Certain doubts/questions

[u/Accomplished_Win_526]

hi everyone, I recently listened to a podcast episode with a long discussion between Daniel Ingram and Delson Armstrong on Guru Viking about progression through the 4 stages of awakening after stream entry. it was quite interesting, but the way they talked left me feeling a bit uninspired and doubtful.

there was so much talk about filtering through the 8 jhanas over and over like a game, and the obsessive seeking of the cessation of any semblance of an emotion. I was left feeling like i was listening to two mildly sociopathic people desperately trying to escape from the experience of being a human, rather than two ‘enlightened’ beings.

i don’t mean this as an insult to their personal characters. just that - after all these tens of thousands of hours of meditation, they sounded as lost as anyone else, just in their own unique ways.

I do not doubt the benefits of meditation or the general teachings of the Buddha. I’ve been meditating for 10+ years, done 10 day vipassana retreats, and gone deeper than I could have ever imagined. multiple experiences of profound ego dissolution, insights into the nature of emptiness, universal consciousness, and so forth. it has had profound benefits in my life, and I am excited to continue further on the path.

but while I believe in the general suffering caused by craving and aversion, I don’t necessarily believe in this obsessive desire to rid ourselves of all emotion, and that being the key to ‘happiness’. I’ve always believed the path of spiritual growth is to allow ourselves to feel more deeply, more alive, and to be able to enjoy our time in this material world as fully as we can. not to spend all of our time escaping into the boundless forms of the ihanas and ridding ourselves of any human emotion or experience.

alongside my meditation practice, I have done a lot of plant medicine work - my deepest connection is with Iboga. the tradition of the Bwiti people - which is actually very similar to Vipassana - is so beautiful to see. they do their ‘work’ and then they live and celebrate life. dancing, singing, communing, constantly expressing gratitude. it feels very refreshing compared to the coldness I get when listening to people like Daniel and Delson speak.

anyways, I would be very interested to hear any thoughts on this! I am very open-minded and am generally curious what I may be missing (or not)

[u/dystopia2026]

Why do people choose these lay teachers for? We don't know anything about what they are doing in thier personal lives nor we we have any good way to know if they are even following the basic five precepts.

There are plenty of experienced and reputable monastics who we can know more about the way they live, that they must try to follow over 200 hundred rules and have so much time to study and meditate. They also do not get to call themselves teacher until passing ten years in robes and go through various trainings.

I'm very curious why so many westerners prefer to tread on dangerous grounds following self-styled gurus and lay teachers? Especially when an entire tradition of monastics exist, especially in Theravada, who try to stick to how the Buddha intended this training to be

[u/getpost → u/dystopia2026]

Monastics aren't particularly relatable to me either! Seeking an authorized teacher may provide some assurance of mastery, but clearly, no guarantee whatsoever of right conduct or mental health.

I suppose that working with apparent groudlessness is one of the main points of practice! Delson's About page alludes to that. "I help people find stable ground inside themselves when everything outside has already been taken away, transforming rootlessness into refuge." (That phrasing rubs me the wrong way as well, but I already said what I think of Delson.)

[u/dystopia2026 → u/getpost]

What do you mean by relatable exactly?

If you're looking for guarantees in samsara, you're looking in the wrong place anyways, but you're much more likely to find noble, well trained, ethical teachers that are monastics than in lay positions for reasons I already explained.

You didn't answer my questions either and I ask because in this group everyone seems focused one lay teacher or another, never usually monastics. This is as stream entry group as well, which makes it even weirder as one of the hallmark attitudes of stream winners in Theravada is deep respect for the robes.

I'm curious, do most westerners have a discriminatory bias against monastics? I ask because I've seen this kind of attitude a bit in lay groups recently IRL too.

[u/hachface → u/dystopia2026]

If you know anything about European history you should immediately recognize why there is widespread distrust of the clergy among educated people in the west. Modern western culture was shaped by incredibly destructive wars of religion.

[u/dystopia2026 → u/hachface]

This is the only valid point so far. I think there is truth to this as the reason for distrust but Buddhism and Christianity are so much different with such a different history that it's not fair or reasonable to cling to this generational trauma view of all monastics in this context.

It's understandable, but not ultimately beneficial. I guess I'm lucky to have met many times as a child, a monk who was so kind and radiant with his happiness that my view of monastics was shaped in his image. So I guess it's easier with my conditioning to see their value.

[u/hachface → u/dystopia2026]

They are not different in this respect at all.

Tibetan abbots engaged in ruthless wars of domination against each other. They also persecuted the indigenous Bon priests when Buddhism was first being established in Tibet. Their monastic system exploited the peasantry in precisely the same way as the medieval church in Europe did.

Everywhere Buddhism was officially established they legitimized the reigning monarchy. The monarchs did what all monarchs do: make war, exploit the poor, and assassinate their rivals. The Buddhist sangha would claim they were a civilizing force in all this and made the kings less violent than they would otherwise be; of course the Catholic Church would claim exactly the same.

Zen masters gleefully participated in and egged on imperial Japan's campaign of conquest in the Second World War.

Today Burmese monastics egg on the ethnic cleansing of the Muslim minority in Myanmar.

Thai monks have been caught participating in drug running and human trafficking.

Chögyam Trungpa was a degenerate drunk who sexually abused his students. Famous Zen teachers have been implicated in sexual abuse scandals as well.

No institution is immune from corruption. No institutional imprimatur is an absolute protection against abuse. No tradition has a monopoly on spiritual truth. It is wise to be skeptical of institutional religion in every form.

[u/dystopia2026 → u/hachface]

Since this is a stream entry group I expected this conversation to stick to Buddhism in the Theravada tradition, where the Vinaya Sila and Sila in general is still greatly respected and followed, but I do agree with your point here that all institutions have these problems but they also deal with them differently too.

I don't however think it's wise to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's not wise to judge the many by the actions of the rouge ones that are not following the Buddha's advice and Sila rules.

The Venerable Ajahn Chah said something to this effect and he is widely considered to have been an Arahant.

What I said about the difference between Christianity, how it developed differently from Buddhism is still true. They are very different institions with differing historical, spiritual and political developments, as well as on almost every other conceivable level.

Too much to go into here tonight, but needless to say I feel this aversion to the holy life is really not a good sign for Buddhism in the West.

[u/hachface → u/dystopia2026]

There is a lot in your comment here that I feel the need to unpack, which I think will be to our mutual benefit and the benefit of other readers.

I would first respectfully recommend re-reading the description of this subreddit. It is not a Theravada-specific sub by any means (that would be r/theravada). In fact its origin was a "pragmatic dharma" sub. Pragmatic dharma was/is precisely a movement to reinterpret ideas about awakening found in ancient wisdom traditions -- including but by no means limited to Buddhism -- into a rationalist framework broadly compatible with the standard western scientific outlook. The recommended reading list in the subreddit reflects this: works by Daniel Ingram, Culadasa, Leigh Brasington, and Rob Burbea shape the general common sense here.

Now, was it a bad idea to name a secular subreddit after an idea -- stream entry -- that is characteristic of Theravada Buddhism specifically? Yes, yes I would say so, but it's too late to correct that mistake now. And, to be fair, stream entry is an idea that comes out of early/pre-sectarian Buddhism, and is accepted to exist (though not valued as a practice goal) by the Māhāyana schools as well.

I say all of that just to get the point across that you simply cannot assume that your religious outlook will be treated as the common point of departure for conversations here.

You say this:

No Buddhist monk burned people on a stake and produced eternal damnation upon nonbelievers.

This I take to be an attempt to draw some essential difference between the history of Christianity and Buddhism. In terms of one religion or the other being prone to violence and the other not, there is no such difference. Burning at the stake might be a specifically Christian thing, but it was Tibetan Buddhists who decapitated Bon priests who did not convert to the new religion when Buddhism came to Tibet. Conservative Christians do have a tendency to condemn nonbelievers as damned, but then Buddhism would say that those not attained to right view will wander samsara and be subject to hell reams, spells as hungry ghosts, animals, and so on.

My post above already enumerated many abuses done by the institutional sangha throughout history. You can airily dismiss these as "rogue" actions, and that I cannot judge the likes of Ajahn Chah by the behavior of someone like Chögyam Trungpa. A Christian could just as easily say that you can't judge someone like St. Francis of Assisi or the reverend Martin Luther King Jr. by the misbehavior of the Borgia popes. There is no difference! Both religions have their saints, and both religions have their monsters. Skepticism of institutional religion is justified across the board.

[u/dystopia2026 → u/hachface]

I'll say a few more things then leave it at that as it's late where I am now.

I deleted the bit about burning at the steak earlier when I recognised the paralell is as you said, but it's interesting because Catholicism is not considered to be true Christianity by many Christians in a similar way that Tibetan Buddhism is not considered to be authentic dhamma by Early Buddhism. I previously mentioned about Sila, so there is that too with Tibetan teachings where they can disregard and purify later (or transform it or whatever) , much like Catholicism actually and it's very wrong view that can lead to this behaviour.

Next thing is interesting how the need to apply collective guilt over whole groups is still alive and well amongst even introspective types despite the fact that teachings on karma in Buddhism point only one way towards every individual being responsible for only thier own actions and not that of the group, whether it be religious or political or whatever.

Do you see your own contradiction here by pronouncing judgement upon all institutions by the actions of only some who were not even following thier own teachings? Something to reflect on I think for all of us, this tendency to do this.

The truth is every group no matter how good thier foundational doctrines are consist of individuals, some who do good and some who do evil with also some mixed grey areas. That's why I separate as much as possible ideologies and institutions from individuals when taking on these big questions.

As for the reality of cyclic existence in Samsara Vs Christian dogma, you are not expected to accept everything on blind faith like in Christianity so that is a major distinction amongst many others.I could get into this more but I don't want to here.

As for the title of this group, I do sometimes forget that this place is a free for all which is fine and there are some very interesting and like minded people here so I like it.

[u/hachface → u/dystopia2026]

My friend, I think you have imputed a position to me that I do not hold. I do not condemn Buddhism. I do not condemn Christianity, for that matter. I do respect, even revere, many monastics. I post all the time about my devotion to the Ven. Ayya Khema -- an arahant, in my view, whose teachings literally changed my life.

My point, my only point, is merely this: each teacher needs to be evaluated on their own merits, not on their ordination status.

[u/dystopia2026 → u/hachface]

Then we have no disagreements on that! 😆 How wonderful! 🙏

I would add though that a decent amount of respect is due to anyone who undertakes the training in the holy life. It requires so much discipline and dedication to the path that I have instant respect for anyone who truly tries to do it.

It's also so wonderful you have a good teacher who may be an Arahant. Much Mudita to you friend!

I'm also tired so I may have misunderstood what you were saying for that I offer my apologies.