Kenneth on Wandering Dhamma

"I just took a look at this guy's blog. I'd be very surprised if he actually read Daniel's book. It's a long, detailed tome that requires a significant investment of time. The point of this blog seems to be, basically, "here's where I put myself above the whole hardcore-punk dharma thing, but with a lot of qualifiers and softeners so that it doesn't come across as too harsh." The author makes a point of insisting that he has no preconceptions, but my guess is that there was a generalized preconception about what the author conceived of as hardcore-punk dharma. The preconception was, "this is all basically childish and unnecessary, and sometimes gratuitous." Think about how many serious ideas are in Daniel's book: the honest look at enlightenment models, the discussion of the mushroom culture, etc. "

Joel and everyone else, please correct me if I am wrong, but there really isn't a "hardcore-punk dharma," right?
There aren't a bunch of guys running around with mohawks and tats and piercings talking tough and having mosh pits at the sittings or whatever those words might mean.
It DOESN"T EXIST.
there was Brad Warner who was in a punk band once which made for a nice way to style his first book (combining his punk rock past with his zen present) but that guy (except for his direct and sometimes blunt talk) seems like a pretty nerdy gentle guy who is serious about his practice.
And then Noah Levine who has a rough background (and tats) and calls his sanghas dharma punx or something like that is also a serious theravada buddhist with a gentle and kind personality.
And then there is Daniel with his "hardcore dharma book" who is also kind and enormously generous and scholarly who diverges from more mainstream dharma only in that he wants real honesty about the maps and the stages and actual enlightenment, but, HE IS NOT A PUNK,

Double Word!

Hey Guys,
I'd like to make a suggestion. I think we should avoid "Hardcore" as a label for this thing. It leads to a ton of confusion and has negative stereotypes. If we have to use anything at all, I heard somebody around here refer to it as "Pragmatic Dharma" which I believe sums it up. We are not trying to wear stompy boots and get tattooed (though I do happen to have both stompy boots and tattoos) so much as to just get this thing done. Enlightenment is the point. The Buddha did not leave home because he wanted to study sutras, join movements or get into a spiritual "scene", he wanted liberation. If we manage to piss people off by being open and talking freely about what works to get it, fine. That's not our problem, it's not ours to fix.

"Joel and everyone else, please correct me if I am wrong, but there really isn't a "hardcore-punk dharma," right?
There aren't a bunch of guys running around with mohawks and tats and piercings talking tough and having mosh pits at the sittings or whatever those words might mean.
It DOESN"T EXIST."

You're exactly right. My contention, though, is that people see some of the trappings associated with Warner's stuff--which does include a fair number of punk references and overt punk iconography--and then assume that this is the alpha and omega of what Warner is all about. They then see the term "hardcore" associated with Daniel's and Kenneth's work, and then lump it all together into some kind of preconceived hardcore-punk dharma thing. I'm with Owen: There are probably better terms than "hardcore." Pragmatic is really better. In fact, this movement owes a lot to the specific strain of pragmatism found in Burmese Theravada Buddhism. Mahasi Sayadaw made a point of using the term "practical" quite a lot.

Do you know why I love these silly blogs?

Because I wouldn't be here without them!

In June 2009, I read a review making fun of Daniel's book and I thought 'the guy claims that he is an Arhat. People make fun of him. Let's have a look!'

I then found Daniel's website. Downloaded the PDF version of his book. Found it fascinating. Purchased a paper copy of the MCTB. Joined DhO. Met Kenneth... and I was soon embarked on a mind-blowing spiritual journey that changed the course of my life, answering the burning questions that has initiated 22 years of desperate spiritual quest.

Thank you Kenneth!

Thank you Daniel!

Thank you all those who post or publish aggressive, silly, stupid or plain wrong things about Kenneth and/or Daniel! I thank these boggers because they are attracting the attention of sincere practitioners who, if they are really sincere about their practice, will come and see for themselves. And they won't be dissapointed.

"Hey Guys,
I'd like to make a suggestion. I think we should avoid "Hardcore" as a label for this thing. It leads to a ton of confusion and has negative stereotypes. If we have to use anything at all, I heard somebody around here refer to it as "Pragmatic Dharma" which I believe sums it up. We are not trying to wear stompy boots and get tattooed (though I do happen to have both stompy boots and tattoos) so much as to just get this thing done. Enlightenment is the point. The Buddha did not leave home because he wanted to study sutras, join movements or get into a spiritual "scene", he wanted liberation. If we manage to piss people off by being open and talking freely about what works to get it, fine. That's not our problem, it's not ours to fix. "

I had a brief exchange with Mr. Horn on FB when he mentioned designing a "hardcore dharma" class and I objected to the name for the same reasons Owen and Joel are and he basically (but nicely and reasonably) said, "sorry, it's a done deal, that's the name. once these things get momentum they stick." I wanted to argue about it but I stopped.

This talk by Gil Fronsdal seems germane to this discussion. It's called "Historical Roots of Western Vipassana" and deals in part with the falsity of any notion of a "pure" tradition that goes back 2,500 years. The crab bucket, in other words, seems to be all about preserving something that never quite existed, at least not in the way these guys imagine. The talk is the fourth one down, at audiodharma.org

"This talk by Gil Fronsdal seems germane to this discussion. It's called "Historical Roots of Western Vipassana" and deals in part with the falsity of any notion of a "pure" tradition that goes back 2,500 years. The crab bucket, in other words, seems to be all about preserving something that never quite existed, at least not in the way these guys imagine. The talk is the fourth one down, at audiodharma.org
"

thanks, that is the funniest thing. especially in a lot of the comments about Kenneth and Daniel I see on those blogs, everyone thinks they have a handle on the "real' or the "pure" dharma, which is silly.
It's like they think that if they can land their mind on what bunch of qualities and dogma and sutras and beliefs are the pure and real thing then they don't have to actually explore and find out for themselves what is true and real.

Oh, and my favorite title is "goal-oriented dharma practice."

He also describes how Mahasi Sayadaw, in doing things like stripping away superstitions and breaking the taboo against teaching meditation to laypeople, had to deal with a crab bucket of his own.

"Oh, and my favorite title is "goal-oriented dharma practice." "

Practical Enlightenment?

I like pragmatic dharma the most.

Very interesting:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

"Central pragmatist tenets

The primacy of practice
The pragmatist proceeds from the basic premise that the human capability of theorizing is integral to intelligent practice. Theory and practice are not separate spheres; rather, theories and distinctions are tools or maps for finding our way in the world. As John Dewey put it, there is no question of theory versus practice but rather of intelligent practice versus uninformed, stupid practice and noted in a conversation with William Pepperell Montague that "[h]is effort had not been to practicalize intelligence but to intellectualize practice". (Quoted in Eldridge 1998, p. 5) Theory is an abstraction from direct experience and ultimately must return to inform experience in turn. Thus an organism navigating his or her environment is the grounds for pragmatist inquiry.

"
...There was Brad Warner who was in a punk band once which made for a nice way to style his first book (combining his punk rock past with his zen present) but that guy (except for his direct and sometimes blunt talk) seems like a pretty nerdy gentle guy who is serious about his practice.
"

Yeah, I met Brad in person at a talk he gave at the Interdependence Project in NYC last year, and he was indeed nerdy and gentle.

"
And then there is Daniel with his "hardcore dharma book" who is also kind and enormously generous and scholarly who diverges from more mainstream dharma only in that he wants real honesty about the maps and the stages and actual enlightenment, but, HE IS NOT A PUNK,

"

You'll have to forgive people for mistaking this to mean he was/is punk


"It is the unrestrained voice of one from a generation whose radicals wore spikes and combat boots rather than beads and sandals, listened to the Sex Pistols rather than the Moody Blues..."

I'd lay the blame for the confusion on Daniel. It's the words from inside a movement as one outside the movement wouldn't really imagine an entire generation had a singular voice. Having been a punk and knowing folks as diverse as young republicans I can assure you we did not have one voice.

"You'll have to forgive people for mistaking this to mean he was/is punk


"It is the unrestrained voice of one from a generation whose radicals wore spikes and combat boots rather than beads and sandals, listened to the Sex Pistols rather than the Moody Blues..."

I'd lay the blame for the confusion on Daniel. It's the words from inside a movement as one outside the movement wouldn't really imagine an entire generation had a singular voice. Having been a punk and knowing folks as diverse as young republicans I can assure you we did not have one voice. "

in that passage he is just explaining that he is a generation or two younger than the original 60s US dharma leaders/teachers, not that he himself was a punk.

Well, ummm, I could rewrite what I wrote also...

A pretty easy passage to take the wrong impression from (especially since it's 'hardcore dharma)."

"Well, ummm, I could rewrite what I wrote also...

A pretty easy passage to take the wrong impression from (especially since it's 'hardcore dharma)." "

true

A friend just wrote to me that he was disappointed with the way some of the "obvious grasping and clinging" he has seen on this forum in the last couple of days. He probably has a point. At the same time, it occurred to me to think about the rift between two basic schools of thought about dharma:

One group (Dhamma Wheel, et al) sees enlightenment as a set of attributes that should be perceptible from the outside, e.g., metta, karuna, perfect sila, etc., and when they don't see those attributes anywhere they conclude that enlightenment is rarely if ever attained and that the best we can do is attempt to cultivate those attributes and wait for the next lifetime. Another group (KFDh, DhO, Open Enlightenment, et al) sees enlightenment as an organic reality that can't be forced; it is what it is, irrespective of our opinions, descriptions, or preconceptions about it. A parallel would be a tadpole-to-a-toad transformation, where tadpoles deny the toadhood of the adults around them because the adults are so ugly. But adult toads shrug and throw up their hands. "What can I do?" they ask. "I'm just a toad. I'm sorry you are disappointed with my warts, but they don't make me any less a toad. After you become a toad, maybe you'll have more patience with me."

Of course people are disappointed when their preconceptions are not met. How could it be otherwise? The great irony is that those preconceptions, if left unexamined, are precisely what prevents the transformation.

"A friend just wrote to me that he was disappointed with the way some of the "obvious grasping and clinging" he has seen on this forum in the last couple of days. He probably has a point. At the same time, it occurred to me to think about the rift between to basic schools of thought about dharma:

One group (Dhamma Wheel, et al) sees enlightenment as a set of attributes that should be perceptible from the outside, e.g., metta, karuna, perfect sila, etc., and when they don't see those attributes anywhere they conclude that enlightenment is rarely if ever attained and that the best we can do is attempt to cultivate those attributes and wait for the next lifetime. Another group (KFDh, DhO, Open Enlightenment, et al) sees enlightenment as an organic reality that can't be forced; it is what it is, irrespective of our opinions, descriptions, or preconceptions about it. A parallel would be a tadpole-to-a-toad transformation, where tadpoles deny the toadhood of the adults around them because the adults are so ugly. But adult toads shrug and throw up their hands. "What can I do?" they ask. "I'm just a toad. I'm sorry you are disappointed with my warts, but they don't make me any less a toad. After you become a toad, maybe you'll have more patience with me."

Of course people are disappointed when their preconceptions are not met. How could it be otherwise? The great irony is that those preconceptions, if left unexamined, are precisely what prevents the transformation."

Hi Kenneth,

I'm curious to know what that behavior specifically was that was a dissapointment to your friend as it would be good to see and become aware of that in ourselves if it true.

Nick

I'm not sure exactly what my friend meant, Nick, but it does seem like a good moment to do a little self-reflection as a community. It's at least worth asking if we appear as smug, self-congratulatory, and xenophobic as some of the online communities that criticize us. I don't have an answer to this one way or the other; I'm just trying to be open to the possibility.

I have lately noticed my own inclination to be condescending toward other people even as I rankle at their condescension toward me. It's a kind of arms race of condescension with each party trying to take the high road or the position of the wise elder who smiles indulgently as s/he deigns to lead the children out of the labyrinth.

As always, there are no ultimate conclusions to be drawn, there is only the exploration. I believe there is value in awareness, even when it is awareness of my own folly.

Kenneth

" I believe there is value in awareness, even when it is awareness of my own folly."-- Amen to that, Brother Kenneth.

My own experience suggests that, in the interest of self-awareness, the reactions we elicit from others-- ESPECIALLY the ones we immediately go to war with-- are Great Big Clues.

And, for myself, I'd amend your statement likewise:
"there is value in awareness, ESPECIALLY when it is awareness of my own folly"-- since 'my own folly' and ignorance are the biggest obstacles to awareness.

First off, let me say that I'm on board with honest self-reflection and continually renewed awareness of one's own folly, big-time. AND I think the key distinction to be made here is "perceptible from the outside." When we talk in our community about the benefits of the practice, they often manifest in kind, compassionate, intimacy with ourselves and our world. But those transformations are based on a process powered by practice, and while the talk about that process can be sincere or insincere, the process itself can't really be faked. The problem with this definition of enlightenment as attributes perceptible from the outside is that you can fake that, easily. Not just faking the metta, karuna and sila, but achieving an outward form of those that is legit in some respects, but fundamentally still based in delusion. Why? Because (especially when one is mired in dogma) the PROCESS just isn't happening. One's perception of reality isn't changed, it's merely prettified. It's one thing to 'look' enlightened. It's even another thing to 'act' enlightened. And it's something else entirely to 'be' enlightened. People who 'are' often do 'act' and 'look' it, as well. And that's a really important fact, because there's engagement there. But people who 'look' and even 'act' it might not 'be' it at all.

BTW, I'm speaking from personal experience here of both what I call legitimate AND what I call illegitimate.

I stumbled upon another interesting post on another dharma related blog. I like what he has to say.

dharmafolk.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/dharma-is-bs/

Well said, ryguy.
As usual, the mushroom culture fits in here. Take a person who is trying to evaluate the potential help a teacher might be able to offer. If that person is mired in a culture in which talking about states, stages and attainments is considered taboo--especially if coming from a teacher--then what could that prospective student possibly use as a basis for this evaluation of the teacher, other than stuff that is "perceptible from the outside"? Interior subjective experience is invisible, right? The taboo guarantees that "perceptible from the outside" will play a disproportionately important role. A lot of stuff is perceptible from the outside: scholarship, for example, is visible when a person starts rattling off suttas and Pali terms. But how hard is it, really, to learn and repeat that kind of stuff? If you read Kenneth's case studies, which, as a result of the taboo, would never be printed in other communities, you see a teacher helping people actually understand the process and progress through it. This is somebody who actually knows what he is talking about. Something similar could be said of MCTB--Daniel makes the invisible visible. As a result, people read the book and have these life-changing epiphanies and changes in their practice trajectories. What mattered to me was the substance of what Daniel was saying about the process. I cared much more about that than what he looks like or how he acts. But Kenneth, in using this term "perceptible from the outside," has made yet-another valuable contribution to the discussion. I now see how, at times, this does matter to me and does form one of the barely conscious criteria I use for evaluating teachers. It's a very interesting point.

If you put a couple of brilliant physicists at a table with a bunch of other random people, you might be able to figure out which two were physicists based on certain visible clues. But why not just ask the whole group about physics? "The process," as ryguy referred to it, is so clouded in myth and mystery that it's tantamount to a taboo against talking about physics. One of the reasons a person once gave to me for not talking about awakening experiences was "you might jinx it." wtf?