"wandering damma" talks about "hardcore dharma" some more:

wanderingdhamma.wordpress.com/2010/09/05...n-movement%e2%80%99/

Man, I'm liking that term (hardcore) less and less.
Anyway, this is another nice piece, balanced and well-written like her other blogs.
She reiterates the criticism (from others, not her) of Dr. Ingram's style (I guess it is mostly him and his site and maybe this one too? hard to tell) of it being "overly masculine" and "testosterone ridden" or something like that. I really don't get it. Sure, the fact the the sites have mostly male members shows a "masculinity" i guess, but why is a focus on trying to acheive a goal this awful, male-only thing? Mr. Buddha taught (4 noble truths, 8-fold path) how to be free of suffering. Right? He and his followers are trying to do something. And that is masculine and masculine equals "bad?" I don't get that.

I just read that blog and I like the even handedness of the analysis and recantations of the comments of others about the "hardcore" dharma movement. Look, we have to look at ourselves as objectively as we can and if we can't do that then all our talk about dis-embedding is wasted. We have to practice what we preach, walk the walk, put our money where our mouths are. So when people from other dharma traditions or movements criticize us we should pay attention. Why? Because guess what? They might misunderstand us, yes. They might be prejudiced, yes. They might be just flat out wrong for a thousand reasons but we have to deal with the reality, don't we? If we care about this practice, our practice, whatever it is, and we believe we deserve recognition, that we're "right," that our practice actually works when others may not, then we'd better be willing to listen up and deal with the reality of the perception others have of us and the reactions that it brings.

And we *are* different. We push harder. We believe in progress. We believe that the path does not necessarily soften the personality, make one a better human being or fix our psychological foibles. That has "masculine" tones to it and there's no denying it. It's not soft and squishy. It's got a hard edge. I'm not at all surprised that's how this movement is perceived. We perceive the "mushroom" culture as feminine, and it has feminine characteristics. It's softer, it focuses on psychology and related emotional "issues." It does not push and it does not emphasize, or even talk about, attainment. There are no maps, no paths, nothing to compare or to achieve.

So be it.

"
So be it.

"

I agree with all of this Chris.
But -- can't all women be fierce at times? don't all women push hard for what they want or need? What about the goddess Kali?
And, I'm sorry, but all you guys on this site have a pretty soft and kind and gentle edge (you may disagree but that is how I see most of you) does that mean you are feminine?
I guess I'm making more of an argument about gender characteristics or something but that is what the criticism is based on I think.

Mike, you are reacting to what you see here and is truth for you. I was describing what others see here and is truth for them. Different views on the same thing and thus valuable to compare and contrast.

"
Mike, you are reacting to what you see here and is truth for you. I was describing what others see here and is truth for them. Different views on the same thing and thus valuable to compare and contrast.

"

I'm just curious about the masculine/femine thing. I dont' think I really know the truth about it.

I don't think the masculine/feminine thing has one truth, Mike. I think it's like almost everything else. It's comprised of many truths that are valid depending on individual perspective, which is comprised of millions of influences that simply can't be conceived of by anyone else. Admitting "I don't know the truth about it" is probably the best way to go

as you say, Chris-- many truths:

Are You Man Enough

For Granny Goose?
Or, as the saying goes, be
careful what you pray for:

better know what you'll do
when the answer comes.
Let me put it this way:

choose your Dakini well.
All of them are armed
and dangerous'”some

with the lightning's blue
blazes in their eyes, some
with the green fuse of gardens

and keen, judicious shears
for what you won't
be needing any more.

And there's the one who will drive
her diamond nail and spin you
every witch way but loose'”

whose wild, flying hair is stiff
with salt of sweat and tears,
who has the tiger's taste
for your heartblood: Her

Name is best left unsaid
until you're sure the only
lover you want is the one
whose incendiary blessing

will cost your head.


© Kate Gowen 4/10/01

No so sure about the male / female bit, but then that might be a male thing.

As a bit of a tangent, in the future if or when proclaiming Enlightenment is commonly accepted the proclaimation will mean little because claims and counter-claims will be the norm. I use this possible future senario to give context to the positions that are now so strongly defended. The offence seems to be with those that have identified themselves as Buddhist and accepted "teachings". For these Buddhist it seems almost acceptable that someone should spend their life ( even waste their life ) as a monk, yet they should be silent with regards to their lifes work. So this is an acceptance of the status quo but there is another unrelated issue to the evils of proclaiming Enlightenment. It is a judgement or concern with WHO is making the proclaimation. Where there is little regard for the person there is a corrosponding disregard for whether the claim is right or wrong, after all truth is still truth in spite of a claim to it. Now I know females tend to read more of the gossip magazines with an unending fasination for "he said this, she said that" and corrosponding set of glasses, rose coloured or not, so just maybe so far at least, this "change taking place" is a male female thing .

It is a not so well kept secret that nearly every buddhist monk in asia doesn't meditate. seriously.

"It is a not so well kept secret that nearly every buddhist monk in asia doesn't meditate. seriously. "

Which magazine did you get this from?

"It is a not so well kept secret that nearly every buddhist monk in asia doesn't meditate. seriously.-telecaster"

That's right. The vast majority of Buddhists, ordained and otherwise, are "cultural Buddhists." Enlightenment for regular folks is not on their radar screen. Among that tiny majority who do find enlightenment to be worth mentioning, there is an even smaller group who actually practice in a systematic and goal-oriented way. This is why, as someone recently posted here on the forum, Mahasi Sayadaw had to battle against a crab bucket culture in mid-20th century Burma. Luckily, he remained undaunted, and all of us pragmatic dharma types continue to benefit from his vision.

"That's right. The vast majority of Buddhists, ordained and otherwise, are "cultural Buddhists." Enlightenment for regular folks is not on their radar screen. Among that tiny majority who do find enlightenment to be worth mentioning, there is an even smaller group who actually practice in a systematic and goal-oriented way. This is why, as someone recently posted here on the forum, Mahasi Sayadaw had to battle against a crab bucket culture in mid-20th century Burma. Luckily, he remained undaunted, and all of us pragmatic dharma types continue to benefit from his vision.
"

There are a lot of funny accounts of zen people from the US going to Japan to practice in temples there thinking they were going to get immersed in the "real thing" and finding out instead that all the monks were just there to smoke cigarettes and get their certificates so they could go back and run their family temples and do weddings and funerals. The japanese usually don't know what to make of the strange serious Americans.
I think in at least one of Brad Warner book he talks about being surprised about this.
It's also true about about Southeast Asia, etc.
I think the reason why people like Suzuki Roshi, Maezumi, Soen, and all the other meditating zen guys came to the US was because they wanted to find students who wanted to actually learn zazen.
that's part of why the American glossy magazine and calendar images of buddhism with all the serious-looking asian monks with their shaved heads and robes is ultimately so silly. the lie is that they are all so serene and enlightened and "special" because they are real buddhists. from asia.

"It is a not so well kept secret that nearly every buddhist monk in asia doesn't meditate. seriously. "

"The vast majority of Buddhists, ordained and otherwise, are "cultural Buddhists."

So we can be thankful that Buddhism in the west is not main stream.

The mushroom culture, the crab bucket culture, and the culture of general disinterest regarding enlightenment are alive and well in Asia. Pragmatic dharma in whatever form is and has always been a small counter-culture movement. The Buddha was a perfect example; there seem to have been just a few wandering ascetics around and the ones the Buddha had access to were not enlightened. So whatever tradition of awakening existed at the time was not widespread.

By the way, on a tangent: here in the West we have moved toward a more holistic vision of enlightenment that includes emotional and social maturity. I am fully on board with this as long as the "oh-by-the-way-enlightenment" piece is not cast aside. In what I think of as IMS Buddhism, there has been so much emphasis placed on being a nice person that the teachers forgot to teach (or learn) enlightenment. Here again, the Buddha's story is instructive. Was the Buddha a good husband? Guess not. He left his wife. Was the Buddha a good father? Guess not. He left his kids. Was the Buddha a good son? Guess not. He left his parents.

Please understand: I am not advocating that you leave your family. It is not necessary in order to become enlightened. I am merely suggesting that soft Buddhism, in elevating good citizenship over awakening, has created a teaching the Buddha himself would not recognize or relate to.

Getting back to the crab bucket, we should not be surprised or discouraged by it. This sort of thing happens every time someone or some group prioritizes direct experience over dogma. Jesus railed against the Pharisees, the crab bucket fundamentalist scholars of his day. The Baal Shem Tov was persecuted and vilified by the mainstream Jewish culture of 18th Century Europe for encouraging ordinary folks to seek direct experience of God.

Not to be grandiose or to compare ourselves to those people, the point is that the crab bucket is business as usual.

The being a nice person form/school of enlightenment (see Ron's FB essay from today!) sucks I think because it makes nice people like all of us have a harder time seeing ourselves as we really are because we don't dare to appear not nice, not even to ourselves.

Another related dharma myth is just the whole idea of the enlightened buddhist monk that exists somewhere up in the mountains and is always cool and untouched by strife or negativity (see Ingram). As long as we keep holding that up as somehow true and real and the real way to be an enlightened buddhist then it can always be something that is "out there" somewhere and impossible to attain in our world of jobs and cars and tvs and families and sex and arguments and conflicts. And we can sit and listen to lectures about the dharma and all laugh knowingly when the speaker makes little jokes about "enlightenment" because we all know that we'll never get there.
The truth is that that serene monk never existed AND people living in this real world right now in a family with a job in Chicago or New York or wherever getting angry and stressed sometimes CAN get enlightened by following simple instructions. As long as they are actually told the instructions.
Listen to me.
Arrogant again.

One of Chogyam Trungpa's revolutionary innovations, once he started teaching in the US, was to have people actually meditate, as the foundation of their practice. Another was to not withhold the 'higher' teachings from his qualified students-- in defiance of some of the higher-ups who were more traditional. Come to that, given that every teaching he ever gave was 'Dzogchen View', he didn't withhold the highest teachings from ANYONE-- it's there if you can see it, in plain English.

But it seems most helpful and empowering to own OUR preconceptions and illusions, OUR 'central casting' sterotypical 'wise man' characters-- because that is what can hamper our practice. We have to grow up enough to stop fantasizing that way. No one else can really get in our way-- unless we're incarcerated in some literal way.

I think it's interesting to look at related-but-different traditions. I've been immersed in the Hindu-related traditions in the US, not Buddhist ones. The Hindu derived groups--the yoga folks, the Tantrics, the Advaitans, and the neo-Advaitans--do not have a mushroom culture in the same way the Buddhist have. Enlightenment is real, you can get it, it's available. There are greater and lesser degrees of boldness, and greater or lesser degrees of authenticity, but no Hindu teacher worth his or her salt denies being "It' and knowing "It."

The shadow side of this a shallow, bliss-and-ease culture. Enlightenment is so readily available, you don't need to practice, just "choose" to be blissed out and happy, just hang with your enlightened teacher, or just "no effort" and that's it. Very partial truths made into absolutes.

I don't know which is better or worse; I just think the psychology of the difference between the two groups is quite interesting. I personally prefer the Hindu problem--for me, as at least you get to try and learn to spot the authentic ones, and can get motivated by those folks. One reason I've steered clear of Buddhism by-and-large. It all seemed quite depressing. Practice, be neutered and politically correct, and never get anywhere. Yikes.

One thing they do tend to have in common: The idea that enlightenment makes you infallible. That's a common and unfortunate dogma on both sides.

The term "hardcore dharma" speaks to my need for Western vernacular and reasoning. When I found Daniel's book I was so tired of the "holy" "Lord Buddha" tone found in other writings. I had attempted to discuss my meditation with a couple of Asian monks. One of them refused to discuss the teachings with me, stating that Buddha was reluctant to allow women into his sangha. I reminded him that I was grateful to Buddha's cousin Ananda for negotiating the entry of Buddha's step-mother into "holy" life. I stood firm in my resolve to discuss the phenomena I encountered during meditation. He listened and scoffed stating he couldn't comment because his level of achievement was too superior to mine. Months later, after I had read the book Practicing the Jhanas, I approached a bhikku ordained 25 years, and asked him about the jhanas. He told me that he had never practiced the jhanas, nor had he read about them in Buddha's teachings. He told me if I wish to enlighten I should follow the Eight-fold path. Later, he said, he did not have time to meditate in his homeland, but he wanted to meditate now, for 4 hours a day, so that he could attain arahantship in this or a future life.
This monk then asked me--honestly--if I would be his mother in America. I said to the guy, I said...I am your same age. He replied, "but I will be a child monk forever. Please be my American mother. I want an easy life here. " I told him in America, men grow up. Sadly, this 40-year-old man began to cry and told me that no harm will come to a monk if he is lucky enough to remain a child forever. Shortly thereafter, the senior monk flitted about , clapping his hands and giggling while we drank our tea, while previously, in his dharma talk, he insisted that enlightenment involved the eradication of all emotion. How's that for irony?
I'm an American. I'll take clear, hardcore teachings over learned helplessness any day.

Just wondering if some of the posts about the numbers of monks meditating in asia were sincere or what people truly believe is the scene in Asia. Just going by the numbers there would be many, many monks who meditate seriously. Asia is a damned big place, with a lot more buddhists than the west. Given that only a small proportion of western buddhists actually really do want to get into a goals based approach to meditation, applying the same proportion to asia = more ppl in asia meditating seriously than in the west.

Coming from a Sri Lankan background although raised from a young age in the west (Aust) perhaps ppl are misjuding a lot of the Buddhism that occurs in Asia expecting it to be the same as the pragmatic goal orientated practice of meditation in order to become enlightened. It is split b/w teaching, charity, "taking care of the flock", chanting and other rituals (some useful some not) AND being a fountain of knowledge for individuals seeking a pragmatic goal orientated practice of meditation in order to become enlightened. The amount of monks and nuns that can do all these activities together is rare. Most specialise whether they choose to or not. Those that do get far in meditation practice may or may not know of other methods than what they have practiced, because after they get where they wish to, some never consider other techniques, unless they have to teach meditation to a variety of different students for whom alternative approaches are suitable compared to what they used themselves.

Either way, the monks and nuns who do engage in a serious meditation tend to come from a traditional base, though this is not always the case. Some become pragmatic about the best training practices to attain enlightenment hence the ajahn Muns, Maha boowa, Chah, Mahasi, Ledi, Gunaratna etc.

You gotta remember the path or process for enlightenment in the Buddhist model was not made for the modern lay person who has an average of anywhere between 0.5-5 spare hrs in day of time after work and commitments. It came out of Siddhartha's background to becoming the Buddha. Leaving home with heaps of spare hours doing extensive jhana meditation with a master and then after other experiments doing a small amount of insight work to get where he did. The majority of the Theravadin monks follow this approach, it is still the majority. Those doing Vipassana practice from the beginning of their pratice have been in the minority. I'm not saying they are a small minority but they are minority nonetheless (<50%). As such the development of practice in these monks can take a longer time frame than the insight based approaches.

Then there a lot of monks who are just in it for the "easy life". These are men in robes who range from being outright thugs to businessmen with wives or just lazy ass dudes. My brother who spent more time in Sri Lanka than me knows a monk that carries a handgun around with him just in case. In fact it would be kinda interesting to see if there was business man monk with a wife who took up serious meditation after reading something like MTCTB. Would be a nice laugh. He could check out the forum for

Theravadin buddhism in Asia is very very varied. The majority who engage in it are not serious meditators. They might have done it once or dabbled a bit here and there but there are a variety reasons they are drawn to it, most are good reasons some not.

If you wanna get to the krispy kremes in the mall, it ain't gonna be at the Hungry Jacks. (Worst analogy eva). A whopper is not going to give you the same love as a krispy kreme original -

Hmm interesting follow up. I am glad that some real even keeled stuff is being written about us. Hopefully it encourages people to check out what is going on here. People have all sorts of projections about what good buddhism is. I dunno, last may I went on a Goenka retreat. after silence was broken I began talking to a monk who had sat the retreat as well. After discussing different teachers and methods for a couple hours I opened up and began talking about my experience of stream entry. With all my conditioning from daniels book I thought he would have a real negative reaction, I mean this guy was a strait up thereavada chauvinist, he was strict viniya, thought mahayana was nosnense etc... but when I started describing fruition he got real excited and serious... he asked me a lot of questions about it and my experience of reality before and after it. He was like did you become prideful about the experience I said yes but not as much as I would have expected, his response was something like "well thats not suprising." After our chat he said, "Well many people have nibbanic experiences, I HAVE HAD THEM MYSELF, you very easily could have had one based on your descriptions" He claimed stream entry... he claimed stream entry... one more time he claimed an attainment to a lay person... like it was just another part of the conversation... He invited me to rob up and move to sri lanka, I thought seriously about it for several weeks, even had the page open to buy the plane ticket, but I decided against it for various reasons... I think there is little difference between those who truly practice the dharma weather they be in our movement or a traditional one... only those in the traditional framework have to be real careful about what they say in public

That's a very good point, Clayton. I do not think it could be put any better than that: "I think there is little difference between those who truly practice the dharma, whether they be in our movement of a traditional one"
It always seems that the people that criticize and put down other practices have not yet achieved Stream Entry and hence have no idea as to what is really important in the practice. They also seem to be the ones using very limited range models and having so many preconceived notions of what the practice MUST be like, and how any other practice not fitting within their models are wrong, immoral, etc. However, those who are seriously practicing the dharma, regarless of tradition or school, seem to most of the time look past all the distractions of schools and traditions and focus on what really matters, even if they are yet to reach stream entry (speaking from my experience, and how I ended up becoming part of this "Hardcore" movement, from the old traditional style of practice)

Given that the perceptions of hardcore dharma as "hypermasculine" or "excessively goal-driven" or (insert other common criticism here) exist, do we as people identified with "hardcore dharma" want to do anything to change them?

I raise this concern because some of what's going on in this very thread (not all of it!) is detrimental to that goal. From a psychological standpoint, it's more immediately reinforcing for us to band together as ingroup members being attacked by those dumb/a-hole outgroup members than to do the things that could actually fix the problem.

One thing that is definitely unhelpful is the group of anti-outgroup attitudes I will lump together and exaggerate as "Those people are stupid; they don't know what they're talking about, but they probably wouldn't ever make real progress in hardcore dharma anyway." The available sociological and psychological evidence suggests that every person is subject to a wide variety of unrealistic views about outgroups. Please don't rely on any form of enlightenment to fix that.

A more helpful way to see it is this: We don't know anything about "those people" other than that they've been exposed to more convincing reasons to dislike HCD than convincing reasons to like HCD. These may include both accurate and inaccurate ideas of what HCD is like. But at any rate, their ability to come up with even a few valid observations and criticisms of HCD and its practitioners suggests that they are at least somewhat intelligent. Also, they're interested enough in the concept of results-positive meditation to at least talk about it, even if they haven't been convinced that any of us have actually gotten any of those results.

So, do we want to do something that's likely to correct any of their misperceptions? Because sh*t-talking them, even politely, is already doing the opposite.

One of the thiings that resonated with me when I decided to join the "hardcore" movement was the fact that it seemed very bare-bone, down to the essencials type of practice (which, perhaps within my ignoramce, is the way I believe Buddha chose to teach and instruct the dharma).

Lastly, I think it is always a great idea to look for improvement. So perhaps we may want to consider opening a thread exclusively for that purpose, rather than using one that seem to have a different goal.