"Students of Daniel Ingram" perceived as having "dangerous" practice

Apperception, I've been in situations similar to yours with IMS-based teachers. One of them was at an IMS retreat last summer, in fact, and at that point I was dark-nighting, had gone through A&P just before going on the retreat, and the teacher I talked with was quite dismissive of this language when I tried talking about it, saying he didn't believe in maps. There are lots and lots of different ways of mapping these things, he said, and it's best not to get attached to any of them, but to go into it with an open mind and heart. Yet when I look at Kornfield's books, I find a version of the progress of insight described there. I've also read a bio of Dipa Ma, which openly describes not only her stream entry, but the experience that some of her students had of SE on an IMS retreat with her back in the 80's. There's a double message, obviously.

What you're describing, however, and what I encountered, is what Bill Hamilton complained about so many years ago. I had a wonderful retreat instructor this past January at a local center who is on staff at IMS, and she says she dislikes labels. My teacher here says the same thing. I think among other things they're worried we'll attach to an attainment and get stuck identifying with it in some egoistic way. This, unfortunately, is a possibility. Perhaps that's why the teacher you saw thinks Daniel is dangerous. I've had other people, not teachers, say the same thing about Kenneth, that he's Mr. Danger-man.

One other thing: I think it's possible that people who've gone to Burma and invested their lives in practice can't imagine that someone in a couple of months or years could attain first, second, or any other paths. Plus he doesn't know you personally, can't validate your experience, and so he's cautious about what to say.

For awhile I let myself get agitated over this discrepancy, but I've come to the personal conclusion that it's probably best just to accept from such people what's good in what they have to offer, and come here for real diagnosis and discussion of where we are. I've learned a lot from these teachers and find much to admire in their work, and I love dharma talks. I find myself that the two approaches supplement each other.

The problem is, what I've described is my own personal strategy, but it doesn't necessarily solve the problem of cognitive dissonance. I'm not sure what can be done about that. Firing off a note to IMS might make you feel better but not do any good, yet on some level it would be nice to open some sort of dialogue. Perhaps we should strategize as a group rather than limit a discussion to one person's unsatisfying encounter. Thoughts?

"One other thing: I think it's possible that people who've gone to Burma and invested their lives in practice can't imagine that someone in a couple of months or years could attain first, second, or any other paths. "

I don't even think Daniel or Kenneth originally thought this could be done so quickly either. It took those guys 20 years to do what they are no teaching us to do in amazingly fast timeframes. I can see why some of the teachers may be skeptical as they haven't ever been exposed to this rapid process that we see unfolding here daily.

I think what struck me about this teacher's response is how uncautious it was. He was just rambling and, in my opinion, reacting emotionally. Even what you describe from the teacher you encountered - explicitly rejecting the language and giving a reason - sounds more thought-out than what I encountered.

As for the whole not giving labels to things, yeah. We see a different side of it from what they see, and I can't add a lot more than has already been said, I'm sure. I'll just add that people cling to things anyway, compare themselves to others in myriad ways, create suffering for themselves anyway at the retreat centers and the sanghas. It doesn't seem clear to me why not using labels would solve that problem.

Really there's something very heartless about it, if you think about. Why NOT tell a student who's suffering through dark night, "Hey, listen, you're having a really rough time right now, but don't give up because there's something wonderful up ahead, and here are some things you can look for to find the way!" Isn't that a lot more compassionate than just letting people flounder around in s@#t?

"I don't even think Daniel or Kenneth originally thought this could be done so quickly either. It took those guys 20 years to do what they are no teaching us to do in amazingly fast timeframes. I can see why some of the teachers may be skeptical as they haven't ever been exposed to this rapid process that we see unfolding here daily."

They found out the fastest way to bust those vibrations and taught them to us! Now we can crack all these levels without having to take decades.

It's kind of like playing Nintendo with a Game Genie.

"Perhaps we should strategize as a group rather than limit a discussion to one person's unsatisfying encounter. Thoughts? "

Totally.

This reminds me of a phone call I had about a year ago with an instructor at a Goenka center in the midwest. I had submitted an application and admitted to doing noting practice. So, he called to make sure I understood the rules about not mixing practices during the retreat, which I did. Then he said, "I don't know much about noting. You can get into interesting concentration states with it, but it won't lead to enlightenment." The latter statement proving the first. He was a little defensive, and, honestly, so was I. Right after we hung up, I got an email saying I'd been wait-listed, and I replied that I was withdrawing my app.

This is all pretty sad.

"Then he said, "I don't know much about noting. You can get into interesting concentration states with it, but it won't lead to enlightenment.""

Effed up.

I'm starting to get some insight (bad pun) into IMS culture. Here's some initial thoughts, but warning warning warning this isn't very nuanced so don't read into what I'm saying as being 100% what I think. I'm just trying to paint with a very very broad brush to add to this conversation.

1) they recognize from many past spiritual organizations that "ranking" the memberships attainments greatly increases the chances of splits within the sanga. It happened to the theosophists back then, it happened between Kenneth and Acutal Freedom in the recent past, etc. etc. ---- it just drives people bonkers, it's human nature!

1a) the correlate to this is that when people start ranking their own attainment, it can drive themselves bonkers. I think that's what they think is dangerous about students of Dan Ingram.

2) they aren't there to decode someone's experience (especially people they have just met), but rather to keep their practice on the path between extremes during retreat.

3) they have a lot of faith that whatever happens to a person in their practice is "meant to happen", so they take a very very light hand in guiding a person. They will always point a person back into their experience/practice rather than put it into the context of a map.

4) They are very very aware of the issue of transference and want to avoid being seen as enlightened because it will just turn retreats into worship and focus on them, rather than the yogi's own practice.

So the nicest way to look at IMS is that they have a lot of faith in practice, but not a lot of faith in their ability to actively facilitate awakening.

I think your instincts were right: the teacher was simply not allowed to say yes, those were fruitions.

"1) they recognize from many past spiritual organizations that "ranking" the memberships attainments greatly increases the chances of splits within the sanga. It happened to the theosophists back then, it happened between Kenneth and Acutal Freedom in the recent past, etc. etc. ---- it just drives people bonkers, it's human nature!

1a) the correlate to this is that when people start ranking their own attainment, it can drive themselves bonkers. I think that's what they think is dangerous about students of Dan Ingram."

I could be wrong, but I think it's a little more screwed up than this.

First of all, they do seem to acknowledge attainments. They hint at them in their talks. They refer constantly to "fully enlightened people" and "arahats" (Mahasi Sayadaw is described this way), and one teacher openly mentioned that Dipa Ma was an anagami. I think many of the teachers are recognized to have attainments (perhaps up to 2nd path), but they don't directly say this. They say things like, "We're just like you, we're not fully enlightened either, we can only guess what it's like, but maybe some day we'll get there." (And maybe there's something honest and healthy about that, a la your point #4 re: transference, even if it is somewhat disingenuous.)

So one problem is that they constantly hint that there are different skill levels at this practice, but they're not very down-to-earth about it. Post-third-path is mystified. These are beings we probably can't even comprehend. You might get there, but only with the grace of God (or something like that). There's no logic to it. You're turning off a lamp one night, and boom, it happens. And as for the lower paths, well, who knows what they think those are or how you get them? I don't know.

I agree with the rest of what you said, though. I just think the attainments issue is particularly mystified.

And I mean, I would like to know to what extent the teachers at IMS even agree with one another about what enlightenment is and how it's broken down. Does everyone there unquestioningly subscribe to the 10 fetters model? Really? That would blow me away if it were true. I just wonder how much internal, institutional pressure there is around this issue. Can you speak up on this issue and still teach at IMS? I have a very poor understanding of the culture there, but I found a lot of it odd.

"I agree with the rest of what you said, though. I just think the attainments issue is particularly mystified.

And I mean, I would like to know to what extent the teachers at IMS even agree with one another about what enlightenment is and how it's broken down. Does everyone there unquestioningly subscribe to the 10 fetters model? Really? That would blow me away if it were true. I just wonder how much internal, institutional pressure there is around this issue. Can you speak up on this issue and still teach at IMS? I have a very poor understanding of the culture there, but I found a lot of it odd."

Actually, I think the issue of what is the right interpretation of the 10 fetters model is the most important issue in all.

For what it's worth, here's what's bugging me (in a good way): buddha supposedly was completely enlightened, yet throughout his life he said "I see you mara", right?

So what I now think is that the final seeing through of all the fetters is similar to the seeing through of the fetters at first path. Supposedly " 1. identity view, 2. doubt, and 3. ritual attachments " are abandoned. I don't think those fetter stop showing up after first path, it's just that we just can't swallow them anymore. In other words, those habits show up still but the second we see them, they evaporate immediately as childish and simplistic.

I'm guessing it's probably the same with fourth path, the fetters are seen through but not necessarily not arising. Then the rest of "practice" is the paradoxical efforts of refining one's habits of seeing, even though the notion of cause and effect is completely seen through by this point.

But I just don't know. I agree the IMS folks don't make that issue any clearer!!! Very zen of them.

The way I described it after stream-entry was that it was like learning what a mirage is. You are still able to see the mirage, because there is still the same causal connection between your eye and the environment. The mirage still appears like water. If your thirsty, you may even crave the water. But you're very unlikely to run toward the water. There's another cause in you (the cause of knowing) which pushes back on the cause of thirst. It's a similar thing with the illusion of a permanent, separate self, which the effect that the cravings still remain, but the whole thing is carried more lightly.

The teachers at this recent IMS retreat were basically teaching the same thing. There's still phasa, there's still vedana, there's still tanha, but upadana doesn't have to arise. You can bring mindfulness to the process. The pain or desire is still there, but our relation toward it is no longer unskillful. It is encased in equanimity.

If this is the goal they're teaching, if this is their model of awakening (I have no reason to think it's not), then what room is there for the 10-fetters model? The fetters don't fall away. They're just bathed in equanimity.

These teachers seem to subscribe to the GAD model (getting rid of Greed, Aversion, and Delusion is full enlightenment). But that's not the 10-fetters model! In the GAD model, the cycle of sangsara stops before upadana: the feeling arises, but it does not become unhealthy. In the 10-fetters model, the feeling doesn't arise. It's interrupted before tanha, maybe before vedana or phasa. Totally different.

When I think about it this way, I can completely sympathize with why they're so unclear on it. LOL! What a complex mess!

It seems like this practice is all about learning to see different flavors of mirages. Set em up and knock em down as someone wise once said.

I've been thinking about my experience with IMS and getting in late on this thread. In 1981 I went to a 3month IMS retreat with Jack, Joseph, Joseph's teacher Munindra and others. The explanations and instructions in MTCB and at KFD often make me remember similar things they taught and encouraged us to do at that retreat. I recall them being pretty explicit about Mahasi technique. Munindra was really out there about detailed noting and "continuity!". They asked us to write down the details of the meditation experience and bring to private meetings. 1st and 2nd path were discussed a lot, and they had special meetings with a number of "advanced" students with the implication that they had attained 1st path.

I don't remember them detailing the nanas or mentioning the cycles, but can't say for sure they didn't because I was getting some new-theory overload. Most of the yogis struck me as really serious, with noteworthy exceptions, and I remember actually bringing up some of my personal "content" in group meetings and getting stern disapproving looks from some of them. I think this might have been maybe only the 3rd 3-month one they had done, and it was early in Jack and Joseph's teaching at IMS. Maybe they ended up adjusting how they taught to fit the aspirations of the kind of students who started coming after it was more popular? Also, I think they mentioned that the teaching at 3-months was more the straight stuff.

A couple of things, though. The teachers seemed to get exhausted and burned out at times as the retreat went on, with I think easily 50 to 75+ participants, and the instruction for the non-advanced started seeming more rote and one-size fits all. With some zen background, I really didn't like what I though was all the complex busy-ness of the vipassana noting and writing things down, and just got off on the cool concentration states you can develop at such a long retreat. When I wasn't with the program they didn't challenge me on it, but just gave me luke-warm encouragement to keep trying. And the few yogis who seemed to really be goofing off seemed entirely tolerated. When I got back to tell my very discerning zen teacher about it, she cut me off and said "why didn't they TELL you you were wasting your time!". At zen retreats she didn't have any trouble giving in your face feedback.

"1st and 2nd path were discussed a lot, and they had special meetings with a number of "advanced" students with the implication that they had attained 1st path. "

Wow! What the eff happened?!

I have very little to add to what has been said already, except to say a huge thanks to apperception to sharing this story with such honesty and graciousness. I'm always grateful for this community, for the work of Kenneth, Beth, Daniel and others, but it's useful to be reminded precisely why it's so valuable.

As for comments about pragmatic dharma being "dangerous", you need only look at the numerous ways in which the Buddha was attacked and criticised for his revolutionary approach. Not every "dangerous idea" is a good one, but good ideas are rarely not "dangerous" in the mind of someone with an interest in propping up the status quo.

"But it's not like I walked in the room, sat down, and said, 'Sakadagami, motherf#$%er! What do you think of THAT?' "

Oh, and I laughed out loud at this too. Reminded me of this: fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-...4550_715539462_n.jpg :)

"Oh, and I laughed out loud at this too. Reminded me of this: fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-...4550_715539462_n.jpg :)"

Awesome.

"Wow! What the eff happened?!"

Probably this doesn't address the underlying issue but there are a lot of different teachers rotating through and they all have their own retreat style. People who go there often enough to know, pick their retreats by who is teaching them.

""'Sakadagami, motherf#$%er! What do you think of THAT?'""

I agree with orasis. That is the single funniest sentence I have read in a dharma discussion forum. EVER!

...I don't know how I will keep a straight face in my next interview.

"As for comments about pragmatic dharma being 'dangerous,' you need only look at the numerous ways in which the Buddha was attacked and criticised for his revolutionary approach. Not every 'dangerous idea' is a good one, but good ideas are rarely not 'dangerous' in the mind of someone with an interest in propping up the status quo." -AndyW45

Hear, hear! Nicely put.

Sorry, apperception. I've been off on a thought train about this thread -- thinking about my formative IMS experiences and some very positive experiences at "mainstream" vipassana retreats just before I met Kenneth, and the disconnect between their view and the view here -- and I forgot that this started with how badly you were treated at the retreat! Thanks for sharing that. I'd feel pretty cautious at this point about going to another retreat and telling them I'd been practicing with Kenneth and other KFD teachers. A few weeks ago I sent links to MCTB and KFD to a vipassana teacher I had really connected with at a couple of retreats and I was disappointed that he didn't seem open minded about it.

Well, I asked my local teacher about the map, because it came up in a reading we did in one of Jack Kornfield's books for a practice session we had this morning. He says it was influential with IMS early on (I'm surmising back in the 80's, which is when Mahasi Sayadaw came to teach), and that this approach dominated for awhile, but that in more recent years IMS seems to have moved in other directions (mainly influenced by Ajahn Chah and the Thai Forest Tradtion, I'm thinking). He himself doesn't think the 16-stage map is all that useful because it's linear (whereas our actual progress may be cyclical), and because the mind is suggestible, especially in samadhi, and can imagine all the things we've been told to expect.

I didn't have a chance to discuss it at any real length, but the exchange resolves at least some of my own confusion about the matter. I think people in the world of western Buddhist retreat centers may see it as one of many approaches, not a particularly useful one, and may even consider following the map to be harmful if people become competitive or attached to achieving certain mind states. I don't know that this explains Jim's experience with the particular teacher he encountered, however.

I'm personally taking a live-and-let-live approach these days. My teacher here didn't try to talk me out of it, or out of doing noting practice or anything else. I didn't try to defend it. So that's about it. I will carry on with what I'm doing with an open mind. I still believe that I'm now in low Eq with tendencies to slide back into D.N. If such terminology doesn't resonate with others, it's okay.