Hello there, if you do not wish you read this enormous wall of text, it can easily be summarized as:

Please stop quoting Theravada Scriptures as Theravada Buddhism, AF and MCTB Buddhism have literally nothing in common and are going in opposite directions. You thus, cannot use Theravada Scriptures to enforce your point. Thank You.

Also, if you do wish to practice Theravada Buddhism (assuming you are not already), you must really up and change (assuming you are an MCTB or AF practitioner) and not just make a few adjustments, since they are really diametrically opposed practices.

RANT TIME!

While I realize that the DhO is purely for practical purposes only, I cannot bare (well maybe I can) to see such factual contradictions take place all the time.

So please forgive any harsh words you may find in this rant.


Point #1: Richard's writings have such a weird vibe.

No one is going to deny this right? No one really seems to talk about this though. I mean his website just gives off SUCH a weird vibe. Plus he evidently displays Malice every now and again, but of course, overall he denies that he has any Malice in him.

He also denies that he gives off vibes of any sort, but I mean... it seems like we receive of a lot of said vibes from him.

Odd. Now of course that doesn't necessarily mean Richard is wrong, but it significantly diminishes his authority, the fact that he likes to insult, demean and use ad hominems all the time. This clearly does not contribute to his idea of him not possessing any Malice whatsoever.

Yay.


Point #2: Pali Canon contradictions, MAN THIS IS SO ANNOYING

Let's just get this straight, AF and Pali Canon Arahatship ARE NOT THE SAME.



http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ajivo/

Yet Richard: (not exact quotes):

“There is no life after death.”

“The Universe is eternal.”

The Buddha: (not exact quotes):

“There is rebirth.”

“All is impermanent.”

Richard possesses any number of Buddhist Wrong Views, having denied Rebirth, having answered the “14 Unanswerable Questions” (universe infinite, eternal etc.), having believed that there is an Identity which Annihilated at Death (or also Annihilated at AF) (uccheda ditthi), etc.. etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purana_Kassapa

He bears striking resemblance to any of the other spiritual teachers at the time of the Buddha.

Furthermore Arahats cannot have sex, cannot experience gustatory delight, cannot experience sensual delight for that matter. They are capable of only certain types of consciousness (Abhidhamma).

Furthermore Stream-Enterers cannot take anybody other than the Buddha as their teacher (Acc. Pali Canon).

Stream-Enterers are incapable of Wrong View, ARAHATS ARE INCAPABLE OF VIEW IN ENTIRETY (Acc. Pali Canon).

The Buddhists believed in psychic powers (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html)

The Buddhists believed in morality (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html)

The Buddhists believed in whale-eaters, whale-eater-eaters, demons and nonhuman-entities (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.5.05.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn10/sn10.012.than.html)

The Buddhists believed that an arahat could levitate and terminate his existence by burning himself up (literally) (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.09.than.html)

The Buddhists believed that the Unconditioned “thing” was eternal, (I call it Nibbana but I think that's inaccurate since Nibbana means “blowing out”)
(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.than.html)

but not the physical universe since mindfulness was applied to the body
(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.119.than.html) (let it also be known that Acc. The Pali Canon correct mindfulness was watching the ARISING AND PASSING AWAY OF THINGS)

The Buddhists had a fantastic creation story
(http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Agganna_Sutta)

The Buddhists had a fantastic description of hell
(http://www.dhammaweb.net/Tipitaka/read.php?id=164)

The Buddhists believed a demon caused an eclipse
(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.050.than.html)

Acc. Pali Canon, I believe Arahats possessed no Defilements, they also (I believe) totally eliminated the 10 Fetters.

Arahats are incapable of certain immoral actions, they cannot experience eating food with sensual pleasure, why? Because Acc. Pali Canon eating food (or doing anything) with sensual pleasure causes negative karma (again something Richard doesn't believe in, again, Wrong View).

In essence, we are talking about two totally different things.

Sure I could throw you a bone and say MCTB Arahat was Stream-Entry (I don't think it is) since many MCTB Arahats talk of purely eliminting the illusion of self (but then again, please actually study the etymology of sakkaya and decided whether or not the Buddha was talking of a self). Or I could say that Richard shifted his identity to the physicality, hence his calm, an idea brought up by the Buddha once (he said something (though I don't remember exactly) along the lines of the idea that it would be better for one to identify with one's body instead of one's mentality since the mentality changes so often).

I leave you with this:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html


Could we even say that the Buddha was Agnostic when it came to a Self? Was he even talking about a Self? (correct translation of atta, sakkaya) etc.

Does Sotapanna really mean: having heard with wisdom (jk).

Anyways I suppose those people who vehemently deny a self (the text of the Milinda Panha, UG Krishnamurti etc.) were wrong, although Richard maintains this position:
http://actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/floggedmisconceptions/FFM17.htm

Also don't forget the position: There is neither a self or nor not-self does not work either.

Since that is accounted for in the Buddha's system of knowledge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_unanswerable_questions


A, B, neither A nor B, both A and B etc.

I think. Though I may be wrong though.


ANYWAYS, the point is, we are talking about different things. There is not much I can tell you to do that would otherwise cause you to follow Traditional Buddhism.

In other words: It's not a few small changes that you make to adhere correctly to Buddhism, I firmly (sort of) believe that you are literally heading in opposite directions.

Good Luck.

I bags the animal womb if I get a choice (seems like I do?), hell does indeed sound fantastic though...

You remind me of me when I was twelve; really determined to be right based on conformity to ideas found in old texts.

Buddha said (apparently) that one should follow common sense and basically verify everything for yourself.

How much of this rant have you verified in your experience?

You don't have to answer that...though I would like to hear your experience of seeing demons cause eclipse... that would be epic.

If your opinion is, that to hold right view, one must have memorised and firmly believed the entire pali cannon, then it is you who will need the luck mate, that's a big task you got ahead of you.

thanks for the chuckle.

Ah, sarcasm, what was the point of you writing that line anyway?




Oh no, not at all. I actually encountered Buddhism through meditation. Basically I practiced Vipassana first (without having any idea about what Buddhism was) and then encountered and started researching Buddhism. I first started practicing Vipassana from the book: "Liberating Insight" by Frits Koster.

Check it out if you like.

To summarize: I do not adhere to "old texts" for truth.

I merely have a discriminating faculty in my mind that can distinguish between "what is well spoken" and "ill spoken" or truth and untruth.

And I see truth in the old texts.

Not all of them though.




All of it.




But that is not my opinion though... so...

Well then let me offer my apology Venerable Sir, I did not realise I was talking to a Buddha.

You're not.

To summarize: I am doing what you said.

This makes sense to me. I am not dogmatically following teachings, cramming them into my head, while trying to resolve contradictions.

Those things I posted, they literally all make sense to me.

Perhaps I should clarify:



Actually I should probably elaborate on this part.

Yes, the Buddha did say, follow only what you believe in, what makes sense to you.

To put it bluntly: This is what I'm doing.

I say to myself: I will only accept what I know is true, what has the ring of truth, what makes sense to me.

When I read the suttas, when I think about Buddhism, it makes sense to me (all of that does by the way).


I am (and have been for a long time) incapable of not believing in Buddhism. I have always been convinced, and not convinced in a: "I'm convinced there's a monster under my bed" kind of way. Namely convinced in the most absolute: This is the first thing, everything else comes after.

If that makes sense, =p.


I have my own belief system, this belief system is what makes sense to me, it is the way things are. I didn't draw these conclusions, it's just, the truth. But the catch is when I read Buddhism, the Buddha replicated internally what I had ALREADY always believed.

And thus I accepted him. Only so far as he agreed with what I said. In other words my beliefs most closely match those of Buddhism.

I am only a Buddhist insofar as I have Buddhist beliefs, but I don't actively practice Buddhism or try at all.

Actually, if you think about it, we can totally ignore the topic about how stupid I am and realize that:

The Pali Canon and Actual Freedom contradict. Thus trying to use the Pali Canon to support Actual Freedom does not work.

I mean that's just logical right?

That was kind of my entire point in the first place. That's all I'm saying by the way. Just ignore me. My contention is:

Pali Canon != AF

Thanks for clarifying what you meant, "All of it" only left one conclusion by your own definition.

So basically you are a Buddhist making a point that what you are seeing here is not Buddhism by your definition.

Look, I jumped in unwisely with this conversation, the extremeness of you point should have rung alarm bells to leave this thread alone, I forgot that people do go about things in the way you describe, it's been a long time since I took that approach seriously, so I'm sorry for raining on your parade kid, I'm sure there is a good reason you needed to get this out in the open.

Let me drop the sarcasm, I don't think you know the real motivation for your post here, but it is a good thing to keep going until you can find it.

what do you hope that will come of this rant of yours? What are you investigating with it? There is always something we are trying to get a perspective on, I know recently it was me ranting, and i saw that I was simply afraid of the simple challenge to 'verify for myself' in the face of so much controversy about AF.

The basics are really just common sense, the extreme views on the AFT site though tend to cloud some plain good ol' advice. find out why your are not happy right now, and work out if that is reasonable, right here, right now. The get back to being happy in the here and now.

this alone is worth learning. It isn't the slippery slope i feared. Each step is verifiable and consciously taken. Like you said, not all the old text have the same ring of truth about them, so we are left having to make up our own path, as you are clearly doing.

good luck to you (not sarcastic luck, the real stuff)

Sorry, I didn't see your post first. Or that you posted in the battleground.

Your point is an interesting one though, as it seems that there are some things that do line up and some that clearly don't.
I came to the conclusion myself that I had to stop being 'buddhist' and verify it all base on the actual results.

so far me results are

Shamatha = Good

No self = True, Good, and Useful

HAIETMOBA =Useful

Happy =Good.

that about sums up my 'verified things' so far, it is a short list i know.

Sounds familiar...

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/1597748

That's an interesting thought.

As right view is formally defined as understanding & putting into practice the four noble truths (and thus the eightfold path), readers of this post may be interested in reading this sutta with respect to the issue of what is (ultimately) wrong view and what is (ultimately) right view.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.141.than.html

Here is another:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.than.html

Perhaps this will lead to a different perspective on why the Buddha described those who followed other doctrines, with the beliefs associated with those other doctrines, as possessing wrong view.

Actually the second sutta is really good, buuuuutt let's not forget the ultimate sutta on wrong view:

http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Brahmajala_Sutta

The Brahmajala Sutta.

Also the palikanon article on view.





Richard's Wrong View




Ayyyyyyyyyy, fruition and unconsciousness.

Ever consider the possibility that fruition was unconscious absorption leading to a certain Brahma world and not nibbana? nvm

Frits Koster actually explains black outs.

Anyways Richard's Wrong View



Yeahhhhhh, let's not forget that Richard claims that a PCE would not be possible were it not for the infinitude of he universe. So have we at least established that Theravada Buddhism and AF are antithetical.

There is a way to understand these wrong views as related to a wrong understanding of the four noble truths and the eightfold noble path (= as modes of thought that impede one in resolving their suffering), and a way to see these wrong views as unrelated to the four noble truths and the eightfold noble path (= as standalone beliefs that ought not to be believed). As the suttas explicitly define right view in relation to the four noble truths and the eightfold noble path, the former understanding would be consistent, whereas the latter understanding would not be. It seems to me that the consistent interpretation should be favored. However, if it benefits you to choose another interpretation, you should feel free.

As for Richard and all the rest, I limited my comments to the issue of right view / wrong view for a reason...disinterest.

Exactly! Except that you cannot ignore the parts where the Buddha explicitly defines Wrong View, and choose to accept the parts where he defines Right View in that way (actually that's Sariputta but that doesn't matter).

That would be uh, not consistent, so to speak.

In other words you cannot choose to accept the parts of Buddhism that you like (the parts that are practical, common sense, liberal etc.) and choose to ignore the parts that you don't like.

That would be like if you went up to Christianity and said:

"You know, I like the parts about compassion, helping other people and turning the other cheek. But I dislike the parts about Heaven and Hell and the malignant God. So I'm just going to use/accept/believe in the parts about compassion etc."

Sure, your new religion may be more liberal, loving, or even better. But it is not Christianity per se (it may actually be more like Transcendentalism).

It is something else.

Therefore you cannot only accept certain parts of the package, while rejecting other parts, while claiming to have the support of the whole package.



Sure, accept only what makes sense to you. But that would be using your own discriminative faculty, which means it's what you believe in the first place. You could pick and choose from a variety of different religions what makes sense to you, a very eclectic approach.

But that would be denying the authority of the written word.

[Ignore my previous stuff written here]

What do you think about this?

Right view is understanding the four noble truths, and developing the eightfold noble path.

Wrong view is any view whatsoever that stands in the way of right view.

(That's as close to the suttas as I think anyone can hew.)

Can I throw a shout in here for skillful means?

James, whatever you choose to regard as an authority, whether it be a written text or set thereof, the spoken words of another person, your own impulses or prejudices or inclinations, or even your own experiences of life and current understandings thereof, you run the risk of forgetting that you in fact made that choice. Belief does not equal knowledge, it's "pretend knowledge" we use to patch a hole in our understanding of life.

Admit that you have chosen to 'believe in' something, and acknowledge what that means, and you can no longer pretend that belief = knowledge, and you open the possibility of truly learning something.

So, if you prefer to have opinions and beliefs which stunt your free intelligence and authorities which take away your responsibility and provide a comfortable refuge from your own freedom, then keep doing what you're doing. The downside is like all "true believers" you're going to feel very insecure in the face of those who don't share your beliefs, and will probably feel compelled to set them straight and proselytize them ... or if you prefer to open to life in its unknownness and admit you don't yet have it all figured out, then... It's your choice and no authority can make it for you. It's your life, and the quality thereof will have a lot to do with how you make the choice.

But this is exactly what I am saying. I am only saying that members of the DhO have done this, not me.

=p

They have literally chosen parts of the Pali Canon that they wish to believe and have ignored other parts. The fact that they chose means that what they believe is what they WANT to believe, not what they actually think is true.




Ah right, I probably shouldn't have edited out that last part.

I don't have beliefs, I only have things that I know to be true.

I did not derive my knowledge or authority from the words of the Buddha. I literally had my own beliefs, my gut feelings, what I knew to be true.

And found that they matched what the Buddha said.

Ironic eh?




Wait, are you saying you don't have opinions and beliefs? I don't understand. I do not rely on authorities (shucks, shouldn't have cut out that last part).

But that is not what I'm doing.



But I don't feel insecure. I literally think you're wrong and am trying to correct you.

We is all in the same boat here.



Hmmm, I don't feel compelled to set you straight at all.

I would like you to acknowledge that you are factually/logically/whatever incorrect, AFT and Pali Canon contradict.

Stop using Pali Canon to support AF.

Is that so hard now?



Of course I don't "have it all figured out", I don't need to have it all figured out.



I agree here.

Um, who is "you" in this rant? LOL It isn't me James. There is no 'DhO' as you seem to conceive it. Try speaking with one person at a time and making sure you understand what they are saying before you respond. I don't speak for anyone else here. I hear you that you believe that you are right and "we" are wrong (as if everyone here shares the same beliefs and experiences!). And I hear that you feel that is knowledge, and not belief. OK, fair enough.

People here, from what I see, are into practicing contemplative techniques to improve the quality of their life and to make it easier to be helpful to other humans and other living things and etc. If there's any common ground at DhO and related fora I'm confident in pointing to that as it. Sure we all have opinions, beliefs, perspectives and so on. But speaking for myself, clashing beliefs isn't my big priority, rather, sharing pragmatic and poetic meaning related to the common ground I pointed out above is. Are you interested in practicing contemplative techniques to gain insight into the nature of your life and experience, and thereby to improve the quality of your life and be better able to benefit others in meaningful ways? If so, it would be really cool to hear what has worked for you in this regard and what has not.

If you're able to engage a conversation on on a more open minded basis and to engage others in sincere dialogue in which both parties may have something to learn rather than coming from a place of "I'm right and you're wrong" then that would be awesome, as there are lots of cool friendly people here who have interesting things to share, and I'm sure you do as well.

However as long as your agenda is to simply say "I am right and you are wrong" and to explain how that is so, then I personally am not interested in interacting with you (which is no big deal either way-- just saying, it's more fun to be friendly and open minded than to be all worked up about proving you're right and everyone else is wrong. Maybe you enjoy that but I have found it to be pretty unsatisfactory :-)) This is the Dharma Battleground, so that's cool-- you posted your rant in more or less the right place. I was surprised to see that anyone responded at all, but from what I know of the others who've responded to you, they probably are more interested in being a friend to you than in proving they are right and you are wrong, and this made me reflect that perhaps I'd been too quick to write you off as someone just looking for a fight to boost his ego. I'm still wide open to being proved wrong on that front :-)

Take care James!
-Jake

With echo and reverb.

Hi Jacob you are absolutely right I was coming here for an ego boost.

But aight aight cool

Interesting.

I suppose it means that whatever works for one, goes.

A Mahayana concept, but whatever.

And now, for a musical interlude.

Open Chop Shop

Cool James, fair enough, and I appreciate your honesty. A lot of the time when I post on fora, I get an ego boost or an ego-deflation as the case may be, being an ignorant samsaric being

(prone in particualr to aversion/ignorance/anger/irritation and pride/arrogance etc., myself.
Pick your poison, as they say, what's your favorite kleshas? :-))

That doesn't mean I'm not also looking for other more wholesome things as well at the same time, despite the fact of being an ignorant sentient being (although not ONLY that, to be sure *) and thus experiencing the rise and fall of hope and fear in relation to the eight worldly winds, ie., ego boosts and deflations (and contentments as well of course).

* I confess I appreciate the mahayana doctrine of buddhanature, not as a doctrine per se, but as a description of experience that seems to relate meaningfully to how I experience life. Perhaps this is similar to what you mean about finding your own experience and beliefs confirmed in Buddhist teachings (of whatever school or branch you are referring to with the rather unfortunate tern "buddhism", a legacy of Western scholarship more than of actual history which is filled with myriad teachings associated with the historical Buddha, if that association even really matters).

Nice chatting with you James!
--Jake

Well, I suppose that depends on what one means by "works", and that depends on what the aim is.

If the aim is absolute truth, forget "skillful means".

Or maybe not?

I think consciously using alternative representations of reality can help to expose and undermine the unconscious, embedded assumptions that sustain the default illusion-riddled world view. Then it's not a matter of adopting a "truth" but of undermining untruth, and what's left is likely closer to the absolute (if any such thing exists and is accessible to us).

Absolute truth aside, if the aim is to see how different modes of thought / paradigms / orientations in the world can induce and sustain suffering (or, of course, relieve it), then yeah.... skillful means. Upaya-kaushalya. Shout it from the rooftops in Glaswegian-accented Pali.



OK, sorry to blur the focus of the conversation (AF != Theravada Arahat != MCTB Arahat)

John

If one takes AF to be Pali-canon Arahat.. then I'm not sure one could say the MCTB-paths have anything to do with pali-canon stream entry. They enter the stream of MCTB-paths, but not AF - otherwise anyone with MCTB stream entry would not stop until AF as they would have shattered their belief in a self (be it a self or a Self, no matter how refined)... no? Also consider Chris Ballhaus or Jill, who had a full-blown PCE before MCTB stream entry, which PCE informed their practices. where did they stop?

Well, I should probably stop talking since it's impossible for me to know whether or not AF equal Pali Canon Arahat.
This is all just speculation for me but if I had to say if AF equaled Pali Canon Arahatship I would say no.
But who knows?

By the way who's Jill?

i meant it as a general comment, not specifically directed at you


TJ Broccoli

Ah, right.

Is she AF/AF-Claimant?

By the way who else is AF on this board? I remember there being a ton of people, Jeff Grove, End In Sight, Stephanie Dunning, Christian Ballahaus, Nikolai, Tarin, Trent etc.

Anyone else?

-----

Anyways I'll respond to your general comment.

Yes it does seem that MCTB Arahatship doesn't end in AF, or does it? For the most part it seems that MANY, MCTB Arahats are moving forward into some form of, further practice... (with exception of maybe Duncan Barford)

But I recall Alan Chapman doing some Tibetan thing (4 Yogas?, don't remember, his specific claim was that he get Kenneth Folk's Third and First Gear together with his 4th Path, but who knows, all this mind stuff has many permutations, maybe all this enlightenment is just refined delusion?), unfortunately the OE site is now down.

Kenneth Folk is doing his thing.

Chuck Kasmire, seemed to claim that his Arahatship closely resembled AF anyways.

Of Hokai Sobol, Vincent Horn and others I don't know.

Obviously we know Daniel M Ingram, Tarin and Trent (Tarin and Trent having both supposedly got it) are AF inclined.

-----

The other possibility is that all this mapping is really useless anyways. Perhaps there are an infinite amount of variations these "states" can take. Multifarious ASCs? It is the mind after all. Or perhaps these "attainments" are just thought up delusions.

-----

From perspective of the Pali Canon, both AF and MCTB lose their validity.

They have none. They could be anything, a delusion, fraud, a concentrative absorption etc.

They could be just like the claims of the other spiritual teachers at around the time of the Buddha (Nigantha Nataputta etc.).

Although I will say that I don't think Nigantha Nataputta was delusional (assuming he was Mahavira), and that I doubt that AF or MCTB are concentrative absorptions.

-----

From the perspective of AF, Pali Canon and MCTB are just ASCs.

The loss of one's ego.

Do keep in mind that Richard claims that Ego Dissolution was HALF of the process.

He literally claims that he delayed the unstoppable process that would have culminated in AF by stopping it half way and thus resulting in Enlightenment.

Of course, in the end he claims to have fulfilled his destiny or consummated the destinal/unstoppable process by achieving Soul Dissolution.



http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf60.htm

-----

From the perspective of MCTB, I don't know.