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

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.

Hey JAdamG,

You raise many good points. Do we want to do anything to correct the fact that we appear over masculine or goal driven. I don't know what that would look like. I am all for more women becoming part of this movement. But I think that the commonly held notion by some pragmatic dharmaites that we should feel guilty for being mostly men is absurd. We are what we are. Women are more than welcome here and I imagine as we continue to grow this discrepancy should begin to even out a little. To put things into perspective we actually are ahead of much of the monastic culture in Asia. Many monks I have talked to have serious issues around women. Furthermore, Kenneth writes that the feminine perspective should be cultivated for insight to occur. See the harlem nights reference...

If I come across with an Us Vrs. Them attitude its not intended. There is a lot we can learn from the traditionalist. The idea that we don't know anything about them... hm not sure if I understand where you are coming from with that one. Many of us here have been exposed to fundamentalist in real world situations. I think I understand where they are coming from. I know people who have been around the block awhile such as Nick really get where they are coming from. I have tried to post respectfully on the Dhamma wheel in support of Nicks defense of Kenneth. I got blasted. If I don't get treated with respect I have two options, speak back defensively, or leave the conversation, I have for the most part chose to do the latter. But if someone wants to have a real discussion about the differences (rather than right vrs wrong chest thumping) i'm all in...

Metta,

Clayton

PS Foolbutnotforlong thanks for your kind words

As a woman, I don't see the hardcore model as masculine or feminine, nor do I see it as my only model. I would say that I am attracted to the 'hardcore' model because it balances the Apollonian with the Dionysian. Nietzsche theorized that there are the two ways of responding to life events. The Apollonian side of the personality is dominated by discipline, analytical, rational and coherent thought. I think Ingram states in MHCTB that Theravada Buddhism is rational. But, in my early stages of meditation, I was transported into Dionysian territory'”I had blissful emotions and visions and feelings of vast spaciousness. I felt boundless freedom. That was scary as hell. Where had I landed? Who would help to ground me? I tried to talk to Theravada monks about this, but they couldn't or wouldn't help me articulate my experience. I learned a lot from listening to them in general, but my life as a wife and mother on a frustrated career path didn't jive at all with their old school traditions. In fact, if I attended evening meditation, one of them would suggest that I should be at home with my children. The cultural barriers/biases weren't yielding answers to my questions. When I suggested to them that I wasn't a beginning mediator anymore, and I was scoffed at. I live in a rural area, and came to Buddhism through books. After my trial of that temple, I returned to my books. I read Tibetan stuff, and Zen stuff, and Western stuff. I find value in all of it. Getting back to my ealier point, mindfulness and noting are Apollonian from the start, but they can lead to the Dionysian, and that's where I get stuck. What do I do with my inner goddess once it's activated? Should I stop or keep going? What are the benefits and dangers? Am I in this alone, or are my experieinces like everbody elses? That is where Daniel Ingram and Kenneth Folk and all of you are such a help. The information we share is Apollonian and the ground wire for my practice.

"One thing is certain, the moment we start changing to fix our image or to fix the impressions other groups have on us, rather than continuing to improve on our ability to provide our experiences and knowledge to help those in need of them we will fall into the very same pitfalls most modern religions have fallen into with their "dynamic" view. (aka let's make changes so more people like us and accept us and we can have more members)."-foolbutnotforlong

Good point, Jorge Freddy.

I only recently learned that I was part of a movement. Maybe it was when Brooke Schedneck (Wandering Dhamma) wrote an article about it. Before that, I was just doing what I do, which is to help people wake up.

Come to think of it, now that I understand that there is a movement, nothing much has changed for me; I still do what I do, which is to help people wake up.

I started this forum to help people wake up. I talk to yogis on Skype every day in order to help them wake up. I want to publish a book so my students will have a practice manual that is consistent with what I teach online and during the Skype sessions. It's all pretty straightforward from my point of view.

This community has evolved into a precious jewel, in my opinion. But that isn't because we set out to create a community. Like all great communities, this one evolved organically, based on a shared passion and a shared purpose; everyone here is passionate about waking up.

We must be open to whatever input we get, but that doesn't mean we have to assume we are "doing it wrong" every time we are criticized. We will be criticized no matter what we do. That's life. We also don't have to assume that everything we do is "right" and beyond reproach. It's not one or the other. But I do believe that if we keep focusing on our shared passion for awakening we will do far more good than harm.

I wonder if the rest of you share this opinion of mine:
what is going on here is really good and pure and right and the criticisms are mostly either misguided from some kind of ignorance of what we are doing or from someone's need to stay fundamental, or, are just plain silly.

I'm not really taking any of it seriously as least so far, it's just kind of interesting.

Nor do I feel any kind of animosity against the critics. It's fine.

Now, of course, I do get amped up when I see dharma teachers who don't want to be honest and real about the stages and the maps and what is real and what is false and think all us students need to be nurtured and coddled and kept from all the scary truths. THAT bugs me. But, I don't think most of those people (Spirit Rock/IMS, etc?) are part of the criticism either because they are unaware of Daniel and Kenneth, don't really care, or accept what they are doing as a viable alternative.

The critics for the most part seem to be the more relgious-style theravada buddhists -- does that seem right?

"I don't think most of those people (Spirit Rock/IMS, etc?) are part of the criticism either because they are unaware of Daniel and Kenneth, don't really care, or accept what they are doing as a viable alternative."-telecaster

This makes sense to me. The more established mainstream Buddhist teachers know they have nothing to fear from us and are not threatened, nor should they be. Mainstream teachers are popular because they appeal to lots of people. Religious or casual Buddhists will always outnumber "serious" practitioners 100 to 1. Popular teachers appeal to the 100. We appeal to the one. So mainstream teachers can afford to see us as just one of the many counter-culture fringe groups that come and go every few years. We are not even on their radar screen.

As for our critics, it's only a small, vocal minority of fundamentalists who are outraged enough by our claims to bother to complain about us.

Generally speaking, I don't find the assertions of fundamentalists interesting. I think fundamentalists of all stripes, e.g., fundamentalist Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Meher Baba devotees, followers of the Great Spaghetti Monster, have more in common with each other than fundamentalist Buddhists have in common with pragmatic dharma folks. Pragmatic dharma yogis could in fact come from any of those traditions and get along just fine because what they are really interested in is not a religious thing at all; it's a human thing.

Awakening has nothing to do with Buddhism. Buddhism is just one of many technologies for achieving it. Those who do not understand this are likely to criticize us and nothing we can say will dissuade them.

Korean Zen Master Seung Sahn's little catchphrase for just about every occasion comes to mind right now:

"Only don't know.'

Beautiful Chris.

That's exactly it isn't it?

Here's something from Ajhan Chah that is relevant as well (at least to me)

"The Buddha has already laid down the path of practice in its entirety, but we have not yet practised, or if we have, we've practised only in speech. Our minds and our speech are not yet in harmony, we just indulge in empty talk. But the basis of Buddhism is not something that can be talked about or guessed at. The real basis of Buddhism is full knowledge of the truth of reality. If one knows this truth then no teaching is necessary. If one doesn't know, even if he listens to the teaching, he doesn't really hear. This is why the Buddha said, ''The Enlightened One only points the way.'' He can't do the practice for you, because the truth is something you cannot put into words or give away."

"The practice of Dhamma is not dependent on being a monk, a novice or a layman; it depends on straightening out your understanding. If our understanding is correct, we arrive at peace. Whether you are ordained or not it's the same, every person has the chance to practise Dhamma, to contemplate it. We all contemplate the same thing. If you attain peace, it's all the same peace; it's the same path, with the same methods."

"Therefore the Buddha didn't discriminate between laymen and monks, he taught all people to practise to know the truth of the sankhāras. When we know this truth, we let them go. If we know the truth there will be no more becoming or birth. How is there no more birth? There is no way for birth to take place because we fully know the truth of sankhāras. If we fully know the truth, then there is peace. Having or not having, it's all the same. Gain and loss are one. The Buddha taught us to know this. This is peace; peace from happiness, unhappiness, gladness and sorrow."

A followup to Mu's post:

"The Buddha's enlightenment solved his problem. It didn't do anything for you." -Bill Hamilton, father of pragmatic dharma in the West

Kenneth,

I think I've mentioned this before, but do you have any pictures of Bill? If so, do you think you might be inclined to post one here (or include one in your book perhaps)?

I would love to have a face to picture while reading his awesome zingers.

I'll see what I can do, Mu. I know there are some good ones in the intranet database at Insight Meditation Society. I'm not sure if I have any prints around here, though. If I find one, I'll scan it. Does anyone have the paperback of Saints and Psychopaths? Is there a pic there? I have lost all my copies of the book through the years.

All of the above points seem great. I think I need to clarify what I'm talking about, since I lost some of the meaning by cramming what I wanted to say into 2000 characters.

What I really meant to point out is that I don't think it's only fundamentalists who currently think negatively of results-positive meditation. (Yes, I know some people are going to hate that term because it sounds so PC. Nonetheless, I'd rather frame it in terms of what we do, and the philosophy underlying it, which is related to the philosophy expressed in Ajahn Chah's quote.)

I just think there are some people who would really like the things that we're quietly and unobtrusively doing here in our little corner of the internet, but if all they get exposed to is negativity from other meditators (or non-meditators, which is probably more common), they may never come near this little corner and check it out.

Unfortunately, I don't see a solution that I think anyone here will like. Oh well -- see how it's disappointed. See how it keeps meditating anyway.

I've only got the PDF.

Thanks Kenneth.

a little side note: (not an argument against or criticism of what any one has said here)

Isn't the whole idea of "perfect sila" kind of irrational?
Help me someone at least to agree and help formulate this idea or tell me why I am wrong.
I mean, first you have to sort of codify and agree on what qualities exemplify "perfect sila." and then, figure out exactly how each of those qualities manifests itself in a real live human.
and, everyone has to agree on all of that.
Then, an actual person on the earth has to be able to, in every instant, never do anything that didn't exemplfy "perfect sila."
I just don't think it is possible.
there is no agreement I am sure, and no way to really fit in concepts of sila with real life activities.
and, everyone will have different opinions on what a person has done, whether it was 'perfect" or not.
it's just an odd idea to cling to, i think. (no offense meant or taken I hope)

it's like that "serene enlightened shaved head robbed never purturbed asian monk" -- doesn't exist.

"
it's like that "serene enlightened shaved head robbed never purturbed asian monk" -- doesn't exist.
"

I've hung out with a bunch of monks over the years. They are typically crazy people.

"I've hung out with a bunch of monks over the years. They are typically crazy people."

you know how the theradava monks can't eat past noon?
I was at Spirit Rock once and a prominent Thai monk and a bunch of his followers were there on a visit. At noon all of us on retreat sat to eat (this is years ago the whole set up is different now) in the same large room as these Thai monks.
Man! could those guys eat! it was a serious activity for all of them and they seemed to consume enough food for three times as many people and, as fast as they possibly could. It was quite a sight.
I remember I was kind of disgusted and basically disillusioned because in my innocence at that time I expected them to be graceful and humble.
They acted "hungry" and that is NOT how I thought Buddhist monks should act!

Haha well put Owen... i'm crazy but I choose to do it in a Lay context

The monks I have known are just like the rest of us--full range of human qualities. I was yelled at once by a monk for asking a question when he said, "does anyone have questions about the talk I've just given". He was spitting with rage. Someone in the group spoke-up and said, "No need for anger." Then the monk shouted, "Bahh, ha, I am a monk. Monks do not get anrgy."
Along those same lines, I once took a 1 credit college course on stress management. The professor opened the floor for questions. A student raised her hand and was called on. She said, "I recently read a study that contradicts one of the points you made. The study reported that..." The professor stood up, stomped his foot and then grabbed his pointer stick and snapped it in two. He then hollered out, "People have got to stop questioning me. I am the expert on stress!!! I am the expert on stress!!!"

Exactly.

Monks, professors, stay-at-home moms, computer technicians--all of us write the book on what it means to be human.

"The monks I have known are just like the rest of us--full range of human qualities. I was yelled at once by a monk for asking a question when he said, "does anyone have questions about the talk I've just given". He was spitting with rage. Someone in the group spoke-up and said, "No need for anger." Then the monk shouted, "Bahh, ha, I am a monk. Monks do not get anrgy."
Along those same lines, I once took a 1 credit college course on stress management. The professor opened the floor for questions. A student raised her hand and was called on. She said, "I recently read a study that contradicts one of the points you made. The study reported that..." The professor stood up, stomped his foot and then grabbed his pointer stick and snapped it in two. He then hollered out, "People have got to stop questioning me. I am the expert on stress!!! I am the expert on stress!!!"

Exactly.

Monks, professors, stay-at-home moms, computer technicians--all of us write the book on what it means to be human."

That's wonderful. I've met a few people like that. I've also been that guy on a number of occasions.

(I'm a computer technician - )

"That's wonderful. I've met a few people like that. I've also been that guy on a number of occasions.

(I'm a computer technician - )"

I'm a litigation legal assistant and a big part of my job is to make sure that these large complicated cases are organized perfectly so the lawyers can have acess to everything they need at all times.
Apparently I'm pretty good at my job, but --
I'm the least organized person I've ever met.

(And I don't like files and fiing, and paper, and paper clips and binders and post its and copying machines.)

On the topic of being "Goal Driven", there is a fantastic book called "The Practicing Mind" that is a great manual for achieving goals without being goal driven.

You simple accept that you are absolutely perfect in this present moment, because there is no other way that you can be, and make a commitment to go and practice today, whatever your craft is - parenting, martial arts, meditation, living - whatever. The results will naturally arise with time.