Kenneth on Wandering Dhamma

"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/
"

www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler...ges360/Huineng1p.jpg

" www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler...ges360/Huineng1p.jpg "

Forgive my lack of working out what the hell that dude is doing skills, but is he ripping up some scriptures?

That's hui neng tearing up a sutra.

Here's a quote from him:


"What I can tell you is not esoteric. If you turn your light inwardly, you will find what is esoteric within.

To meditate means to realize inwardly the imperturbability of the essence of mind.

Those who train themselves for imperturbability should, in their contacts with all types of men, ignore the faults of others.

As to the dharma, [teaching, path] this is transmitted from heart to heart, and the recipient must realize it by his own efforts.

All depends on self-practice....

The dharma doesn't wait for you.

Vehicle means practice; it is nothing that can be discussed but is something that you yourself must do.

Exert yourself in order to see face-to-face the essence of mind, and relax not, for death may come suddenly and put an abrupt end to your earthly existence."

"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. "

yes yes yes yes yes
that was perfect, thanks

you should maybe consider becoming a writer

"
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? "


Feedback is always interesting. Having talked to various traditional Zen or Advaita teachers who have nothing to do with our subculture (KFDh, DhO or OE) it appears that we are talking about the same thing, even if we don't always use the same vocabulary.

I therefore encourage KFDh members to share their understanding with authorized representatives of other traditions such as Tibetan lamas, Zen masters or Advaita gurus to confirm the fact that, if we certainly have some "obvious grasping and clinging" (who doesn't?), our model of enlightenment is in no way watered down or limited to a specific "hardcore community".

I have been reflecting on these things recently as well, are we as a community subject to the very narrow mindedness that we criticize? No I dont believe so, but it is important to look at. I know for instance trying to post a middle way message over at the DhammaWheel on one of Nicks post, and I just got blasted for expressing what I felt was a very moderate perspective. People will do what they will... It gave me a different perspective on the fundamentalist who come on this forum and try to post what they believe...

This is a very important discussion for us to have. I sense that as a community or "movement" we are starting to get a bit more visibility in the blogosphere (whether we want it or not) and that could lead to more visibility in mainstream dharma circles. Right now is the time to ask ourselves what kind of community we are, and what kind of community we would like to be and what the difference is between the two.

I for one want this to be a community that is characterized by its most salient trait - honesty. It's what really makes us who we are here. No one hides anything or pretends to be or not be anything. When people first encounter us, they may be shocked by the claims to attainments, direct language and dismissal of dogma - but if it is all put in the context of honesty, it can begin to make sense to someone who isn't familiar with us,

my two cents.

Amen to the honesty thing. I agree.

"This is a very important discussion for us to have. I sense that as a community or "movement" we are starting to get a bit more visibility in the blogosphere (whether we want it or not) and that could lead to more visibility in mainstream dharma circles. Right now is the time to ask ourselves what kind of community we are, and what kind of community we would like to be and what the difference is between the two.

I for one want this to be a community that is characterized by its most salient trait - honesty. It's what really makes us who we are here. No one hides anything or pretends to be or not be anything. When people first encounter us, they may be shocked by the claims to attainments, direct language and dismissal of dogma - but if it is all put in the context of honesty, it can begin to make sense to someone who isn't familiar with us,

my two cents. "

yes

Ron and Clayton both make some great points.
Brooke, in her most recent post at Wandering Dhamma, did a great job of summarizing some of the objections now being made by the traditionalists. It might be interesting to see a thread, or maybe even a permanent sub-section on the KFD site, for discussing "Doubts, Criticisms and Concerns." That would be very much in keeping with the spirit of honesty to which Ron refers.
As humans, we know that any group we participate in will, by default, be subject to the same foibles and pitfalls of every other group. You almost have to take a Founding Fathers type of approach and build in a way for people to get a sense that there are checks and balances, if that makes any sense.
On the issue of sila, for example, I feel that everybody in this community knows where to go to get inspirational and informative talks on that subject: there's Dharma Seed, Audio Dharma, and any number of other books, article sources, magazines, etc. If there is relatively little discussion of this subject here at KFD, it's because this site, along with Dharma Overground, is pretty much the only place one can find above-board, specific, taboo-free practice discussions. It's natural for this, rather than sila-related stuff, to be the big emphasis here. It's what makes KFD different.

That said, some visitors to this site might not have had this thought. They might be wondering, "Why is there nothing about sila here? What about being a good person? Isn't that the whole point?" A thread or discussion sub-section that actually encouraged people to make objections, play devil's advocate, express their doubts, etc., would be quite interesting and unusual. For the Buddhist Geeks digital magazine, Vince has basically said, "Look, objecting to something on the basis of scripture alone isn't going to fly here." I'd agree with that ground rule.
(heavily edited)