Q & A With Kenneth Folk - Discussion
Jane Laurel Carrington:
Thank you so much for doing this, AugustLeo. I have not so much a question as a remark, which is that ever since watching that BATGAP interview I have felt kind of depressed. Not sure why. Maybe I was subconsciously hoping to get God back? And maybe I hate to think of the goal, Nirvana, as the same thing as death? In which case, why bother? If the answer is, stop suffering, I have more or less done that, or drastically reduced it. So when I say I'm depressed, it's just a subtle feeling tone, not a deep quagmire. But still . . .
You're welcome, Jane.
As I said to Kenneth, his writing and speaking style and his clarity of thought help me to examine and express my own understanding. And I really miss reading his viewpoint and the Q & A exchange about dharma and practice on his old Wetpaint site and forum. Kenneth is still my favorite teacher!
Just a friendly reminder that this thread is intended to be a Q & A thread with Kenneth Folk.
Everyone's voice is a valuable contribution to this community, so I'm respectfully requesting that those who want to reply to questions or comments posted for Kenneth in this thread, please consider splitting off to a separate thread.
Thanks.
Michael
Everyone's voice is a valuable contribution to this community, so I'm respectfully requesting that those who want to reply to questions or comments posted for Kenneth in this thread, please consider splitting off to a separate thread.
Thanks.
Michael
I should add, his statement was self-contradictory. "This is the only certain statement." would have worked, I think. Speaking of which, I recommend Certainty of Uncertainty by Poerkson. It's a collection of essays about radical constructivism. Along with general semantics, radical constructivism seems aligned with Kenneth's thought.
Anyway,
I laughed at Katy's post because I was also armchair analyzing it as passive aggression.
EDIT:
Oh, yeah and I was also wondering how Kenneth reconciled his lack of ultimate perspective perspective with his claim to some kind of awakening.
Anyway,
Katy, if you seek/scan through the interview you don't find that little power posing - some, but I find it hard to imagine it was being consciously used
I laughed at Katy's post because I was also armchair analyzing it as passive aggression.EDIT:
Oh, yeah and I was also wondering how Kenneth reconciled his lack of ultimate perspective perspective with his claim to some kind of awakening.
Given the interest in asking Kenneth questions about his BATGAP interview, I had originally conceived that this thread would be an opportunity for community members to ask Kenneth to expand on his current teachings and dharma perspective as an ongoing dialogue.
I believe that this community could benefit from Kenneth’s participation in this way. Others may or may not agree with me. As I posted earlier, his writing and speaking style and his clarity of thought help me to examine and express my own understanding, whether I agree with his perspective or not.
I admit that this thread has taken a turn in a direction I hadn’t intended, just as life can do. I’m okay with that. I never expected the type of questions that Katy Steger is asking, probably because those questions just haven’t been important to me. That’s not to say that say that those questions shouldn’t be asked, if someone feels they’re important.
It’s not up to me to say that those questions don’t belong in this thread. It’s not my thread, it belongs to this community, and this community as a whole can make that decision. That’s okay with me. Ultimately, Kenneth will decide which questions he chooses to answer, if he chooses to answer any. And that’s okay with me, too.
Finally, it’s been instructive for me to read Katy’s questions & comments and observe, in real time, the experience of my “sub-selves” struggling to react in various ways, without ever becoming embedded in the struggle. And that’s totally okay!! So, thank you Katy.
Metta to all.
Michael
I believe that this community could benefit from Kenneth’s participation in this way. Others may or may not agree with me. As I posted earlier, his writing and speaking style and his clarity of thought help me to examine and express my own understanding, whether I agree with his perspective or not.
I admit that this thread has taken a turn in a direction I hadn’t intended, just as life can do. I’m okay with that. I never expected the type of questions that Katy Steger is asking, probably because those questions just haven’t been important to me. That’s not to say that say that those questions shouldn’t be asked, if someone feels they’re important.
It’s not up to me to say that those questions don’t belong in this thread. It’s not my thread, it belongs to this community, and this community as a whole can make that decision. That’s okay with me. Ultimately, Kenneth will decide which questions he chooses to answer, if he chooses to answer any. And that’s okay with me, too.
Finally, it’s been instructive for me to read Katy’s questions & comments and observe, in real time, the experience of my “sub-selves” struggling to react in various ways, without ever becoming embedded in the struggle. And that’s totally okay!! So, thank you Katy.
Metta to all.
Michael
Jane Laurel Carrington:
I posted this at exactly the same time as Michael's post, so this is not in response to his gracious comments. However, I will acknowledge that he and I obviously disagree.
I'd hoped I made this clear in a previous post, but maybe not. I would prefer that questions and comments such as Katy's (questions/comments that aren't practice oriented such as the questions re the BATGAP interview) be moved (if that's possible) and/or posted in a separate thread. I don't have any control over that, so even though having them here in this thread is not what I want, I'm okay with that. (And this thread has provided me with some invaluable learning experiences!)
Other community members who either agree or disagree are free to make their thoughts known, and/or act accordingly.
Metta to all.
Michael
EDITS: 1x for a typo.
AugustLeo:
Jane Laurel :
I posted this at exactly the same time as Michael's post, so this is not in response to his gracious comments. However, I will acknowledge that he and I obviously disagree.
I'd hoped I made this clear in a previous post, but maybe not. I would prefer that questions and comments such as Katy's (questions/comments that aren't practice oriented such as the questions re the BATGAP interview) be moved (if that's possible) and/or posted in a separate thread. I don't have any control over that, so even though having them here in this thread is not what I want, I'm okay with that. (And this thread has provided me with some invaluable learning experiences!)
Other community members who either agree or disagree are free to make their thoughts known, and/or act accordingly.
Metta to all.
Michael
EDITS: 1x for a typo.
That said, you are defining now what you'd like not in your thread and it's easy to accomodate*. Best wishes.
____
Edit: * Meaning I can exit your thread because you have requested, I think, this action; however I do not agree with any revisionist editing/culling of the posts in thread.
Edit2: removing last names
Jane Laurel Carrington:
Thanks, Daniel. I have less knowledge of Buddhadharma from the source than I would like, but I had thought that what you say is in fact the case. However, Kenneth seems to think otherwise, and so my question to him would be, why? Does this have something to do with secular Buddhism? which, of course, is a label.
First a few words to help frame the question:
Your response, quoted above, is in reply to Daniel Leffler's assertion upthread that, "This is Kenneth's teaching that Nibbana means death or oblivion, not the Buddha's."
This is fairly accurate, but needs some explanation.
First, nobody knows what the Buddha's teaching was. We have only interpretation. Daniel Leffler has his interpretation and I have mine. It's tempting to imagine that there is one correct way to understand the Buddha's teachings, and that all other interpretations are fringey. This is wrong, of course. There has never been consensus about what the Buddha meant, throughout the history of Buddhism. This means that even today's popular Western view of nibbana as eternal bliss-out, which is highly influenced by New Age thought and Christian images of heaven, should not be taken as orthodoxy. Gasp.
So, while Daniel Leffler is correct that my teachings are mine and not the Buddha's, it's essential that we understand at every step of the way that everything that has ever been written about the Buddha in the history of Buddhism was written by someone other than the Buddha. Even this is too sloppy, because we must also admit that we aren't absolutely sure there ever was a historical Buddha. If we can be this honest in the foundations of the discussion, we can skip over a lot of pointless arguments. Suffice to say that I think there is value in assuming that there was a Buddha and that the early Buddhist texts were, at least sometimes, fairly representative of his thought. This gives us some sound conceptual frameworks with which to understand our experience, and some effective techniques to try out for ourselves.
I love to bring this word "oblivion" into the discussion because it so clearly galvanizes our thought around what nibbana might be. Among my Burmese and American teachers in the Mahasi tradition of Buddhism, there was very little controversy about the understanding that nibbana is the complete and utter lack of experience. Take a moment to let that settle.
Nibbana, in the Mahasi tradition, as it was explained to me, is not a special kind of experience. It's not an impersonal background glow of awareness into which we will merge. It's not pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. It is simply the end. While that may feel very scary to those of us steeped in the Christian ideal of eternal life, try to think of what it might have meant for the Buddha, to whom life was an almost unendurable parade of sorrows; since the Buddha believed that the default case was an infinite chain of rebirth across all the realms, including the hell realms, animal realms, hungry ghost realms, and jealous god realms, it would have been great comfort indeed to believe that it might finally come to an end.
Viewed from the point of view of the person to whom it happens, then, nibbana is indeed extinction. And that is a very welcome situation if you believe the alternative is unsatisfactoriness punctuated by hell. You don't get to enjoy nibbana. Nobody does. But the cultural lens into which the idea arose made the idea of the utter, complete, and permanent end of experience a cause for celebration. Nibbana is peace.
Now let's consider oblivion. Notice that the description, from the point of view of the person to whom it happens is exactly the same as nibbana: the end of experience. In oblivion, there isn't anyone there to suffer. Nonetheless, viewed through the cultural lens of someone who grew up in a Christian/NewAge culture, the very idea of it is horrifying. Imagine the opportunity cost; surely almost any kind of life is better than none at all. And if there is a chance of melding into the Universal Consciousness, leaving behind all traces of "me" while still being able to feel the bliss... how wonderful that would be, and how cruel and pointless it seems to contemplate a world in which my essence cannot take part.
Two words. Nibbana and oblivion. Both look exactly the same to the person to whom they happen, which is to say they don't look any way at all; there is no one there, either to celebrate or to complain. And yet the words themselves evoke such different responses.
This cultural revulsion toward the idea of oblivion is so entrenched that even some senior Western Buddhist teachers won't go near it. I recently heard an interview in which a Western teacher described nibbana by saying there is no experience. "But it's not nothing!" he quickly insisted, and went on to try to explain using the simile of the zero in mathematics. It made no sense. For me, it seems pointless to speculate about the ontological significance of nibbana if it is the end of experience for the person who enters it. At the same time, I do acknowledge that some people are comforted by the idea that even though they won't be there to appreciate it, nibbana is warm, welcoming, and enduring. In any case, there is no need for us to know the answer to what the Buddha meant by nibbana. I don't think we can know. My hope is that we can see our beliefs as beliefs, and not put too much stock in them either way.
Thanks. Though, my use of 'seems' disqualifies it as a technical strawman as I didn't claim certainty in my interpretation of your argument. Anyway, it still appears to me that you are asserting some dualities, but we'll let the reader judge that. Do you mind responding to the rest?
Kenneth Folk:
Jane Laurel Carrington:
Thanks, Daniel. I have less knowledge of Buddhadharma from the source than I would like, but I had thought that what you say is in fact the case. However, Kenneth seems to think otherwise, and so my question to him would be, why? Does this have something to do with secular Buddhism? which, of course, is a label.
First a few words to help frame the question:
Your response, quoted above, is in reply to Daniel Leffler's assertion upthread that, "This is Kenneth's teaching that Nibbana means death or oblivion, not the Buddha's."
This is fairly accurate, but needs some explanation.
First, nobody knows what the Buddha's teaching was. We have only interpretation. Daniel Leffler has his interpretation and I have mine. It's tempting to imagine that there is one correct way to understand the Buddha's teachings, and that all other interpretations are fringey. This is wrong, of course. There has never been consensus about what the Buddha meant, throughout the history of Buddhism. This means that even today's popular Western view of nibbana as eternal bliss-out, which is highly influenced by New Age thought and Christian images of heaven, should not be taken as orthodoxy. Gasp.
Hi Kenneth -
As I understand it, bliss is mentioned in the suttas in quite a few places in connection with nibbana
There is a confounding of nibbana with parinibbana in the suttas however so one cannot be sure what is being referred to at any given time. As pretty much everything, including 'being', was said to be abandoned at parinibbana though, it makes sense to me that there is no bliss, however, the perspective we have on these questions (from here in temporal meatspace I mean) may make them Mu by nature. Perhaps time and being and such are small considerations from there, and we just have wrong view here on earth and can't comprehend these things (very Mahayana I know : )
Beyond reasoning, everlasting,
The not-born, the unproduced,
The sorrowless state that is void of stain,
The cessation of states linked to suffering,
The stilling of the conditioned - bliss.
(Itivuttaka, p. 31)
“The greatest of all gains is health,
Nirvana is the greatest bliss,
The eightfold path is the best of paths
For it leads safely to the Deathless.”
(Middle Length Discourses, p. 613)
Having understood the unconditioned state,
Released in mind with the cord of being destroyed,
They have attained to the Dharma-essence.
Delighting in the destruction (of craving).
Those serene ones have abandoned all being.
(Itivuttaka, pp. 31-32)
As most know these questions were considered unskillful by the Buddha as a thicket of views and he said it was best to avoid them and to just practice
But why dedicate a life to practice if nibbana is oblivion? More below
So, while Daniel Leffler is correct that my teachings are mine and not the Buddha's, it's essential that we understand at every step of the way that everything that has ever been written about the Buddha in the history of Buddhism was written by someone other than the Buddha. Even this is too sloppy, because we must also admit that we aren't absolutely sure there ever was a historical Buddha. If we can be this honest in the foundations of the discussion, we can skip over a lot of pointless arguments. Suffice to say that I think there is value in assuming that there was a Buddha and that the early Buddhist texts were, at least sometimes, fairly representative of his thought. This gives us some sound conceptual frameworks with which to understand our experience, and some effective techniques to try out for ourselves.
I would agree that it makes more sense to assume that there was a historical Buddha and (due to the sheer weight and ridiculous repetitiveness of the suttas) that there are concepts that can clearly be called Buddhist, such as karma, rebirth, awakening and dependant origination spanning the course of three lifetimes (for example).
I love to bring this word "oblivion" into the discussion because it so clearly galvanizes our thought around what nibbana might be. Among my Burmese and American teachers in the Mahasi tradition of Buddhism, there was very little controversy about the understanding that nibbana is the complete and utter lack of experience. Take a moment to let that settle.
Though Mahasi Sayadaw may have taught that nibbana = oblivion (is that true?!), the Buddha clearly did not, and went out of his way to negate that nihilistic view. Oblivion would have been an easy thing to teach and, from your presentation of how awful life was back then, pretty attractive to potential students as well (if the Buddha cared about the size of his sangha)
Or, he may have just said parinibbana was the same as death or unconciousness or deep sleep, but he did not. The scriptures try very hard to put something into words to express that it is not possible to comprehend parinibbana with the mind, oblivion, on the other hand, is far too simple to understand to not to have been expounded upon:
There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress. (Udana 8.1)
'Dimension' is also translated as 'state' in other places. I'm no Pali scholar but it would be interesting to hear from those here that are about the implications of that word/verse
This cultural revulsion toward the idea of oblivion is so entrenched that even some senior Western Buddhist teachers won't go near it. I recently heard an interview in which a Western teacher described nibbana by saying there is no experience. "But it's not nothing!" he quickly insisted, and went on to try to explain using the simile of the zero in mathematics. It made no sense. For me, it seems pointless to speculate about the ontological significance of nibbana if it is the end of experience for the person who enters it. At the same time, I do acknowledge that some people are comforted by the idea that even though they won't be there to appreciate it, nibbana is warm, welcoming, and enduring. In any case, there is no need for us to know the answer to what the Buddha meant by nibbana. I don't think we can know. My hope is that we can see our beliefs as beliefs, and not put too much stock in them either way.
The Buddha also said Nibbana was not nothing as far as I know, so that Western (Buddhist?) teacher you refer to was not contradicting the buddhadharma I would think. But, here I now agree with you Kenneth, when you say that we can't know what the word nibbana means (as the Buddha basically says) then why interject the idea of of oblivion into the picture at all anyway? I am confused about this - wouldn't this be spreading false dharma and be considered wrong view? I know lot's of people think this subject is not very important, but I find it is actually of the utmost importance - the same goes for the subject of rebirth and karma, but another thread : )
To boil this down (and to show I'm not just being argumentative for fun : ) if it is your belief that we die once and for all at death (no rebirth) and nibbana as oblivion is the same as deep sleep, do we enter oblivion/nibbana every night when we turn in? Is everyone enlightened then? Why dedicate our lives to awakening, long periods of meditation, scriptural study and contemplation if there is the same result for a so-called Arahat as there is for a worldling? Why not just be happy, have tons of sex, smoke loads of dope and live la vida loca?
TBH I have a long-standing aversion to religion and groups in general myself (I'm a loner/rebel by nature and haven't in the past self-identified as Buddhist or any religion) but I'd imagine it's safe to say you are not a Buddhist either by any stretch?
Edit: me grammer no good
This is so ironic.
Kenneth in his long post (up there), about oblivion, spends two paragraphs protecting himself from the ability to know what the Buddha taught, and then promptly claims that the Buddha taught oblivion.
Furthermore he is also incorrect in asserting that the Mahasi tradition taught oblivion as the goal, in fact Mahasi Sayadaw, in his two volume, four part, treatise on vipassana directly states that the experience of phala-samapatti is not oblivion (devoid of perception).
The teaching that fruition is oblivion, is a modern misunderstanding.
Where it is explicitly said that phala-samapatti is not devoid of perception (sanna):
Mahasi Treatise with relevant passage: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8c3yvgnuupvhkfk/treatise-vol2-part2.pdf?dl=0
Kenneth in his long post (up there), about oblivion, spends two paragraphs protecting himself from the ability to know what the Buddha taught, and then promptly claims that the Buddha taught oblivion.
Furthermore he is also incorrect in asserting that the Mahasi tradition taught oblivion as the goal, in fact Mahasi Sayadaw, in his two volume, four part, treatise on vipassana directly states that the experience of phala-samapatti is not oblivion (devoid of perception).
The teaching that fruition is oblivion, is a modern misunderstanding.
Where it is explicitly said that phala-samapatti is not devoid of perception (sanna):
Mahasi Treatise with relevant passage: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8c3yvgnuupvhkfk/treatise-vol2-part2.pdf?dl=0
I guess my question is - what is the point of this nibbana debate? From a pragmatic point of view is it adding anything to the teachings? I thought the interview could have been used to talk a lot more about practice, though I understand Rick seems to have a deep interest in talking about philosophical stuff.
This is coming from someone who is deeply agnostic about such issues - any input or experience that a human being can have is fundamentally limited given that it comes from the perception of the human brain. I don't think the human brain has much of an ability to understand ontological concepts like time and existence; any understanding we have is coming from the perspective of a human brain As a result, all of these debates a pretty meaningless. If the Buddha existed and thought nothingness was the answer, I frankly don't care - the Buddha was human and therefore even he couldn't truly understand ontology.
This is coming from someone who is deeply agnostic about such issues - any input or experience that a human being can have is fundamentally limited given that it comes from the perception of the human brain. I don't think the human brain has much of an ability to understand ontological concepts like time and existence; any understanding we have is coming from the perspective of a human brain
As a result, all of these debates a pretty meaningless. If the Buddha existed and thought nothingness was the answer, I frankly don't care - the Buddha was human and therefore even he couldn't truly understand ontology.
James Yen:
This is so ironic.
Kenneth in his long post (up there), about oblivion, spends two paragraphs protecting himself from the ability to know what the Buddha taught, and then promptly claims that the Buddha taught oblivion.
Furthermore he is also incorrect in asserting that the Mahasi tradition taught oblivion as the goal, in fact Mahasi Sayadaw, in his two volume, four part, treatise on vipassana directly states that the experience of phala-samapatti is not oblivion (devoid of perception).
The teaching that fruition is oblivion, is a modern misunderstanding.
Where it is explicitly said that phala-samapatti is not devoid of perception (sanna):
Mahasi Treatise with relevant passage: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8c3yvgnuupvhkfk/treatise-vol2-part2.pdf?dl=0
We need to be careful of which Nibbana we're talking about when we say it. There is the Nibbana in this very life where the formulated reality is known and loses it's power -- that's awakening. That's knowing the nibbanaing nature of experience. Then there is Nibbana at death, which is whatever it is.
The first quote is more about distinguishing between "no self" and "not self". Meditation shows you that experience is not self, but yet it happens to an individual, so saying no self doesn't make sense either. This was probably buddha's biggest contribution - supporting the idea of a middle path within the domain of self and no self. The first quote really isn't focusing on the meaning of nibbana.
Kenneth in his long post (up there), about oblivion, spends two paragraphs protecting himself from the ability to know what the Buddha taught, and then promptly claims that the Buddha taught oblivion.
Furthermore he is also incorrect in asserting that the Mahasi tradition taught oblivion as the goal, in fact Mahasi Sayadaw, in his two volume, four part, treatise on vipassana directly states that the experience of phala-samapatti is not oblivion (devoid of perception).
The teaching that fruition is oblivion, is a modern misunderstanding.
Where it is explicitly said that phala-samapatti is not devoid of perception (sanna):
Mahasi Treatise with relevant passage: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8c3yvgnuupvhkfk/treatise-vol2-part2.pdf?dl=0
We need to be careful of which Nibbana we're talking about when we say it. There is the Nibbana in this very life where the formulated reality is known and loses it's power -- that's awakening. That's knowing the nibbanaing nature of experience. Then there is Nibbana at death, which is whatever it is.
The first quote is more about distinguishing between "no self" and "not self". Meditation shows you that experience is not self, but yet it happens to an individual, so saying no self doesn't make sense either. This was probably buddha's biggest contribution - supporting the idea of a middle path within the domain of self and no self. The first quote really isn't focusing on the meaning of nibbana.
James Yen:
This is so ironic.
Kenneth in his long post (up there), about oblivion, spends two paragraphs protecting himself from the ability to know what the Buddha taught, and then promptly claims that the Buddha taught oblivion.
Furthermore he is also incorrect in asserting that the Mahasi tradition taught oblivion as the goal, in fact Mahasi Sayadaw, in his two volume, four part, treatise on vipassana directly states that the experience of phala-samapatti is not oblivion (devoid of perception).
The teaching that fruition is oblivion, is a modern misunderstanding.
Where it is explicitly said that phala-samapatti is not devoid of perception (sanna):
Mahasi Treatise with relevant passage: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8c3yvgnuupvhkfk/treatise-vol2-part2.pdf?dl=0Thank you, James Yen.
Chris M:
You will find this in the "Alagadd?pama Sutta: The Simile of the Snake". Here is a link to Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation: http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/middle-length-discourses-buddha/selections/middle-length-discourses-22-alagaddupama-sutta
And this replies to Elijah's inquiry about the value of the meditative practice; that the practice of developing mental calm and attendance causes naturally over time conduct releasing of own-causal suffering and knowing things as they are (conditions, which a human experiences as pleasant, unpleasant and neutral in terms of sensations, and knowing which occurences are beyond one's control) and thereby changing what/how one can do for a fulfilling life (e.g, brahmaviharas, those pro-social traits universal across traditions and secular humanism).
Here a stanza from the Ratana sutta, found in both the Samutta Nikaya text and in the Khuddaptha (the Short Texts) (with thanks to accesstoinight.com and its contributors for providing the P?li and the English translation):
(...)
Ended the old, there is no new taking birth.
dispassioned their minds toward further becoming,
they, with no seed, no desire for growth,
the prudent, go out like this flame.
This, too, is an exquisite treasure in the Sangha.
By this truth may there be well-being.
The P?li where one sees nibb?na, the noun, is made verb (Nibbanti) to show the action happening "just like a lamp (flame)" ((yath?)yam(pad?po)):
Kh??a? pur??a? nava? natthi sambhava?
Virattacitt? ?yatike bhavasmi?,
Te ???abil? avir??hicchand?
Nibbanti dh?r? yath?yampad?po
Idampi sa?ghe ratana? pa??ta?
Etena saccena suvatthi hotu.
Therefore whether one is understanding Nibb?na as un-binding, going out, unlocked/emancipation, it is clear through the text that James raised "annihilation" (oblivion) is a misleading teaching (if one indicates they are teaching Buddhism).
Kenneth, in the batgap interview of January 2015, you acknowledge that you are not sure what was taught by the buddha, and as you know that are interdictions for teachers in Theravadan buddhism against teaching for the purpose of material gain, and knowing you are teaching annihiliationism ("oblivion") and that you also consider a key tenent of buddism, rebirth, not to be-- why don't you just teach and sell your time as authentically you and/or not recruit historical figures and religious traditions with which you are at odds?
It seems Mr. Tolle has been well to do this. Eckhart Tolle has many free teachings on line if you are unfamiliar and he has done apparently well as himself.
Of course, people are free self-identify as saints, awakened beings, and so on, and people are also free to buy other people's time in the hopes of being able to self-identify as awakened, too.
edit: by request
_______
Hi Sawfoot:
Well, it's a favorite pose for me to share, because the professor's one request is that we share her research abundantally, that it will cause people to feel good and do well, reduce their cortesol, MDs may reduce their lawsuits, and job applicants improve their hiring odds.
In the US many people have seen this talk (23+ million views to date) and use it, so I am curious to know if Kenneth uses it, neck issues aside.
edit 1x: typos and clarity
Kenneth in his long post (up there), about oblivion, spends two paragraphs protecting himself from the ability to know what the Buddha taught, and then promptly claims that the Buddha taught oblivion.
Furthermore he is also incorrect in asserting that the Mahasi tradition taught oblivion as the goal, in fact Mahasi Sayadaw, in his two volume, four part, treatise on vipassana directly states that the experience of phala-samapatti is not oblivion (devoid of perception).
The teaching that fruition is oblivion, is a modern misunderstanding.
Where it is explicitly said that phala-samapatti is not devoid of perception (sanna):
Mahasi Treatise with relevant passage: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8c3yvgnuupvhkfk/treatise-vol2-part2.pdf?dl=0Thank you, James Yen.
Chris M:
You will find this in the "Alagadd?pama Sutta: The Simile of the Snake". Here is a link to Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation: http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/middle-length-discourses-buddha/selections/middle-length-discourses-22-alagaddupama-sutta
And this replies to Elijah's inquiry about the value of the meditative practice; that the practice of developing mental calm and attendance causes naturally over time conduct releasing of own-causal suffering and knowing things as they are (conditions, which a human experiences as pleasant, unpleasant and neutral in terms of sensations, and knowing which occurences are beyond one's control) and thereby changing what/how one can do for a fulfilling life (e.g, brahmaviharas, those pro-social traits universal across traditions and secular humanism).
Here a stanza from the Ratana sutta, found in both the Samutta Nikaya text and in the Khuddaptha (the Short Texts) (with thanks to accesstoinight.com and its contributors for providing the P?li and the English translation):
(...)
Ended the old, there is no new taking birth.
dispassioned their minds toward further becoming,
they, with no seed, no desire for growth,
the prudent, go out like this flame.
This, too, is an exquisite treasure in the Sangha.
By this truth may there be well-being.
The P?li where one sees nibb?na, the noun, is made verb (Nibbanti) to show the action happening "just like a lamp (flame)" ((yath?)yam(pad?po)):
Kh??a? pur??a? nava? natthi sambhava?
Virattacitt? ?yatike bhavasmi?,
Te ???abil? avir??hicchand?
Nibbanti dh?r? yath?yampad?po
Idampi sa?ghe ratana? pa??ta?
Etena saccena suvatthi hotu.
Therefore whether one is understanding Nibb?na as un-binding, going out, unlocked/emancipation, it is clear through the text that James raised "annihilation" (oblivion) is a misleading teaching (if one indicates they are teaching Buddhism).
Kenneth, in the batgap interview of January 2015, you acknowledge that you are not sure what was taught by the buddha, and as you know that are interdictions for teachers in Theravadan buddhism against teaching for the purpose of material gain, and knowing you are teaching annihiliationism ("oblivion") and that you also consider a key tenent of buddism, rebirth, not to be-- why don't you just teach and sell your time as authentically you and/or not recruit historical figures and religious traditions with which you are at odds?
It seems Mr. Tolle has been well to do this. Eckhart Tolle has many free teachings on line if you are unfamiliar and he has done apparently well as himself.
Of course, people are free self-identify as saints, awakened beings, and so on, and people are also free to buy other people's time in the hopes of being able to self-identify as awakened, too.
edit: by request
_______
Hi Sawfoot:
Well, it's a favorite pose for me to share, because the professor's one request is that we share her research abundantally, that it will cause people to feel good and do well, reduce their cortesol, MDs may reduce their lawsuits, and job applicants improve their hiring odds.
In the US many people have seen this talk (23+ million views to date) and use it, so I am curious to know if Kenneth uses it, neck issues aside.
edit 1x: typos and clarity