developmental levels and have different needs. Within any given sangha you'll find one person who literally thinks Tibetans can fly and another who is hell-bent on bending the dharma to fit his logical positivism. Ditto on people who would be way into practical dharma, if they only knew about it.

I'd bet that lots of enlightened people over the centuries have gone along with the forms with a wry smile on their face, seeing them as a necessary skillful means.

One of the things that bothers me about myself--and that I therefore point out in others--is a tendency to view all this stuff from a place of separation, as Roomy has described. You can see this in the recent Buddhist Geeks interview with that woman who was complaining that sanghas don't do enough for young people. Most of the comments on the site ran something like this: "They aren't doing enough for me, because they aren't on the ball about community and young people." Likewise, faulting others for the mushroom culture seems to come from a place of separation at times. When I first heard Daniel talking about this, light bulbs were going off left and right for me. How many people have ever even stopped to consider this stuff? In our little sitting group here in Atlanta, I've started dropping references here and there to stuff that's not usually discussed openly. I think there might be a way to do this that is helpful, not excessively confrontational and contributes to some kind of change.
I was surprised to learn that a book group at a major Shambhala center had read MCTB. Change might actually be possible, even at mainstream centers...

All of that, and everything else we have been saying here, points to the absolutely critical need for teachers who are awakened. With that, the rest of this becomes kind of trivial. Problem is there is no Dharma Licensing Authority. So we are left to fend for ourselves. Choose wisely or risk being misled. We are very lucky here at KFDh. Very, very lucky.

"I love blunt.
"

Now those definitely weren't in the Vinaya!

"
All of that, and everything else we have been saying here, points to the absolutely critical need for teachers who are awakened. With that, the rest of this becomes kind of trivial. Problem is there is no Dharma Licensing Authority. So we are left to fend for ourselves. Choose wisely or risk being misled. We are very lucky here at KFDh. Very, very lucky.

"

I think there is a quasi licensing authority. In zen, it is "dharma transmission." if someone has that, then within the zen insitution they are authorized to teach. Now, whether or not it is actually legitimate and whether or not everyone with transmission is actually "qualified" is another story, but it is at least a starting point. It is a "lineage."
Dr. Ingram is part of a lineage. I don't know all the details but he was authorized to teach by, I think, Christopher Titmuss, who is part of some lineage.
All the IMS/Spirit Rock teachers are part of lineages that have their origins in Burma or Thailand, right?
Kenneth I forget, but I'm pretty sure he is part of a real, actual lineage, if not more than one. Maybe he'll speak to this.
So, while there is not exactly a Bar Exam or Medical Board or CPA licensing exam type test for dharma teachers, there does exists a form out there that is something that can be investigated by potential students to find out where the teacher was trained, if at all.
So, that is one layer, the zen, thai, burmese, indian guru teacher to student lineage thing. Obviously not perfect, but a starting point.

I think Daniel was authorized to teach by Sayadaw U Pandita Jr in the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition and not Christopher Titmuss.

I know about dharma transmission. Sorry, but I trust my own judgment far more.

"Dr. Ingram is part of a lineage. I don't know all the details but he was authorized to teach by, I think, Christopher Titmuss, who is part of some lineage. All the IMS/Spirit Rock teachers are part of lineages that have their origins in Burma or Thailand, right? Kenneth I forget, but I'm pretty sure he is part of a real, actual lineage, if not more than one. Maybe he'll speak to this."-telecaster

This whole lineage business is of questionable utility, IMHO. Daniel asked Christopher Titmuss if he could be part of Christopher's lineage. The first time Daniel asked, Christopher said he liked to wait until someone had been around for awhile before he gave that kind of authorization. The second time Daniel asked, Christopher said (if I understand the story right), "sure, go ahead. Who's stoppin' ya?" Does that mean Daniel is part of Christopher's lineage? I guess so...

I believe Sayadaw U Pandita Jr. asked Daniel directly to please help spread the dhamma in the West. Does that mean that Daniel is part of Sayadaw U Pandita Jr.'s lineage? Uh, I guess so.

Sayadaw U Kundala asked me in 1994 if I would help to spread the dhamma in the West. Does that mean I'm part of his lineage? Hmmm... Maybe, but frankly I'd be surprised if he even remembers who I am at this point. He's met a lot of yogis in his storied career and he probably asks a lot of them to spread the dhamma in whatever part of the world they hail from.

Bill Hamilton considered me his protege and worked with me over a period of nine years to train me as a teacher. Does that mean I'm part of his lineage? Hmmm... I guess so. But the bottom line is that I'm either saying something that is useful or I'm not. Lineage shmineage.

Sorry to be such a curmudgeon, but I think a lineage is about as useful as a cup of warm spit.

Affectionately yours,

Kenneth

"

Sorry to be such a curmudgeon, but I think a lineage is about as useful as a cup of warm spit.

Affectionately yours,

Kenneth"

Hahaha¡ This line belongs in the Humour on the Path Thread! ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡LOL!!!!!!!!!

Well Kenneth,

That sure is an honest and blunt discussion/critique of traditional teaching authorities and weaknesses contained therein.

Power/Institutional structures have always had to deal with these problems. Medical Board licences physicians, but they are far from perfect in their assessments. Written tests only test abstract knowledge and we all know how far this could stray from moral and ethical values. In addition, it is close to impossible to loose one's medical license. You really have to have committed a felony to even be considered for loss of privileges.

This kind of discussion is incredibly important, but vastly complex. It is one thing altogether to have a licensing board that can oversee the quality of practitioners (law, medicine, accounting, engineering, you name it). It is much easier to test OBJECTIVE data like patient outcomes (morbidity/mortality), ethical infractions, breaking of laws, collapse of buildings.

And it is another thing ENTIRELY to try to test a SUBJECTIVE way of experiencing reality that has some (???) correlations on the relative/relational plane. How do we test this? Left frontal lobe activity on functional MRI (Davidson et al at U Wisconsin/Madison) or psychological subjective well being tests? It is not a simple right/wrong type answer.

As I have waded deeper and deeper into this territory I still keep a heavy dose of doubt with any of the teachings. Just because they come from a "shmineage" doesn't meen they're useful in my context. On the other hand, post-modern approaches to the age old problem (relief of unsatisfactoriness of experience) could lead into things like Actual Freedom - and I don't even know what to say about that.

I wish there were regulatory/oversight bodies that could point me in direction of realized teachers.