Dharma Differences: Kenneth Folk & Gary Weber

[imagine the sound of an old newsroom with a paper printout spewing the breaking news]

...Hold the presses!

This just in: Gary Weber takes issue with the dharma teachings of Kenneth Folk & Dan Ingram.

Read it here .

Then discuss.

NOTE: Just in case there is a problem with the link, I copied the content of the linked page (Nov. 16, 2012) and put it into the TXT attached.

Thanks for the link, Mike.

I must say, I'm disappointed both with Weber's writing skill AND his analysis of the work(s) of Daniel and Kenneth. I'm not a huge supporter of either system, so my dislike is not loyalty-based.

Weber grossly misrepresents Buddhism in this essay, particularly with his equating "vipassana jhanas" with "formless jhanas," and also by saying traditional Buddhism says nothing about thoughts. Both notions are flat wrong.

Hi Jackson,
I do find Gary Weber interesting and do not question his awakening. But I agree that his writing is weak (stylistically and logically). And as you pointed out, some of his claims about Buddhism are simply incorrect.

Hi Mike!

Seems like this author has a superficial understanding of the material he's criticizing... Kind of setting up a straw man...

Direct Path stuff makes a lot more sense from the standpoint of having gotten 4th path - not saying that it can't work for some people, but seems like it would be terrifically difficult to stabilize.

I find him interesting, too, with regard to his own experience and teachings. I think he has a lot to offer in that regard.

It bums me out when someone so intelligent and accomplished decides to criticize a set of teachings about which he clearly knows very little. It's sad because I'm convinced he knows better. You can't get away with that behavior in the scientific community, so the same should apply to insight teachings.

Always a pleasure to read your posts, Mike!

Ha, thanks for posting this. Some of his notions about KFD are highly questionable too... like "KFD uses the Bodhisattva vow" and "KFD's current version of "enlightenment" is "Whatever you want it to be". Additionally, they do not to want to lose their suffering and desires, or they feel they would lose the ability to feel compassion for others."

Here are some sporting highlights from the ongoing bout between Kenneth and Gary on the latter's webite:

K: "Gary, how do you reconcile your comments that it's time to leave behind the religious trappings of contemplative practice with the religious notion that you must not charge for your time when you teach? There is something buried here, and it's creeping me out."
POW!

G: "IME, i have seen folks' teachings change as soon as they began making money from them. It is surprising how little money it takes to change things. i have watched my contemporaries change, and change their teachings to fit their expanding marketplace and increased revenue, over and over again.
"As far as "something buried here, and it's creeping me out", that is your projection and your problem. Why do you react so strongly to someone else's not charging for something? Have you asked Daniel Ingram why he doesn't charge? he made the same comment in his book, and offered the same argument on freedom of expression."
COUNTER PUNCH!
G: "...as we discussed @ your apt the evening of 10/26, sitting at your kitchen table, when Beth asked me about reimbursements...you were very engaged w/trying to reach a state of "no thoughts" as discussed earlier, which apparently was unsuccessful."
STAGGERING BLOW!


OK folks, clearly I am having a little fun with this. I deeply respect both Kenneth and (although I've never met him) Gary. It seems to me that the core of their debate is neither new nor original: it is approximately 1,500 years old, and was argued by Buddhists and Advaita Vedantists in India.

If you want my take on it, I'll only say (in my puckish way): "Yes, Certs is a candy mint AND a breath mint!"

I love San Francisco!

Yes, but it sounds like some peacemaking is in progress with the latest posts.

Ouch, not really... looks like Gary will choose to have the last word.

You're probably right. Although anyone who spent even 5 minutes on a nuclear sub has this phobic type's respect. Wow.

Scroll up a bit to Kenneth's Part 1 of 2 and Gary's subsequent replies from today.

Yeah, I get it. Before I was just looking at the Nov 24 stuff as the last word. It was the calm before the storm.

This sounds like a situation where the medium is getting in the way of discussion. Email can be like that as well. People read stuff and respond, hit the send button thinking all is well, and get hit with someone else's response. Sometimes sitting and talking together can clarify in a few minutes what screen after screen can't do.

Still, sometimes talking makes things worse when we get into a "he said/he said" scenario (Kenneth's alleged acknowledgment that you can make enlightenment whatever you want). I think these two would benefit from some skilled mediation ("what I hear Kenneth saying is . . . . Kenneth, is this what you meant?"). Once my husband and I went to a marriage counselor who tried to get each of us to paraphrase what the other was saying, and then have the other say whether or not that was correct. It was a listening exercise.

Oh well, I'm rambling, but my point is that I think these two are encountering a roadblock to communication that is making it difficult to clarify exactly what their differences of opinion are. Even if Gary thinks Kenneth said what Gary claims he said, if Kenneth now is saying no, I don't think that, that's not what I mean, then that should be the end of it. What someone thinks he heard someone say is a red herring.

Is this different from arguing whether Tibetan Buddhism is better than Zen Buddhism?

I think Kenneth addresses the communication issue very well here:

"For future reference, please don't censor my responses out of friendship or for any other reason. You and I will still be friends in spite of any online disagreement we may have. As for me, as a multi-year veteran of online dharma discussions, I'm used to saying what I feel even at the risk of annoying people, crushing people's projections of my alleged sainthood, or embarrassing myself by being too human. Welcome to the rough and tumble world of open online dharma, which is postmodern by its very nature; you have to be willing to let people look under the hood. Otherwise, the internet is not the right venue for you. A more authoritarian style in which you can control the image and the message is better transmitted via print books or blogs that don't allow comments."

Ona Kiser wrote: Is this different from arguing whether Tibetan Buddhism is better than Zen Buddhism?

If I had a teacher, he'd kick your teacher's ass.

In a way, I want to knock Kenneth and Gary's heads together while yelling at each one respectively:

And then, at both of them:

[/b]

The people teaching Dharma these days....

Cheers,
Florian