Also, the Buddha said:

“The noble ones have seen as happiness

The ceasing of identity.

This [view] of those who clearly see

Runs counter to the entire world.

“What others speak of as happiness,

That the noble ones say is suffering;

What others speak of as suffering,

That the noble one know as bliss.”

• 35m

• Reply

   

   

   

First, I’m wary of the claim that in your sangha there are “10 anatta realizers,” because it’s very easy to misjudge the depth of one’s own insight. In the old AtR group, most self-proclaimed “anatta realizers” were, on closer inspection, experiencing little more than impersonality or non-doership—and at most only a basic non-dual state—rather than the authentic insight into anatman. This was true even of people who said they had studied the AtR articles. But this is not surprising to me and is consistent with my observations elsewhere, as I wrote here (https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/04/different-degress-of-no-self-non.html):

“When someone says they have broken through to no-self, 95 % to 99 % of the time they are talking about impersonality or non-doership—not even non-duality, much less the genuine realization of anatman.”

I’ve also met viewers who assume that everyone Angelo interviews has realized anatman, which is plainly not the case. To be fair, Angelo has never claimed he interviews only anatman realizers; the confusion lies with the audience.

Even if a few of the ten people you mention really have realized anatman (I can’t judge, since I don’t know the list), they can still be mistaken about the scope of their attainment. Not long ago Frank Yang, for instance, believed that anatman realization equals arahantship—a misconception traceable to Daniel Ingram’s teachings. In reality, as I explained here (https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/08/insight-buddhism-reconsideration-of.html), that insight corresponds at most to stream-entry. I’m not sure whether Frank still equates anatman with arahantship; if he does, it remains misleading, though he now seems to recognize that deeper stages of awakening exist.

Sadly, people often inflate their early attainments into Arahatship or Buddhahood—what John Tan once called “blowing one’s horn after some realization and trumpeting a minor insight way out of proportion.” It would be funny were it not so misleading.

And that’s assuming they have even realized anatman. As I noted in “Genuine Realisation is Rare, Most Claimants are Delusional” (https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2024/09/genuine-realisation-is-rare.html), and as Kyle Dixon observes, “The streamentry subreddit is full of people who overvalue their own meditation experiences. Most who claim stream-entry aren’t stream-entrants.”

“There are probably no srotapannas there. From reading that sub over a decade it is essentially just full of people deluding themselves.

Some nice meditation experiences, sure. But actual stream entrants? Definitely not.”

"It is quite rare to attain stream entry, I’ve been involved with dharma for over a decade and can count those who are tried and true stream entrants on one hand. That said, contemplate the Bahiya and Kalakarama suttas and cultivate the first dhyāna."

I’ve seen posters there proclaiming arahantship who, in fact, have virtually no realization at all—or at most the initial I Am awakening. (I’m not implying this about your sangha; it’s simply a general observation.) Unfortunately, such overstatement is a telling sign of the dharma-ending age.

There was also a couple practicing Dzogchen who mistook their attainment of the “second vision” (the stage before the first bhūmi) for the exhaustion of dharmatā (Buddhahood). They then publicly shared their visions and paintings, proclaiming they had completed the path. Delusional figures like this abound in the spiritual marketplace. In my view, it’s wise to remain cautious and discerning, and not be easily swayed by such claims.

——

I agree that a teacher is important (for reasons explained in https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2024/01/finding-awakened-spiritual-teacher-and.html ), although I would be wary of any claims to Buddhahood. No offense to Mr. W but it is just good general advise to be careful when choosing a guru, this applies to all teachers and not just any particular ones discussed in this group.

Shared before:

Soh:

"In one of your sub posts you said most gurus are abusive. I disagree, I think most gurus are not abusive, but some indeed are. However it is the duty of all students to choose their guru wisely and carefully. You should not blindly follow any gurus but examine them first, have some criterias to select. For example, Dzogchen texts gives a list of criterias to select a guru.

Kyle Dixon (krodha) shared on Reddit before:

"In the Rig pa rang shar tantra, chapter 9, the attributes of a qualified teacher are listed:

The master of the intimate instructions that possesses the vajra meaning has a positive attitude, is skillful in teaching, has obtained the empowerments, applies the meaning of Secret Mantra, understands all the inner and outer activities, is inseparable from the meditation deity, remains undistracted in samadhi, is knowledgable in the secret tantras of Secret Mantra, possesses the meaning of the intimate instructions of the Great Perfection, engages in all outer and inner sadhanas, [18b] never leaves the meaning of the view, gives up outer, inner, and secret activities, is endowed with qualities like a precious jewel, and enjoys an inexhaustible treasury. With the cord of compassion unsevered and the stream of affection uninterrupted, the master and disciple are thus connected.

A “master” to avoid is described as follows:

A master lacking a connection with a lineage of scholars, who is self-important, stupid, literal-minded, who does not understand the meaning of Secret Mantra, has harsh words for others, is boastful, has entered false paths, has not seen the mandala of the empowerment, disregards samaya, [18/a] is unable to answer questions, has little learning, and great pride — such an unexamined master is a māra for the disciple. He is not a master who can teach Secret Mantra and is unable to teach the Great Perfection, Ati. Do not associate with such a person.

Jigme Lingpa comments on the above excerpt regarding the unqualified teacher:

As it says, do not get involved with such a demonic master.

Longchenpa, in his own response to the above excerpt from the rig pa rang shar (regarding the unqualified teacher), states:

Accordingly, I advise you to avoid them.

The kun byed rgyal po tantra states:

The inauthentic master teaches scripture like a monkey, his false path beset with concepts.

And regarding the qualified teacher it goes on to say:

The master who displays the truth is a precious treasury worth an inestimable price.

Jigme Lingpa continues:

This tantra [rig pa rang shar] also speaks of six characteristics:

[i] having put all samsaric phenomena behind him, [ii] having few desires and being content, [iii] being skilled in practice and having had experiences, [iv] being learned in the meanings of the tantras and having striven to accomplish them, [v] being learned in the meaning of the view and being completely capable with it, and [vi] having great compassion and being happy in renunciation.

One with the complete set of these qualities is said to be necessary. If, on the other hand, he is merely an effigy of whom it is said This one is a wonderful source of miracles, This one holds an unsurpassable rank, and This one is a sacred object of worship and harmony with worldly people, then he is not [a genuine teacher].

More from Jamgon Köngtrul:

Avoid a master whose traits are discordant with those of a true teacher; But since a fully qualified master is rare, follow the one who is replete with good qualities.

A teacher whose traits are discordant with the characteristics of the [true] master stands outside of the Buddhist doctrine and connot be taken as a spiritual teacher. Consequently, even though the teacher may be very famous, active, etc., the discriminating student should be aware [of these shortcomings] and detach him or herself [from the teacher]. This should be done even if a teacher-student relationship has already been formed. If one has not yet formed such a relationship, one should avoid doing so, right from the beginning. Sakya Pandita states:

Detach yourself from the spiritual teacher

Who does not conform to the Buddha's teaching.

We should learn how to recognize [bad teachers] from the many descriptions given in the scriptures and then shun them. For example, the Condensed Tantra [of the wheel of Time] states:

Proud, subject to uncontrollable anger, defiant of pledges, guilty of misappropriation, ignorant [of the doctrine], willfully deceptive of students, having failed to enter the state of supreme bliss, uninitiated, a slave to wealth and enjoyments, careless, rude in speech, and obsessed with sexual desire: wise students who wish full awakening should shun such a teacher as they would hell.

Because we are living in a [degenerate] age, we very rarely meet a teacher endowed with all of the necessary qualifications. Since we may never meet such a teacher, we should accept a master who has many good qualities and very few weaknesses. [Pundarika's] Ultimate Familiarization states:

In this age of conflict, spiritual masters will exhibit both faults and virtues; not one is absolutely irreproachable. Therefore, examine well even those who excel in virtue before beginning to study with them."

"