I clicked on the link and read a few random posts. I saw a lot of vitriolic cursing as well as personal attacks on Analayo, Buddhist monks and scholars, Buddhism as a whole and a general trashing of those who don’t agree with Ingram’s philosophy. It seems to me that we’re having a reasonable discussion here; moderated and centering on the content of someones published writings. I think it’s important to discuss these things, to highlight what is and what isn’t the Dhamma, to evaluate the gist of Daniel Ingram’s writings, as long as it’s accurate and with right speech. As @Akaliko pointed out, others may read these posts and perhaps this is where they will find what the Buddha really taught.
5 Likes
If it was that, I would never reply here (unless I had anything to say about the main topic). But it’s not really a reasonable discussion as you can see from the message I replied to. And there are other parts of this thread that I could point to, that are quite below the standards of “reasonable discussion” in my opinion.
2 Likes
I see this has generated a lot of energy both here and on https://www.dharmaoverground.org/ and this has to be a good thing if it helps us all focus on putting and end to Suffering? And especially for those of us without a Sangha or teacher to guide our often difficult search?
I have studied Daniel Ingram’s book as part of my own search to find a Path beyond Dukkha/Suffering…He strikes me as well-read in the literature of the Progress of Insight and does sound like an honest, decent human being … As I have had no experience that conforms to his (or the Mahasi’s or Sayadaw U Pandita’s) stages of liberation I can’t judge the depth of his insights or whether or not he remains trapped, like so many of us, in the Ignorance/ Avijjā that conditions our kamma and prevents us from seeing the Path more clearly. However I have always had a concern about his describing himself as “The Arhant DI”… maybe because with my own limited experience (different from intellectual knowledge) of the Buddha’s Path I do see this as expressing a form of attachment / Upādāna leading to further becoming… “Why bother, Daniel”, I used to think, with some concern. Daniel Ingram himself has addressed this on the forum, - RE: Analayo's article about meditation maps, others, and me in Mindfulness - Discussion - www.dharmaoverground.org - whether this offers a sufficient response to the criticism or not…
Having just read the essay in question (just once!) I myself am not so sure if the Venerable Analayo has reached the heart of the problem with Daniel Ingram’s approach… or resolved some of my own doubts about its being a correct Path, described in extensive detail. The argument between them, again with my own limited experience on the Path, either Venerable Analayo’s or Daniel Ingram’s, also strikes me as a type of attachment (a clinging to views or concepts?) and in the place where the Dharma has real meaning, possibly irrelevant (on the pragmatic grounds that neither strike me as promoting violent heresy or harmful views or practices?)…?
My own conclusion, being in much doubt, especially to Daniel Ingram’s claims always come back to Ajahn Maha Boowa’s Arahattamagga Arahattaphala The Path to Arahantship (Arahattamagga Arahattaphala - The Path to Arahantship)… while not having experienced anything of his remarkable journey… this work at least convinced me of the need to (and the difficulty involved in) move (ing) genuinely ”beyond;’ and that Nirvana, Liberation, is truly beyond all conditions and attachments while the Mind, our minds, are too easily fooled, oftentimes by their own brilliance!
While I am sure people have criticised Ajahn Maha Boowa’s own claims I found his description convincing of the need to move “beyond the beyond”… Too many of us, and I wonder if not most of us at some point, remain trapped in the cage of concepts… thus we argue, disagree (and agree) and want to make solid what, in essence, is beyond being made solid…or so my own mind, frustrated with a lifetime of words, confusion, concepts and a mass of suffering, tells me…
Thus, my own contribution to this debate is that both Daniel Ingram and Bhikkhu Analayo strike me as honest, if limited humans on the Path and worthy of our compassion. Maybe both have something to teach us as we ourselves try to move beyond our own attachment to our own views, concepts, conditionality and suffering? And at the end of the day it is for each of us, alone, to follow the Buddha’s exhortation: "vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā ti”.
This argument will pass. I must strive to find my own freedom with diligence!
3 Likes
I don’t care what others have to say about different persons, it’s their business. But what I find hurtful is Daniels slandering words regarding monks and nuns and that they have in the past 2500 years been deceiving “us” to put food into their bowls. That is just mean and below every standard, I can think of. Besides of that, I can’t locate a single atom in me that responds with interest to what Daniel teaches. To me, it sounds more like chaos magic, than true dhamma.
7 Likes
While I think that while Analayo made some good points in his article, I found some of it a bit too much on the personal side overall (and I’m generally a big fan of Analayo’s books and writings). I wasn’t a fan of how he used the direct Ingram quotes (actually had me vaguely wondering about how representative or fair was the overall picture being painted at times), which I felt generally weakened the impact of the article. It might have been stronger if he had stuck more to something along the lines of: here’s what Daniel Ingram teaches, and here are the practical and doctrinal reasons I have issues with and why. I think the reddit post I linked to does some of that quite well (though it doesn’t pull punches when arguing about the actual points of the system).
I read the MCTB book myself several years ago (or got the through most of it anyway). I still have a physical copy of it somewhere in my bookshelves. I felt a strong somewhat refreshing “can do” energy off the thing. I had some reservations about it, though, even at the time (a bit more on that later). On Daniel Ingram himself, he seemed like a no-bullshit up-front kind of guy. As spiritual teachers go (IMO there’s a high percentage of hucksters in the general spirituality field), he seemed honest. I think he makes no money from all of this (IIRC he makes a living as a medical doctor) and, as someone has mentioned, his book is available for free. Those are all good signs.
My impression from lurking on his forum for a bit was his system (big emphasis on fast noting) seemed to be getting impressively replicable results. There was a detailed map and many people there seemed to be indeed getting into the territory laid out in his maps. He was also upfront about dangers of his intensive boot camp-style hardcore practice approach (I suppose people couldn’t complain that they weren’t warned).
My judgment was that he was sincere (still is my opinion). He seemed to have a lot of experience, found his experiences didn’t match up with traditional maps and systems, and so created his own (or extensively adapted what was there), which is fair enough I guess. He seems intelligent and charismatic (though generally there’s always a person like that at the nucleus of any such spiritual group or mini-movement).
I guess my main reservation about the MCTB system at the time was that the whole process of doing this path, or even the end-point, just seemed a bit bleak. It seemed quite feasible that with enough of his type of practice (doing it intensively enough), one would end up where those people in his group seemed to be at; it’s just that I wasn’t so sure that I actually wanted to.
The section A Revised Fourth Path Model comes to mind. At a certain point it sounded like one would hop onto a kind of merry-go-round of constant insight cycles of “powerful A&P Events, challenging Dark Nights, equanimity phases, and what seemed to be brand new, fresh Fruitions …” with, seemingly, no getting off. The experiences sounded like a real roller-coaster from discussions there (and very tough going at times and some people getting into real difficulties) with this cycling even still going on to some degree even at their arahant level. Towards the end of that section, there’s a more uplifting description of the fourth path. Still, the book and forum generally left me thinking: “well, if this is enlightenment, am I really sure I actually want this?”
He often doesn’t hold back in the book. It’s often quite harsh, e.g. the section prior to the above in The Theravada Four Path Model. The harshness doesn’t really bother me. It’s just that a was rather iffy about some of the arguments there at the time (seems a lot weaker now in retrospect). His opinion that completely eliminating the fetters of desire and aversion is unrealistic is a legitimate question/line of argument. Therefore, he doesn’t believe third and fourth in the traditional system is possible.
I suppose my issue with that was less about that contention or whether it’s true or not (I was open to arguments on the issue), it’s just that I found it made the underpinnings for his system more muddled. Generally, I find good spiritual systems set out a coherent and plausible soteriological framework (or at least what it is they are supposed to be doing): lay out what the problem is supposed to be, what the cause of that problem is, and some kind of path/system/recipe to solve this problem, e.g. the Four Noble Truths in Buddhism (other such formulations have been made in other systems). Craving in the Buddhist system is the cause of the problem. I suppose if one can’t really fully remove the cause of the problem, and craving is still the cause, then the resulting system seems more muddled and grey. IIRC morality, samadhi/jhana and insight/wisdom all seemed to function relatively independent in the MCTB system. Sila was not neglected – it was described as the first and last practice. However, each of these practices seemed to rather independently remove certain types of suffering. Full enlightenment seemed to be possible while morality or samadhi/jhana were far more perfect (so there could still be the arising of suffering from both of these). So enlightenment seemed to be associated with the elimination of a rather subtle and refined source of suffering. It’s certainly a more restricted conception, rather lacking in grandeur, though arguably more realistic and certainly probably a lot more attainable.
In some situations, the phase “no pain, no gain” is appropriate. It is usually is for more intensive hardcore approaches. On balance, I wasn’t really overly sold on the approach. The “pain” potential of it seemed a little high. I asked myself if I ended up in a place where I was constantly cycling through “A&P events”, “fruitions”, “dark nights” etc., would I actually be happier? If the “gain” was promising enough, then maybe that would be worth it for a bit. I suppose the nature of the “gain” never became clear enough to me, or what exactly was problem/difficulty/lack that this particular version of enlightenment was supposed to address.
There seems to be some good stuff going on over there. I have a look there every so often. A month or two back I linked here to an interview I came across on the dharmaoverground forum, which I found very moving (a member of theirs, Richard, who recounted his meditation “career” experiences, a lot of it quite classical, to Daniel Ingram, shortly before he passed away). Sounded like he had made substantial progress to me. Very nice interview.
Anyway, people become very understandably very invested in spiritual systems. That’s why discussions like this can often be very charged (maybe that’s why “sex, politics and religions” are supposedly topics to avoid in polite conversation 
). IMO spiritual systems (including varieties of Buddhism too) can sometimes harm as well as help (depending on the circumstances and the person involved), which is why I think robust discussion of the content of such systems can be useful. Not easy to do though given how dear they can be to people’s hearts (it can feel like a person attack, like someone coldly discussing the pros and cons of one’s spouse, and not likely to go down well) so if the discussion veers towards personalities, then at that point, it’s usually probably effectively all over in terms of usefulness!
8 Likes
I found your overall assessment to be quite astute actually.
I was very interested in his approach for some time a while ago, and there were several points that you made that resonated with me, including and especially:
I’m not sure what you are referring to here, but one thought I had was when I compared the “MCTB” book to say, the “EBT’s,” I found the MCTB to be significantly more limited in terms of efficacy than I previously thought - I think it is difficult to underestimate just how significant lol.
Like I remember reading about sila briefly here and there - but the approach to sila seemed very similar to a secular approach to sila - like “don’t be a bad person” and just reach a baseline, bare minimum level of sila. I didn’t get a strong sense that “without sila is it literally impossible to achieve Nibbana” - to the contrary, his descriptions sometimes made it seem like sila wasn’t that important:
This reminded me of some of the “Tibetan Buddhist teachers” such as Chögyam Trungpa and Drukpa Kunley who seem to similarly hold up the ideal of the “debauched saint.”
When I read the EBTs, the emphasis on not just sila, but many other factors that I feel were just not given the due emphasis, nor was the emphasis accurately representative of the emphasis that the Buddha himself placed on those factors.
3 Likes
Thank you, @suaimhneas! I absolutely agree with your assessment. I also agree with the assessment of the reddit post that MCTB 4th path is stream entry, not Arahatship — it’s a conclusion I reached myself a while back upon comparing Ingram’s descriptions with those of the suttas.
As someone who is a fan of both MCTB and Ven. Analayo, I was sorta let down by Ven. Analyo’s response. While I agreed with some of his criticisms (especially in regards to Ingram’s redefinition of the 4 path model), he tended to cherry pick quotes of Ingram and oversimplify his arguments. I dunno if this was Ven. Analayo’s intention — I hope it wasn’t— but it came across like he was more interested in scoring rhetorical points than adding clarity to the issue.
Like @suaimhneas said, Ingram does emphasize the importance of good sila. However, one point that Ingram has also made on his forum is that there isn’t a correlation between sila and the difficulty of practice, in regards to the prevalence of dark nights. That is, he knows people with very good sila who have been hit by very difficult “Dark Night” meditative experiences. In this regard, he’s absolutely correct. That’s not downplaying sila, it’s just being honest with people about what to expect.
Indeed, Ingram’s honesty in talking about rough aspects of practice has been one of his most valuable contributions to modern meditation instruction, imho. I’m both surprised and disappointed that Ven. Analayo was so dismissive of it.
4 Likes
It seems I’m not the only one who had reservations about this.
I’ve been searching for informations relating to problems induced / surfaced by meditation, but apart from Ingram & Co there seems to be not much on the subject.
So now, there are few options:
- are these problems only related to the kind of practice he teaches?
- or are they related only to dry-vipassana kind of practice (whatever that is) ?
- or is it that most teachers don’t want to talk about it to not discourage people from meditation?
Personally, I don’t know - and I would like to see an honest treatment of this subject from some “high profile” Theravadin teachers.
There is this article by Analayo:
but I won’t read it, since it’s paywalled.
The only other thing I stumbled upon is this:
I have no idea who this guy is or whether he is trustworthy, I don’t know much about Zen (except the parts that are the same with EBT).
2 Likes
As some people call out for arguments and discussion, I prepared some quotes for thought and to support my claims. I thought it is pretty obvious, because it is basic knowledge for everyone interested in EBTs, which is the main subject of this forum, but since other people might visit this thread, lets lay down some facts. I will edit this post later on to add even more sutta references.
First of all Daniel Ingram wrote a book called “Mastering teachings of the Buddha” - which sounds like being exposition of teachings of the Buddha. Then he called himself Arahant - which is highest goal of Buddha’s teachings, and also highest goal of Theravada tradition. So by such title we should expect teachings that go in line with “Core teachings of the Buddha” and with accordance to what Arahanthood means in this tradition.
Throughtout the book, he teaches some things that are with accordance to Buddha’s teachings, and some that are completely opposed to it. Three main things he opposes which clearly are core teaching of the Buddha are:
- Renunciation of sensuality/worldliness.
- The fact that Arahanthood/Nibbana is ending of all craving, desire and aversion.
- Essentiality of monastic tradition in dhamma.
One of arguments he used is that the oral tradition/texts transmission is unreliable. Bhante Sujato and Bhante Brahmali wrote a book that deals with the subject very well, everyone who is serious about authenticity of buddhist texts and oral tradition should read this book:
Bhikkhu Sujato & Bhikkhu Brahmali - Authenticity of Early Buddhist Texts.pdf
ARE THERE ANY AUTHENTHIC BUDDHIST TEXTS? If so, what are they? These are questions of tremendous spiritual and historical interest, about which there is a range of opinions that often appear to be irreconcilable. Traditionalists insist that the texts were “spoken by the Buddha” in the most literal of senses, while sceptics assert that we cannot know anything about the Buddha for certain, and further, that the notion of authenticity is irrelevant or pernicious. Rarely, however, has the question of authenticity been systematically investigated. Seeing the lack of an easily accessible summary of the evidence, we decided to assemble this survey.
There are two main aspects to our argument: (1) there is a body of Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs), which is clearly distinguishable from all other Buddhist scripture; (2) these texts originated from a single historical personality, the Buddha. These two aspects are closely linked, so we have not tried to separate them or present them in sequence. We consider the doctrinal and linguistic evolution of the texts, grounded in their social and economic context. No particular methodology is preferred; rather, we aim to be inclusive, as we believe that diverse perspectives are useful, indeed essential. So we take into account the internal development and structure of the texts, as well as the results of comparative studies. Multiple independent lines of evidence from the EBTs converge on a point of origin geographically in Northern India and temporally around the 5th century BCE. But the literature converges on more than a time and a place. It converges on a man: the historical Buddha. It took an astonishing energy and dedication to create and sustain this literature. It must have been produced by an extraordinary historical event. And what could this event be, if not the appearance of a revolutionary spiritual genius? The Buddha’s presence as a living figure in the EBTs is overwhelming and unmistakable. It stands in stark contrast with all other Buddhist literature, where the Buddha has faded to legend. Yet none of the later texts could exist without the EBTs; they are the foundational literature from which everything else derives.
Much more arguments inside the book…
Now after considering that suttas are the best reliable source for what are “core teachings of the Buddha”, lest see what Buddha has to say about his own teachings, first of all about authenthicity of his teachings: The Four Great References:
AN4.180 The Four Great References
At one time the Buddha was staying near the city of Bhoga, at the Ānanda Tree-shrine.
There the Buddha addressed the mendicants, “Mendicants!”
“Venerable sir,” they replied.
The Buddha said this: “Mendicants, I will teach you the four great references. Listen and pay close attention, I will speak.”
“Yes, sir,” they replied. The Buddha said this:
“Mendicants, what are the four great references?
Take a mendicant who says: ‘Reverend, I have heard and learned this in the presence of the Buddha: this is the teaching, this is the training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic training. If they’re not included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is not the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. It has been incorrectly memorized by that mendicant.’ And so you should reject it.
Take another mendicant who says: ‘Reverend, I have heard and learned this in the presence of the Buddha: this is the teaching, this is the training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic training. If they are included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. It has been correctly memorized by that mendicant.’ You should remember it. This is the first great reference.
Take another mendicant who says: ‘In such-and-such monastery lives a Saṅgha with seniors and leaders. I’ve heard and learned this in the presence of that Saṅgha: this is the teaching, this is the training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re included in the discourses or found in the texts on monastic training. If they’re not included in the discourses or found in the texts on monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is not the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. It has been incorrectly memorized by that Saṅgha.’ And so you should reject it.
Take another mendicant who says: ‘In such-and-such monastery lives a Saṅgha with seniors and leaders. I’ve heard and learned this in the presence of that Saṅgha: this is the teaching, this is the training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re included in the discourses or found in the texts on monastic training. If they are included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. It has been correctly memorized by that Saṅgha.’ You should remember it. This is the second great reference.
Take another mendicant who says: ‘In such-and-such monastery there are several senior mendicants who are very learned, knowledgeable in the scriptures, who remember the teachings, the texts on monastic training, and the outlines. I’ve heard and learned this in the presence of those senior mendicants: this is the teaching, this is the training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re included in the discourses or found in the texts on monastic training. If they’re not included in the discourses or found in the monastic law, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is not the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. It has been incorrectly memorized by those senior mendicants.’ And so you should reject it.
Take another mendicant who says: ‘In such-and-such monastery there are several senior mendicants who are very learned, knowledgeable in the scriptures, who remember the teachings, the texts on monastic training, and the outlines. I’ve heard and learned this in the presence of those senior mendicants: this is the teaching, this is the training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic training. If they are included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. It has been correctly memorized by those senior mendicants.’ You should remember it. This is the third great reference.
Take another mendicant who says: ‘In such-and-such monastery there is a single senior mendicant who is very learned and knowledgeable in the scriptures, who has memorized the teachings, the texts on monastic discipline, and the outlines. I’ve heard and learned this in the presence of that senior mendicant: this is the teaching, this is the training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic discipline. If they’re not included in the discourses or found in the texts on monastic discipline, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is not the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. It has been incorrectly memorized by that senior mendicant.’ And so you should reject it.
Take another mendicant who says: ‘In such-and-such monastery there is a single senior mendicant who is very learned and knowledgeable in the scriptures, who has memorized the teachings, the texts on monastic discipline, and the outlines. I’ve heard and learned this in the presence of that senior mendicant: this is the teaching, this is the training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic discipline. If they are included in the discourses and found in the monastic law, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. It has been correctly memorized by that senior mendicant.’ You should remember it. This is the fourth great reference.
These are the four great references.”
Now, as we can see Buddha himself said that suttas and vinaya should have absolute priority authority in his teachings, and that if some teacher doctrine is not in line with suttas or vinaya - then it is not teaching of the Buddha, not Buddha-Dhamma. Lets see what suttas and vinaya have to say regarding the three things that Ingram criticises in his book: Renunciation of sensuality/worldliness, the fact that Nibbana/Arahanthood is ending of craving and aversion, and essentiality of monasticism in dhmma:
Bhikkhu Vibhanga - The First Training Rule
After criticizing Sudinna in various way, they told the Master. The Master then had the Order of monks assembled and questioned Sudinna: “Is it true, Sudinna, that you had sexual intercourse with your former wife?”
“It’s true, Master.”
The Buddha rebuked him, “Foolish man, it’s not suitable, it’s not proper, it’s not worthy of an ascetic, it’s not allowable, it’s not to be done. How could you go forth in such a well-proclaimed Teaching and training and not be able for life to practice the perfectly complete and pure spiritual life? Haven’t I given many teachings for the sake of dispassion, not for the sake of passion; for the sake of freedom from bondage, not for the sake of bondage; for the sake of non-grasping, not for the sake of grasping? When I have taught in this way, how can you be intent upon passion, bondage, and grasping? Haven’t I given many teachings for the fading away of sensual desire, for the clearing away of intoxication, for the removal of thirst, for the uprooting of attachment, for the cutting off of the round of birth and death, for the ending of craving, for fading away, for cessation, for extinguishment? Haven’t I in various ways taught the abandoning of sense pleasures, the full understanding of the perception of sense pleasures, the abolishing of thirst for sense pleasures, the elimination of thoughts of sense pleasures, the stilling of the fever of sense pleasures? It would be better, foolish man, for your penis to enter the mouth of a terrible and poisonous snake than to enter a woman. It would be better for your penis to enter the mouth of a black snake than to enter a woman. It would be better for your penis to enter a blazing charcoal pit than to enter a woman. Why is that? Because for that reason, you might die or experience death-like suffering, but you wouldn’t because of that be reborn in a bad destination. But for this reason you might. Foolish man, you have practiced what is contrary to the true Teaching, the common practice, the low practice, the coarse practice, that which ends with a wash, that which is done in private, that which is done wherever there are couples. You are the forerunner, the first performer of many unwholesome things. This will not give rise to confidence in those without it or increase the confidence of those who have it, but it will hinder confidence in those without it, and it will cause some with confidence to change their minds.”
Then the Master spoke in dispraise of being difficult to support and maintain, in dispraise of great desires, discontent, socializing, and laziness; but he spoke in praise in various ways of being easy to support and maintain, of fewness of wishes, contentment, self-effacement, ascetic practices, serenity, reduction in things, and of being energetic. After giving a teaching on what is right and proper, he addressed the monks:
“Because of this, monks, I will lay down a training rule for the following ten reasons: for the well-being of the Order, for the comfort of the Order, for the restraint of bad people, for the ease of well-behaved monks, for the restraint of corruptions in the present life, for avoiding corruptions in future lives, to give rise to confidence in those without it, to increase the confidence of those who have it, for the continuation of the true Teaching, and for supporting the training. And, monks, this training rule should be recited thus…
First teaching of the Buddha:
SN56.11 Rolling Forth the Wheel of Dhamma
“Mendicants, these two extremes should not be cultivated by one who has gone forth. What two? Indulgence in sensual pleasures, which is low, crude, ordinary, ignoble, and pointless. And indulgence in self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, and pointless. Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One woke up by understanding the middle way, which gives vision and knowledge, and leads to peace, direct knowledge, awakening, and extinguishment.
And what is that middle way? It is simply this noble eightfold path, that is: right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion. This is that middle way, which gives vision and knowledge, and leads to peace, direct knowledge, awakening, and extinguishment.
Elaboration the first teaching:
MN141 The Analysis of the Truths
And what is right thought? Thoughts of renunciation, good will, and harmlessness. This is called right thought.
And what is right speech? Refraining from lying, divisive speech, harsh speech, and talking nonsense. This is called right speech.
Buddha’s prediction that dhamma will be distorted, and teachings of the Buddha that we should give up such distortions of dhamma:
“Mendicants, these five future perils have not currently arisen, but they will arise in the future. You should look out for them and try to give them up.
What five? In a future time there will be mendicants who have not developed their physical endurance, ethics, mind, and wisdom. They will ordain others, but be unable to guide them in the higher ethics, mind, and wisdom. They too will not develop their physical endurance, ethics, mind, and wisdom. They too will ordain others, but be unable to guide them in the higher ethics, mind, and wisdom. They too will not develop their physical endurance, ethics, mind, and wisdom. And that is how corrupt training comes from corrupt teachings, and corrupt teachings come from corrupt training. This is the first future peril that has not currently arisen, but will arise in the future …
Furthermore, in a future time there will be mendicants who have not developed their physical endurance, ethics, mind, and wisdom. They will give dependence to others, but be unable to guide them in the higher ethics, mind, and wisdom. They too will not develop their physical endurance, ethics, mind, and wisdom. They too will give dependence to others, but be unable to guide them in the higher ethics, mind, and wisdom. They too will not develop their physical endurance, ethics, mind, and wisdom. And that is how corrupt training comes from corrupt teachings, and corrupt teachings come from corrupt training. This is the second future peril that has not currently arisen, but will arise in the future …
Furthermore, in a future time there will be mendicants who have not developed their physical endurance, ethics, mind, and wisdom. In discussion about the teachings and classifications they’ll fall into dark ideas without realizing it. And that is how corrupt training comes from corrupt teachings, and corrupt teachings come from corrupt training. This is the third future peril that has not currently arisen, but will arise in the future …
Furthermore, in a future time there will be mendicants who have not developed their physical endurance, ethics, mind, and wisdom. When discourses spoken by the Realized One—deep, profound, transcendent, dealing with emptiness—are being recited they won’t want to listen. They won’t pay attention or apply their minds to understand them, nor will they think those teachings are worth learning and memorizing. But when discourses composed by poets—poetry, with fancy words and phrases, composed by outsiders or spoken by disciples—are being recited they will want to listen. They’ll pay attention and apply their minds to understand them, and they’ll think those teachings are worth learning and memorizing. And that is how corrupt training comes from corrupt teachings, and corrupt teachings come from corrupt training. This is the fourth future peril that has not currently arisen, but will arise in the future …
Furthermore, in a future time there will be mendicants who have not developed their physical endurance, ethics, mind, and wisdom. The senior mendicants will be indulgent and slack, leaders in backsliding, neglecting seclusion, not rousing energy for attaining the unattained, achieving the unachieved, and realizing the unrealized. Those who come after them will follow their example. They too will become indulgent and slack, leaders in backsliding, neglecting seclusion, not rousing energy for attaining the unattained, achieving the unachieved, and realizing the unrealized. And that is how corrupt training comes from corrupt teachings, and corrupt teachings come from corrupt training. This is the fifth future peril that has not currently arisen, but will arise in the future …
These are the five future perils that have not currently arisen, but will arise in the future. You should look out for them, and try to give them up.”
I think for now it suffices to see how wrong is Ingram reasoning. He does exactly the same thing as vipassana-vada. He chooses particular suttas to fit his idea of buddhism, instead of look what suttas “generally” say. This phenomenon was described in Ajahn Sujato book “Swift Pair of Messengers” and also “History of Mindfulness”, where it was related to the fact how hard-core vipassana schools omitted most/all jhana teachings, and how prominent they are in actual canon. Mr Ingram does the same with his vision of arahanthood and lack of prominency of renunciation of desires.
Bhikkhu Sujato - A Swift Pair of Messengers.pdf (1.3 MB)
The Principle of Proportion
The principle of proportion involves assessing the relative importance and reliability of sutta passages using a variety of acceptable objective criteria. If there are any gray areas, anomalies, or possible conflicts, then the more important and reliable passage should take precedence. It is not necessary to assume that there either are or are not contradictions in the sutta texts as we have them, nor that the secondary passages are not authoritative, simply that the primary passages should be granted greater authority.
(…)
Other common sense considerations should also be borne in mind when
interpreting the suttas. Minor teachings should concede precedence to central and important themes, especially those given special significance by the Buddha himself. Poetry is naturally less suited to precise and detailed exposition of doctrinal points than prose; in addition, much of the poetry of the Tipiṭaka seems to be of later date than the prose. When quoting verses, therefore, we will try to restrict ourselves to the earlier strata. Similes, inferences, and passages of dubious or controversial interpretation are likewise of secondary consideration. For several centuries the suttas were handed down orally, most reciters concentrating on learning texts from a single Nikāya. The arrangers of the suttas would naturally wish to edit their material so that the core teachings would be found in each Nikāya, the fifth (minor) Nikāya being only somewhat of an exception. In this way by learning one Nikāya one should be able to come to an accurate understanding of all the major teachings. The Nikāyas differ in perspective and emphasis, but not in doctrine. The interesting conclusion follows that it is unlikely that a text crucial for deciding an important doctrinal point would be found in only one or two Nikāyas.
The Principle of Historical Perspective
Our second interpretative guideline is the principle of historical perspective. In the 2,500 years since the Buddha, discussion, systematization, and perhaps modification of the meaning of what he said has continued unabated. It is quite inappropriate to read terminology and concepts of a later era into the texts of an earlier era. This error may occur in a number of ways: new terminology may be invented for old ideas; old words may acquire new meanings; or completely new concepts may be invented and artificially imposed on the old texts. Remember that in the text quoted at the beginning of this paper the Buddha conferred sole authority on the sutta and vinaya; no abhidhamma and certainly no commentaries. The abhidhamma did not exist in the Buddha’s lifetime, but, along with some later works included in the suttas, was developed during a period of approximately four centuries after the Buddha’s passing away. The commentaries were not finalized until 1,000 years after the Buddha, over the same period when the Mahāyāna Sūtras
were composed.
Mr. Ingram doesn’t use either Principle of Proportion and neither Principle of Historical Perspective in his book. He uses principle of “lets take everything that suits my ego and experience, and harshly attack everything that does not suit my ego and experience”, which to me sounds more like narcissism than genuine spiritual exploration or scholarly work.
There could be two things told in his defense imo. First is that he gets people into dhamma. But I think that getting people into dhamma from such aggressive perspective does more harm than good. Would be great if he put all that energy to promoting dhamma without such harsh words, and without using name “Buddha” to promote his own ideas.
I don’t criticise his idea of spreading dhamma. I criticise his lack of doing thorough scholarly study (he omitted everything that would not suit his line of thought, which is very unscientific). And I also criticise and feel offended by his extremely harsh language and utter lack of respect for tradition he borrows so much from.
Second is his attempt at perennialism which imo is good, because it has potential of creating harmony between religions and spiritual movements. But it needs to be done genuinly and with respect to what particular mystics/yogis are teaching. And he failed at it. For example taking “Dark Night” of Saint John of the Cross… sounds good, but problem is that St. John was a very radical enemy of sensuality, which Daniel Ingram praised as not being in contradiction to highest spiritual goal…
St. John of the Cross - Ascent of Mount Carmel (main work of this Saint)
ASCENT OF MOUNT CARMEL - CHAPTER IV
Wherein is declared how necessary it is for the soul truly to pass through this dark night of sense, which is mortification of desire, in order that it may journey to union with God.
THE reason for which it is necessary for the soul, in order to attain to Divine union with God, to pass through this dark night of mortification of the desires and denial of pleasures in all things, is because all the affections which it has for creatures are pure darkness in the eyes of God, and, when the soul is clothed in these affections, it has no capacity for being enlightened and possessed by the pure and simple light of God, if it first cast them not from it; for light cannot agree with darkness; since, as Saint John says: Tenebroe eam non comprehenderunt. That is: The darkness could not receive the light. The reason is that two contraries (even as philosophy teaches us) cannot coexist in one person; and that darkness, which is affection set upon the creatures, and light, which is God, are contrary
(…)
All the being of creation, then, compared with the infinite Being of God, is nothing. And therefore the soul that sets its affection upon the being of creation is likewise nothing in the eyes of God, and less than nothing; for, as we have said, love makes equality and similitude, and even sets the lover below the object of his love. And therefore such a soul will in no wise be able to attain to union with the infinite Being of God; for that which is not can have no communion with that which is. And, coming down in detail to some examples, all the beauty of the creatures, compared with the infinite beauty of God, is the height of deformity even as Solomon says in the Proverbs: Fallax gratia, et vana est pulchritudo. ‘Favour is deceitful and beauty is vain.’ And thus the soul that is affectioned to the beauty of any creature is the height of deformity in the eyes of God. And thereforehis soul that is deformed will be unable to become transformed in beauty, which is God, sincedeformity cannot attain to beauty; and all the grace and beauty of the creatures, compared with the grace of God, is the height of misery and of uncomeliness. Wherefore the soul that is ravished by the graces and beauties of the creatures has only supreme misery and unattractiveness in the eyes of God; and thus it cannot be capable of the infinite grace and loveliness of God; for that which has no grace is far removed from that which is infinitely gracious; and all the goodness of the creatures of the world, in comparison with the infinite goodness of God, may be described as wickedness. ‘For there is naught good, save only God.’ And therefore the soul that sets its heart upon the good things of the world is supremely evil in the eyes of God. And, even as wickedness comprehends not goodness, even so such a soul cannot be united with God, Who is supreme goodness.
So again, Mr. Ingram simply took whatever suits his theory and omitted everything that goes against his view and experience. He did the same with St. John of the Cross what he did with teachings of the Buddha. Very convenient to say the least. So his attempt at perenniality omitted the fact that most of great yogis, of great buddhist monks, of great christian mystics said that celibacy and ending of worldly desires are essential to ultimate spiritual Liberation. He omitted the fact that Four Noble Truths are about desire is dukkha and desire is more samsara, and end of desire is Nibbana and arahanthood.
I hope more people will see that it is wishful thinking - vipallasas - his desires that bend perceptions and views. I have no problem with that when people do it who are simply practitioners. But I will criticise such things when people name their famous books “Core teachings of the Buddha”, are very popular people with big influence on both practitioners and scientific field, turn people against the Sangha (which was Buddha’s vision of his teaching - 4 parisas) and who use very harsh language to teach dhamma, that says that harsh and divisive speech is discouraged. So it is a little bit too much for me. I hope Mr. Ingram will see the errors of his ways (especially harsh speech), apologise for it and stop confusing his teachings with teachings of the Buddha.
I’ll add more sutta references later on.
16 Likes
These are all interesting questions. Part of the problem is the whole chicken-or-the-egg issue — it could be that people who gravitate towards “dry insight” practice tend to be predisposed to dark night experiences to begin with. It might not be that they “choose” to do dry insight, it’s just that sometimes it’s the only form of practice they can gain traction from.
I’d also add that Ingram doesn’t just talk about noting/“dry insight” practice, but also Kasina practice, and even siddhis (he’s not your standard run-of-the-mill secular buddhist!).
FWIW, I’ve had dark night experiences from doing both mindfulness of breathing (which I’m not very good at) and noting/investigation. Long term, they were all rewarding and helped me confront negative parts of my psyche. So while they were difficult and even painful, they were rewarding. That’s why, all things considered, as much as I disagree with Ingram on certain points, I think MCTB has been an invaluable contribution to the modern dharma scene.
1 Like
Your post seems to accurately capture some of the many of the concerns that I had in mind when I said that I thought that despite all of the harmless and beneficial parts of it, MCTB was quite limited when compared against the standard and criterion of the EBT’s:
So while I do think it is worth pointing out all the harmless, beneficial, and good parts of Ingram’s approach, I think it is also important to make a very realistic and accurate evaluation of the limitations of Ingram’s approach.
I haven’t read Analayo’s argument, but from my own assessment of Ingram’s approach, I find myself in agreement with many of the points that you mentioned in terms of specific ways in which Ingram’s approach goes contrary to the Dhamma-Vinaya.
1 Like
My own 2 cents, as someone who has familiarity with both EBTs and MCTB:
- Total renunciation of sensuality is not necessary for stream entry. Lust and anger aren’t even attenuated for the stream enterer, according to the fetter model. This is consistent with the theory that Ingram’s “Arahat” is actually a sutta stream winner.
- I agree, this is my biggest gripe about Ingram….he doesn’t seem to think getting rid of greed, hatred, and delusion is possible, so he lowers the bar for awakening. What the EBTs call the first stage, Ingram thinks is the final stage. Had he not done this, I think he would have gotten a lot more sympathy from traditionalists (as he himself admitted on the DhO forum).
- The ebts say that householders can achieve the first 3 stages of awakening….only the fourth stage needs total renunciation/asceticism (I’m not going to call it “monasticism”, since that requires a monastery, and the Buddha encouraged “going forth into homelessness”…but this might be a semantic nitpick). It should be noted that Daniel Ingram has studied with a monk teacher, Sayadaw U Pandita Jr. He talks about him respectfully here.
2 Likes
Well, there is nothing new about purgatory experiences in spirituality. But yes we must admit that there is not much talk about it in the suttas, at least I didn’t found it. It is importaint to remember that when people are encountering powerful difficult experiences, they should really think about getting genuine student-teacher relationship, and not rely on some subjective maps. Which is exactly what Sangha is about - so elder monastics can guide junior ones on their path to Enligtenment - through “dark night” included. I know it is hard to get opportunity to speak with a great teacher, but it should just motivate us even more to support Sangha, which is actually having and rising more such teachers. And to motivate ourselves to create such life situation that we can get guidance. I think in buddhism one of reasons for Sangha to exist is so people can get spiritual help from teachers in supporting conditions. I think Mr Ingram try to create such space for people who remain lay people while missing one of main points… that purgatory experiences on deeper level are exactly about purgation of sensuality. Why for example Bhante Sujato didn’t allow to speak about practice on this forum? Exactly because he believes that such things need personal contact, and that giving random advices online can do more harm than good - one of which is preventing someone from getting actual, real student-teacher relationship.
It is good that such works as Ingram put in his book are promoted, still it would be great if they were promoted in more mellow and respectful way. For example Ajahn Amaro is his introduction to “Food of the Heart” of Ajahn Chah does very nicely bring works of Saint John of the Cross, which actually made me read actual works of the Saint.
It is true that some of Ingram work is an asset, but some of it is very insulting and dangerous as Bhikkhu Analayo rightly shown. Thing is works of great mystics were pure assets and didn’t insult anyone. I don’t know why people choose such ambivalent works over works of pure genius and love, like Buddha or St. John, or many great modern Ajahns. I don’t know why defend something so impure and based on so much negativity instead of reaching out for pure gold. There are so many amazing teachers, dhamma talks and books, who radiate both wisdom and love. But well, it is their choice, and I think this is where it all comes down to - vipallasas. Our desires creates our choices. Thats fine, as long these teachers show respect to basic human values like respect and truthfulness. If they don’t, we have right to defend ourselves and our beloved teachings and tradition.
3 Likes
Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu! Thank you so much for pointing out all of this! 
I’d add just one more thing just to make clear why I personally think that in cases like Ingram’s book we should really discourage others from believing that he has a “true receipt for enlightenment”.
For me it’s really touching cause from my own experience, and you and other users in here experienced that too, I know how renunciation boosts meditation and how deeper meditation makes you want to get rid of more and more things from your life. I just can’t really believe that it’s possible to go deep and don’t see that it’s really needed. When you see that, you’d like to do everything to show other people that it really works that way.
When someone is diminishing the way that Buddha taught and insulting people who are teaching us today it’s just completely unacceptable. No matter how many good sides his activity would have it’s better to direct someone to the Buddha’s words and teachers who show the right path by their conduct and don’t waste time and delude in teachings of someone like Ingram.
4 Likes
I personally really relate to the descriptions of Brahma Vihara practice, when buddha says that bad kamma that otherwise would ripen in the next life instead ripens in this life. That sounds purge-y to me, and very much in line with what mystics in other religions teach (tho they talk about “sin” instead of karma).
There is also a lot of stuff about disgust, disillusion, and dispassion in the suttas. I agree that there isn’t anything detailed, but then again, the suttas don’t go into much detail about meditation experiences in general. Suttas are more like roadmaps for practice, not detailed “how to” guides. FWIW there are positive meditation experiences I had that aren’t precisely (only vaguely) spelled out in the suttas, but that’s ok. Part of the joy of the practice is discovering things for myself.
I do enjoy reading Christian contemplatives. My favorite is Bernadette Roberts, since she basically accidentally stumbled across the no-self experience in her Catholic practice.
And some people thought Ven. Analayo’s response was very insulting, misrepresented some things Ingram has said, and presents an overly rosy view of meditation practice. Fwiw I agree with Ingram on some things and Ven. Analayo on others, and I don’t consider either teacher insulting, even tho I think they both are sometimes too dismissive of other viewpoints (I’m sure I’ve been guilty of this too at times 
).
It’s the same with a lot of traditional monastic teachers — I can respect their wisdom, even if I don’t agree with everything they say…and there is no way to agree with all of them on everything, since there are some quite heated/nasty disagreements between them (e.g., on Bhikkhuni ordination)! Ditto with teachers in non-Theravada traditions (who also employ problematic definitions of “Arahat”). Not everyone is going to experience the same things, or relate to the same teachers, and that’s fine! We all have different personalities, kamma, etc.
Of course, we can listen and agree or not with any teacher but to really be able to judge we have to check that ourselfs😊
I hope that all of us will be able to experience that Buddha was right and attain what he attained 
1 Like
I think this touches on a really significant point, and could be unpacked a bit more. The sticky part is that people are conditioned to want the ‘best’ and the ‘highest’, and certainly Enlightenment is held up to be the ‘pinnacle of happiness’. This is the popular (general public) view.
I think that, in reality, for the vast majority of people in the world, their goal is not Liberation in the Buddhist sense. It would be fair to say that the very idea of cessation would be horrifying, and ‘life-denying’ to the majority of people. They are not interested in the ending of re-birth. Instead they want to lessen suffering while pursuing the goal of a happy, satisfying and successful life within Samsara, (and perhaps ensure a good re-birth). Their goals in life remain the same, and are based on sensual desire and craving. The craving to be happy. There is nothing wrong with this. It is human!
(Edited to delete misleading sentence, see comment by Ven Sujato below,)
It is about different stages of the Path.
So it becomes imperative to acknowledge and support those who are working towards being good citizens and having a happy life in Samsara, as well as those who are actively working towards cessation/Liberation. Personally I think this is where much of the problem lies. There is a perception (especially in non-buddhist societies) that only Final Liberation is of value… this very attitude is a cause of suffering. In this modern social climate, to not pursue the ‘highest’ (supramundane) is virtually unthinkable. And this then leads to an inevitable mismatch of goals and practice. Ironically this in itself is an illustration of how delusion causes suffering.
I think that traditionally this was a lot clearer, with clearly differing goals between the householders life and that of Monastics having going forth. These days, however, this line has become more complicated, and the boundaries are blurred, and which, IMHO, significantly contributes to confusion, argument and division. People want the top ‘achievements’ (stream entry , arahant etc) while at the same time actively participating in wordly affairs. Unfortunately, this is a fundamental misunderstanding as Liberation is not an achievement, but a complete relinquishment, including that of existence in ANY realm.
As such, if one doesn’t undergo the gradual fundamental changes and subsequent transformation required, and one tries to jump ahead before one is ready, then there is great suffering… As such, a ‘householder’ would already have to have developed a significant detachment from sensual pleasures before even thinking of going forth, where much deeper levels of relinquishment are developed. It’s pretty safe to say that if one views (for example) celibacy as a matter purely of discipline, then one hasn’t penetrated that the nature of intimate attachment is suffering, one is not yet transformed. This is not a small thing, it is an almost inconceivable thing!
If one is not ready, then relinquishment is just loss of pleasure, joy and meaning. If one is ready and has undergone the transformation, then relinquishment is Liberating.
LOL, and that is my conditioned view at this time
Added: I acknowledge that this distinction between 2 paths is very imprecise and ‘tricky’. To be honest, I just used it as I couldn’t think of a better way to convey it in a short-hand way 
18 Likes
Hi, @Viveka,
I agree with your overall point, that one shouldn’t feel a need to go for full awakening, and also that there is a difference between lay and monastic practice. However, I’m confused by what you say here:
Are you saying that stream winners cannot participate in worldly affairs? Because that’s not true at all, according to the suttas. There are lots of examples of householders on the first three stages of awakening, and non celibate ones on the first 2.
3 Likes
No I didn’t mean to imply that. Sorry if I was unclear I just wanted to make a general point about the problems of wanting to achieve ‘attainments’.
My post was not meant to be prescriptive, but general. Celibacy was just an example of a point - 2 people, at different stages of awakening, will experience it in different ways. The same with all the things that are relinquished. What was seen as giving happiness is seen as causing suffering, and vice versa. SO why would one purposefully do that, which yields suffering, once one has seen reality (and DO) as it is? Thats the flip over/transformation, beyond intellectual understanding.
What others say is happiness
the noble ones say is suffering.
What others say is suffering
the noble ones say is happiness.
SN35.136
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.136/en/sujato
Added: This is why I mentioned consistency in behaviour (for example in a teacher) as one of the things to look out for. If a transformation of view has occured, then there will be consistency in line with the new perception.
It’s a very complex subject, especially to try and capture in forum posts - way beyond my pay-grade! 
With much metta, and may everyone be well
10 Likes
Exactly! Each person is on their own path and since it’s a gradual path everything has to go its way. Good lay life has to be established first, leaving it is the next stage. Not everyone is ready to abandon worldly affairs, it can’t be forced to do. Forcing it would make much more harm than good. Some people just have a huge problem to understand that. They just want to get enlightenment in a same way as they want to get a new car, give me it fast cause I want it😉 after all we don’t DO anything it just happens when it’s time for it.
The whole discussion in here is about distinguishing those two paths, or rather stages of the Path, I think - the one of good householder’s life and path of final renunciation which are kind of mixed in that book and as you said in the whole modern secular movement 
4 Likes