In what way? Could you provide examples?
Ingram is so clearly not even close to arahantship. He’s using language about attacks, war, clearly feels strong identification with his “self,” sounds very overall ego-driven and defensive.
It also seems like he genuinely doesn’t understand Anālayo’s core concern because he’s so fixated on his belief of universalism…EDIT: I watched further he just explicitly doesn’t believe the value of “the orthodoxy” and definitely wants to mishmash any and all traditions to fit his experience and needs. This person truly believes that he knows more and better than the EBTs.
This really wouldn’t have to be so far escalated if he simply dropped his claims of attainment and just did his own thing.
Btw the interviewer seems to not be bought in… See him minute 49 and minute 59 and 1:34 for example.
I hope that the integrity of EBTs can prevail through the modern brainwashing techniques of youtube, etc.
3 Likes
He’s selling his book. He’s part of a research group. He’s trying to raise “tens or hundreds of millions of dollars” to do scientific clinical research on " a “range of practices and traditions” in a longitudinal study.
BTW I think he’s more motivated by keeping his credibility and ego intact than financial interest.
3 Likes
The book is available free online, so nobody needs to buy it. Also, I don’t think he could earn anything meaningful from it… it’s not GRR Martin or S King 
I doubt event B. Bodhi’s translations earn anything significant.
True, he is. But if it’s supposed to be science, they will have to do research on many meditators, not just Ingram, so if there is anything to be found it will be found anyway (even if it’s only limited to his way of teaching). And if someone will not accept or agree with whatever science they do there is one supreme option - do better science.
1 Like
Yes, that’s what I got from it as well. I did not watch the entire video but no where did I hear any kind of acknowledgement like “maybe I kind of started this by insulting so many in my book”. Oh well…
Personally, I am not at all concerned about Daniel’s teaching and beliefs. These kind of quasi-Buddhist offshoots have popped up in every culture ever since the Buddha walked this rock of ours. It is quite possible that Daniel has unintentionally introduced more people to the EBT’s than many others who have tried so much to ‘spread the word’. Why? Because we aren’t a bunch of sheep. Daniel’s take on Buddhism will never appeal to very many. Does spending hours and hours doing rapid noting practice (at least 10 times per second!) years on end really have any mass appeal? Especially when the result is being hyper-sensitive to any kind of criticism? When practice does not deliver results people look elsewhere.
To Daniel’s credit, his website has always been a completely open platform to discuss Buddhism – even when it criticizes his own views. I am confident that Bhikkhu Analayo could have presented his views directly on DharmaOverground and been allowed to do so for as long as he wanted – while engaging in a give and take open discussion at the same time. I think the possibility of having such open discussions was the original hope for that site.
The downside of his website is that his views permeate its very structure such that opposing views are often interpreted as corruptions or partial view of Daniel’s ‘true’ teaching – I don’t think this is his intention – just the result of his beliefs. And I think this one-sided view is what causes many to seek elsewhere.
Bring them on I say. We need renegades – where would we be without them? I guess still doing sacrifices and fire rituals.
3 Likes
I had a listen to this interview. “Guru Viking” seemed to have done his homework (obviously had read the Bhikkhu Analayo article and related papers) and generally seems like a good interviewer. He made a passable attempt at representing the Analayo viewpoint. However, overall it wasn’t IMO very satisfactory. I’d reckon the interviewer has a broad knowledge of spirituality but I don’t think he had the specific depth here to act as a really effective devil’s advocate. Daniel Ingram is articulate and was well able to talk in response, but some of his answers seemed a bit weak to me. I don’t think he was really properly put over the coals! As @Viveka said above, I think only some kind of exchange (IMO preferably written) actually between Ingram and Analayo would really be informative. I see mention that Ingram (and some of academic collaborators I think) had sent a letter to the journal in response, but the journal chose not to publish it or hasn’t yet anyway. Some kind of back and forth written exchange would tease things out, but hopefully not as long as that mammoth sequence of articles and responses between Thanissaro Bhikkhu and Analayo on bhikkhuni ordination! 
(see the thread here).
The general field is such a large and confusing overlap of different academic areas: a strange blend of the study early religious texts and multiple layers of later Buddhist developments and accretions, mixing in areas like mindfulness that somewhat overlap with Buddhism and bring in clinical practice and some degree of empiricism (though mindfulness seems mostly full of small-scale convenience studies whose true utility might be a bit questionable). Plus Daniel Ingram definitely falls into the mould of spiritual teacher (seems intelligent and relatively charismatic; it generally needs someone like that to form the nucleus of a group). Follows the typical profile of a person a long experience of different systems and meditation practices who was dissatisfied in some ways with what he found, and so developed his own system, attracted followers, who with similar techniques and map seem to arrive at similar experiences to what he had. It doesn’t sound much out of keeping with various non-Buddhist schools and teachers in the Buddha’s time (even the Buddha himself would generally follow this pattern). There was a lot of talk of empiricism in the interview, but I’d wonder how much of Ingram’s MCTB book has been empirically investigated (mostly it seems to have arisen out of his own experiences). Of course, followers seem to have replicated his experiences. That’s a kind of empirical replication, but that would realistically not be unexpected for any spiritual teacher who develops his own system (serious followers should really be ending up in similar spiritual territory).
The talk of raising funding to academically investigate all of this is heading in an empirical direction:
More broadly, I’d tend to think that perhaps some of phenomena described in his book, dark nights, arising and passing and cycling through phases of these might well be a phenomenon that arises with a degree of frequency in a percentage of people who do some heavy duty mediation and retreats. This continual cycling doesn’t sound terribly appealing tbh (or even always being an arahant in terms of how Ingram would understand it). I suppose Ingram’s group is probably a useful resource and reservoir of knowledge for people doing intensive retreats (connected with the group or not) who find themselves in this difficult territory. Chicken and egg though; maybe others find themselves in this territory in the first place because of Ingram’s book?
A proper scientific study of this cycling phenomenon could be interesting. It has occurred to me previously that this phenomenon sounds awfully like some kind of milder version of bipolar disorder (the rough duration of cycles and the ups and downs and high energy and low energy periods does sound rather in a similar place). Can some types of prolonged intensive meditation rewire the brain so as to trigger a neurological pattern rather like in bipolar disorder but evidently milder with practitioners usually relatively functional (though not always)? I’d be fascinated to see any brain imaging studies etc. comparing and contrasting the two phenomena (are similar brain areas or neurochemicals involved?).
A push back from more traditional Buddhist viewpoints isn’t exactly unexpected (if any movement anywhere gets big enough that’s pretty much inevitable from competitors). The Buddha himself wasn’t averse to criticizing other competing spiritual schools in his day. Ingram has also well able to dish it out himself; e.g. several paragraphs in his book in the section MCTB The Theravada Four Path Model and the first paragraph in MCTB The Action Models come to mind.
As pointed out earlier in the thread by @mikenz66 , his progress model clearly departs from traditional understandings of path stages and what an arahant is. Part of the defence in the interview was that Mahayana does this and that Analayo himself didn’t even quite agree with every single criterion of arahantship in the Pali texts, e.g. a lay person having to ordain immediately on becoming an arahant or otherwise attain parinibbana.
Am not sure I buy this argument. Mahayana’s broad understanding of what an arahant is does not greatly depart from the early texts. It’s just that they set up an alternative and what they consider a superior goal, that of Buddhahood (and at times can denigrate and pick holes in the arhant ideal; though I think they still agree that an arahant transcends the mundane world, including sexual desire, and is morally fully developed). The early texts are still there, it’s just newer ones arrived along later that they consider to mostly supersede the earlier ones. Ingram has done some radical redefining of some of these ideas but still borrows some of the traditional clothes and draws on traditional terminology. I don’t think he can be surprised if some who are more traditional take issue if he’s not putting clear water between his system and theirs.
As I’ve said earlier in this thread, I thought Analayo in his article was often a bit too personal and I didn’t particularly like how he used quotes from Ingram (at times when reading the article I wondered were some of the quotes being used in context). I generally am a big fan of his work but I’m not sure if this was his finest. Nonetheless, there are some decent questions posed and points made in the Analayo article. IMO some of the responses to these in the GuruViking interview were a bit weak. IMO there’s generally a bit too much playing to the converted in that (will play well with those steeped in his system I guess), a general vibe about the unfairness of the Analayo article, an attack on a good man etc. Analayo could I think have approached the writing of the article better, but recalling various sections of the MCTB, I’m not sure Ingram can exactly claim the high ground here either. A person who is well able to dish it out should also be well able to take it too, and then just step up and vigorously defend his viewpoint without too much complaint.
I’d rather like to see Ingram respond in a much more rigorous and measured way to the points in Analayo’s article. Some considered public back and forth between Ingram (and his academic collaborators) and Analayo, points and counterpoints, IMO preferably written, could be very interesting (and perhaps generate a bit more light than the interview). I’d be rather surprised if Analayo agrees to some kind of head-to-head public debate (I can’t recall him ever doing this and I don’t imagine it’s his style). However, he definitely has done the public academic article-based tête-à-tête before (a pity the journal in question didn’t publish Ingram’s letter in response but no doubt there would be other venues, even putting a preprint up on a website if nothing else).
3 Likes
Ven. Sujato,
Regarding the alleged falsity of “we are going to make sure that nobody ever believes you again,” do you mean that Ven. Analayo has demonstrated to you its falsity by sending you his email exchanges with Daniel and/or recordings of their two oral exchanges? Or do you just mean that you personally prefer to believe a fellow monk’s version of events rather than Ingram’s?
Cheers,
Snežana
After telling everyone he was going to write a response in Mindfulness (with and reviewed by “esteemed colleagues”) it’s very telling that the most reputable forum he was actually able to get was … an interview on the “Guru Viking” YouTube Channel?! 
5 Likes
At first I thought this too, but now reading Daniel Ingram’s forum there are some pretty diehard believers. It sounds like some of them had “dark night of the soul” experiences that Buddhism didn’t directly explain, others felt they couldn’t attain jhanas and wanted an alternative lay practice. Some mention that it’s not their “karma” to practice the EBT way.
I feel personally the importance of Anālayo’s response and upholding the truth. I grew up in the TM community where just about anything goes in the name of Maharishi. People will believe their leaders. Look at what’s happening with the far right in America.
It’s crucial to uphold the original texts, practices, and definitions in the face of so many strong personalities and seekers looking to explain their experiences.
6 Likes
Seems everyone here is doing nothing but dissing YouTube lately! 
And I suppose “Guru Viking, vol 3, no. 2, pp. 85-94” doesn’t quite cut it in terms of publication credentials. 
Anyway, to be fair, recalling the Bhikkhu Analayo/Thanissaro Bhikkhu debate, I think it was only Analayo that had his articles/reponses actually published in journals. IIRC Thanissaro just put his responses up on a website (his monastery one). Bhikkhuni ordination is also a topical issue and there’s enough of general readership interest there, I guess, to justify articles by a very well established author in a journal (even if crafted around a response in an online debate). Analayo also was on the politically correct side of the debate – a side that I happen to agree with – but I doubt a more conservative Theravadin monk would have gotten an article published in a journal with religious legalistic arguments against female ordination even if he had tried and even it was the most amazingly written paper ever!
In this case, I’m not sure there is a particularly topical issue involved (the article was more in the nature of focusing on one person than dealing with grand issues). The journal itself would likely be the only reasonable (academic) avenue of reply (otherwise the only route is just putting an article up online). It would seem reasonable to me that someone collaborating with academics who was a subject of a one-person “case study” (a rather negative one too) in a journal should get some kind of right of reply (if even a relatively short letter to reply to major points). From the link above, it seemed that Ingram only “hoped” to get a response published in the journal. There’s a level of realism in that. He then says in the next post that his “initial response” was rejected. Maybe they sent an article-length response and the journal itself had something of a more modest length in mind! 
Sounds like they will try again anyway. Debate by journal is not exactly a lightning fast process either (say what you want about YouTube, but that’s not one of its flaws )! IIRC the Analayo/Thanissaro back-and-forth took about 2 or 3 years to play out? I also had to smile a bit though at the comment about the rather restrained nature of the journal medium (again not YouTube ):
as we intend to publish it in Mindfulness, as that is a radically different audience and cultural context, with a relatively different purpose and set of stylistic expectations. The typical laser-like fire will be significantly rechanneled into trying to win hearts, minds, scientists, and research dollars.
2 Likes
Call me an interloper on this thread but this part was my favorite:
“hypersexual ways of looking at the world and people are
common in this territory. It is the stage most prone to
creating vipassana romances … heightened libido and
increases in sexual ability may be noticed during this
stage. Affairs with other meditators, teachers, and other
types of people become more likely…strong sensual or
sexual dreams are also common at this stage.”
What?!
6 Likes
True, and some have been around for many years. But you can’t see a trend with a snapshot. I know a number of people that started out there and eventually rejected it. There are always far more people reading on a site like that than actually post - same I would think for this one.
Maybe it isn’t. Buddha said his teaching was for the few not the many. There is that old saying “You can lead a person to dhamma but you can’t stop them from thinking”.
I agree. I also feel it is necessary to present these teachings as contemporary, living dhamma - not just old texts. Too often, I feel there is a rigidity and fundamentalism in the EBT community with regard to the path. I think it truly comes alive when we have people like Ajahn Chah and others (preferably alive) that can speak about their experience in everyday modern language. It’s allot easier than trying to translate something from a dead language from a long dead culture. This characteristic is partly why people like Daniel are able to get their foot in the door - even how they get confused in the first place.
4 Likes
For those interested in how discussion between Ingram and Analayo went, I repost from DhO:
EDIT: the forum post from which this link comes:
5 Likes
Right? It’s so weird until you remember that with people like this, everything is projection all the time. This is not a description, it is a confession.
10 Likes
In my early teens my faith in Buddha and his teachings (a few things I knew) were fortified by the Kalama Sutta. I feel this is a very powerful doorway in modern times to realize Dhamma without any dogma by honestly looking and observing one’s own experiential journey and transformation of defilements through the five educational trainings of the mind for ‘samadhi’ (my phrasing) and sincerely taking Buddha’s invitation to ‘come and see, investigate’ (Ehipasiko) and ‘be a light unto yourself’ (attodipabhava).
I downloaded and printed Ingram’s free book out of curiosity, but realized soon, it was a mistake to print the whole book! I would be nice to know real living Arahants. I didn’t know Bhikkhu Analaya is one.
2 Likes
Blockquote
@Nava I didn’t know Bhikkhu Analaya is one.
Maybe I’m mis-reading your quote, but just in case there is any confusion, Ven Bhikkhu Analayo is not an arahant, and he would not claim to be! In fact he would be the first to confirm that he is not.
3 Likes
@Linda thank you for that correction. I misread or misunderstood someone’s comment somewhere. So I went back to review my book.
For someone at the journey’s end
Freed of sorrow
Liberated in all ways
Released from all bonds
No fever exists.
The mindful apply themselves
They don’t amuse themselves in any abode.
Like swans flying from a lake
They abandon home after home.
Like the path of birds in the sky,
It is hard to trace the path
Of those who do not hoard
Who are judicious with their food,
And whose field
Is the freedom of emptiness and signlessness.
– Dhp 90-92, Gil Fronsdal
More here SuttaCentral
4 Likes
This seems to be Daniel Ingram’s best response to the article, a well-done podcast, Daniel gets his best shot to respond to all the critique, being questioned by a nuetral host. I think it is well-worth it to balance out the bias here in SS/EBT and understand the background of Analayo’s writing.
2 Likes
Since bias implies unfairness and prejudice and prejudice isn’t based on reason, I think it’s safe to say that there is very little bias here.
Bhikkhu Analayo was also a “neutral host” who questioned his claims and had long conversations with Daniel Ingram about them.
2 Likes
This is a really good point, thank you. Too often people fall into the lazy assumption that having a perspective is the same thing as having a bias. Everyone has a perspective, it is a necessary dimension of knowing anything. We can literally only see from a specific point of view. The more we are aware of our perspective, the better we can become at making allowances for it and seeking out other perspectives.
Reason and evidence always have a role. They cannot always solve problems, but they can serve to narrow and define the issue better.
8 Likes