Daniel Ingram videos

Amaro's fantastic. Of every Thai Tradition monastic with readily available dharma talks online, he speaks to me the most. The Amaravati podcast hasn't updated since last year and it breaks my heart. That said, I'm surprised you'd pick such a clearly syncretic text as the representative statement of modern Thai Forest Buddhism. I know nothing about Dzogchen so I have no position on whether you're right or not, but I am surprised; I don't often hear it spoken about in such ecumenical terms, and while the ajahns do on occasion cite Maha- or Vajrayana stories and examples (in my hearing), it's usually from the perspective of an appreciative but separate tradition.

Good point about Buddhist Geeks, Chris - I was never quite sure who started what or influenced whom when, not that it really matters much. I first heard about Ingram and Hokai and Alan and many others via BG podcasts, of course.

"... I'm surprised you'd pick such a clearly syncretic text as the representative statement of modern Thai Forest Buddhism..."I don't know ecumenical or syncretic from a hole in the ground, Zach, but I know I like Ajahn Amaro and that text. It's just my personal opinion. What's your take on it? As a Thai Forest practitioner, what's the seminal text(s) for you?

-cmarti

Dunno. The only books I've read have been the first-gen teachers, and even then it's just been transcriptions of talks. The vast majority of my study/non-sitting practice has been listening to dharma talks, rather than reading books. Which generally tend to be about specific and more common-garden things, rather than anything I'd feel confident as pointing out as seminal. I am inclined to pick up a couple by Ajahn Sumedho; he's quite clearly considered the foremost and most senior of the generation of Western monks, but I haven't engaged with him nearly as much as Amaro because his talks from the last couple years haven't been very gripping for me (a fact I chalk up more to his age than to his insight, or lack thereof). I'll do some reading and get back to you

I just watched part one and two and am beginning part three.

I've always just loved listening to Dr. Ingram talk and this hasn't changed. There is something about him, his voice, his presentation, etc. that I just take to, that I really enjoy. He makes me feel as excited about things as he appears to be, you know?

This reminds me of some things, that, if true, are really important for practioners.

Such as, if a person crosses the A&P, until they get to stream entry they will be in the dark night. Boom.

Okay, I'm almost done and, as far as a review, goes -- I just loved every minute of it. I'll post again on more specifics on maybe why I loved it so much.

Random thoughts:

I was struck by something about Ingram from watching and listening to him that I think might be one of the things that makes him seem odd, annoying, irritating and just plain .... wrong to a lot of people:

Not only does he not use the "dharma voice," he treats this subject matter with a complete lack of sacredness, holiness, reverence or even specialness. It's just something cool and great we can all do -- become "enlightened." Right? It's just like anything else one can learn and accomplish, it's not grand or cosmic or even "spiritual" in a way.

Plus, while I like him, his personality, I think a LOT of people don't -- so who'd want to be enlightened if they end up being such a nerd as this guy?

He's taken the sacredness, the mystery, out of the dharma and sacredness and mystery are things a lot of us just love about it in the first place. How dare he?

---

Assuming that he is right, that the "maps" are accurate representations of how all of us are "hard wired," then his basic message is still very divergent and very useful: that whether you know about the maps or not, if you are practicing (even if you aren't but that is a slightly different subject) you are somewhere on the map and knowing about the maps can save one a lot of wasted time and energy and suffering. This is clear, right?

Is he right?

-cmarti

I don't know.

The only thing I know for sure is that I've had:

- a sense that a thought is just a thought, followed by

- various unitive/non dual experiences/states as well as a certain amount of electric, mystical/spiritualish reveries, along with,

- a certain, vague existential discomfort, followed by

- what seems like equanimity, followed by

- frution/cessations simultaneous with a non-intellectual understanding of one or more of the three characteristics

But I haven't seen or experienced or understood:

- a certain knowledge that I'm in or passing through any of the nanas or stages on the map with the exception of equanimity/fruition.

I've NEVER sat down, and then gone "okay, here is the A&P, now, dissolution, fear, misery, disgust, etc." Never.

But, most of the time when I sit, I notice the objects of my experience in greater and greater detail, then at some point most of the time it all seems all right and I let it all come and go, and then, cessation. This happens when I'm not sitting too.

So, basically, with a slight exception there is nothing in my own experience that validates what he says in the detail in which he describes it. This is for sure. So, for me, I don't know yet.

And, based upon that, how can I know if it is true then, for everyone else?

Maybe I'll know more later.

But we aren't just judging Daniel's veracity here. He is teaching something ancient, right? He didn't make it up.

"But we aren't just judging Daniel's veracity here. He is teaching something ancient, right? He didn't make it up."

No, he didn't make it up.

What I think we're discussing here is interpretation [...] I think what happens to some extent is that we all end up interpreting our experiences based on the descriptions of others' experiences.

-cmarti

The terrain seems to be common enough that mapping it makes sense, but the maps do vary from person to person and tradition to tradtion.

A while ago I was looking at Kenneth/Daniel's description of the nanas and comparing with other Thai/Burmese descriptions... Here's a little table I made with KF/DI first and other names in brackets. The vispassana jhanas are in parenthesis. The main thing to note is the difference in nana descriptions -- for example "Disgust" seems a lot different than "Disenchantment".

Clearly each teacher brings their own experience (and the data from others they have access to ) into their mappings. Probably not a big deal.

I find it interesting that Daniel really wants to describe the most extreme version of the nanas in the video. It might turn some moderate people off, but it might provide hope for really bad dark night yogis. <shrug>

1. ñana: Mind and Body (corresponds to 1st jhana)

2. ñana: Cause and Effect

3. ñana: Three Characteristics

4. ñana: Arising and Passing (corresponds to 2nd jhana)

5. ñana: Dissolution (corresponds to 3rd jhana)

6. ñana: Fear [knowledge of the fearful nature of mental and physical states, terror]

7. ñana: Misery [knowledge of mental and physical states as unsatisfactory, knowledge of contemplation of danger, knowledge of the contemplation of disadvantages]

8. ñana: Disgust [knowledge of disenchantment - knowledge of contemplation of disenchantment - knowledge of dispassion]

9. ñana: Desire for Deliverance [knowledge of the desire to abandon the worldly state]

10: ñana: Re-observation [knowledge which investigates the path to deliverance and instills a decision to practice further - knowledge of contemplation of reflection]

11: ñana: Equanimity (corresponds to 4th jhana) [knowledge which regards mental and physical states with equanimity - knowledge of equanimity about formations]

12: ñana: Adaptation (one-time event)

13: ñana: Change of Lineage (one-time event)

14: ñana: Path (one-time event)

15: ñana: Fruition (corresponds to cessation, not considered a jhana)

16: ñana: Review

I want to add a comment. It's about the nature of experience, which is really, IMHO, what practice is about. All the whiz-bang jhanic attainments and such are sometimes useful tools. They are not why we practice and to the extent that they grab our attention they are merely distractions from much more important matters."

-cmarti

I think Ken McLeod provides a useful description of why the meditative path can be somewhat confusing. Often times, we mistake the desirable effects of meditation practice (e.g. bliss, states, and other experiences) to be the purpose of practice, or even the final result of practice. In McLeod's formulation of meditation practice, it should be like this:

Purpose: cultivating attention.

Method: return to what is already there and rest.

Effects: dull, distracted, relaxed, clear, stable, anxious, etc.

Results: increased clarity and stability in attention, less reactivity.

[source: http://www.unfetteredmind.org/articles/confusion.php ]

The pleasant experiences are very reinforcing in a positive way (i.e. they add something nice). But, we are also often motivated to practice by the presence of experience that is unpleasant, so as to alleviate (i.e. "get rid of") the negatively evaluated stimulus. This is negative reinforcement. For example, I might spend extra time in practice to get through the dark night stages so I can reach equanimity. The ironic thing is that the more we strive to push past an negatively evaluated experience, the more frequently it comes back. Hence the "rapid cycling" phenomenon that occurs for those who practice constantly and with gusto.

In contrast, practicing with less gusto usually results in slower cycles, which isn't a bad thing. There is tremendous value in allow experience to do what it does without trying to force it through a change. I might hypothesize that although one may take longer to get through a particular difficult time in practice by not exerting copious amounts of effort, the resulting equanimity probably lasts longer when there's less struggle to begin with. Just a thought.

Just one of the many downsides to focusing too much on the effects of practice rather than its purpose.

Mike, can you palabra Jackson's post for us?

Let's do a unanimous GROUP 'PALABRA'!!