There’s a lot in psychology that still echoes the repressive Christian culture of the 19th century, against which Freud was rebelling. And to be sure, there is a long history of psychopathology in renunciate communities, and it would be a mistake to ignore that.
Having said which, I find some gladness in the emerging recognition of “asexuality”, that some people are just not that into sex. Being asexual is just another way of being human. Not that monastic renunciation is the same thing, by any means, but at least there is a better undertsaning that a person need not be pathological for not wanting to have sex.
If there are any aces out there reading this, hi! I hope you’re doing okay! I know that being ace in our highly sexualized culture can be difficult. You do you.
Nice post. Though I suppose that was a fairly open-ended and somewhat ambiguous statement on my part. I must admit that I didn’t have some of dichotomies you talked about or even the enlightenment of the suttas about in mind when writing it! Rather just some doubts about the nature of the various enlightenment paths (first, second, third, fourth) in the MCTB scheme and the rather large dose of emotional turmoil (getting on a hamster-wheel of dark nights, A&Ps and the like) that seemed to go with that in seemingly a good percentage of cases.
Anyway, enlightenment can mean widely differing things in different places and systems. Sure, the enlightenment of the suttas does swim against the usual tide of what people think is happiness in the world. The nature of the process there does sound a bit gentler though. I never got the impression from the suttas that people were actively going through turmoil until they eventually hopped off the whole merry-go-round as an arahant. If anything, it sounded like there was a certain danger that a monastic could be somewhat lazy or lacking in diligence they could get to a certain stage of enlightenment and put off more progress until another life.
In the suttas, anyway, all these dichotomies don’t seem that severe (enlightenment coming in stages and not just a thing, in part anyway, for renunciants).
Thanks for those links (I can actually see and download the PDF in that link). Looks interesting. I’ll have a read through that later.
It would be nice to see more study on the general issue. Maybe there are particular dangers in high levels of intense fast noting practice. Though, I doubt it’s confined to that (perhaps a strong emphasis on high levels of meditation practice over everything else is more likely to lead to problems?). I get the impression that part of the purpose of the Analayo paper was trying to put some clear water between the MCTB approach and other mindfulness approaches in this regard.
An interview with Leigh Brasington comes to mind. Focuses on the problems that come with meditation, particularly the type of concentration meditation that he does (there’s a rather funny story in there too about a retreat centre phoning up the aircraft control of a local airport ). IMO some pretty wise advice in there generally, e.g. if traumatic stuff or past issues comes to the surface up in meditation then maybe the best way to deal with it isn’t necessarily always more meditation, which is described as like poking the fire a bit more with the same stick.
I recalled posting it here before. Tracked down my post to find the link and to be lazy I’ll just cut and paste a good chunk of my past post. I also found a somewhat relevant Jack Kornfield book quote in there too, which strikes me as not out of place either.
A lot of [the video] is about the problems people run into in jhana retreats he runs (seemingly a relatively frequent occurrence). Sometimes traumatic issues come to the surface (more meditation then may not always be the answer). Sometimes people become a bit too spaced out and ungrounded. Brasington has said that on some occasions on long retreats he has sent people off to do mundane chores like chopping wood or even off to have a cup of coffee in a local café to get more grounded (he gives a story where someone from a retreat in a meditation centre calls the local airport to tell them to route the flight paths away from the centre because they are disturbing their meditation, something which probably seemed totally logical to them at the time ). There’s a story about Dipa Ma there too (one of the side-effects of deep concentation seems to be a temporary shutting down of the brain’s multi-tasking and executive functioning capacities). Seemingly after such meditation she often had real difficulties for a spell doing simple everyday tasks like trying to open the front door (“How do I open the front door?” “Don’t I need something?” “Oh, yes, a key” “Now where is that key?” “Oh, yes, in my back pocket” ). Brasington expresses the view that personal interaction with and the availability of teachers very familiar with these states is indispensable, that meditation isn’t a cure for all the ailments of the Western psyche, that more meditation isn’t always the answer (or maybe a different form of meditation might work better if the current one is causing problems – he suggests metta meditation in moderate doses may often be a useful alternative).
And the Jack Kornfield quote (from A Path With Heart):
Meditation: Reflecting On The Shadow Of Your Form Of Practice
Just as every community has a shadow, every set of teachings will also have areas of shadow, aspects of life that they do not illuminate wisely. Every style of teaching will also produce its near enemy, the way that particular teaching can be most easily misused or misunderstood. It can be useful to take some time to reflect on the strengths and limitations of the practice you have chosen to follow. You can then consider to what extent these are issues in your own spiritual life. The following examples hint at the possible shadows you may encounter.
Insight Meditation and similar Buddhist practices can lead to quietude, to withdrawal from and fear of the world. The emptiness taught in Zen and nondualist Vedanta can lead to a related problem, to being disconnected and ungrounded. Any form of idealistic, otherworldly teaching that sees life on earth as a dream and focuses on higher realms can lead one to live with complacency, amorality, and indifference. Physical practices such as hatha yoga can lead to bodily perfection instead of an awakening of the heart. Kindulani yoga can lead students to become can lead students to become experience junkies in search of exciting sensations of body and mind rather than liberation. Those such as Krishnamurti and others who teach against any discipline or method of practice can lead people to remain intellectual about spiritual life without providing any deep inner experience. Practices that involve a great deal of study can do the same. Moralistic practices with strong rules about what is pure and what is not can reinforce low self-esteem or lead to rigidity and self-righteousness. Practices of tantra can become an excuse to act out desires as a pseudo form of spiritual practice. Devotion practices can leave clarity and discriminating wisdom undeveloped. Powerful gurus can make us think we can’t do it ourselves. Practices of joy and celebration such as Sufi dancing may leave students lacking an understanding of the inevitable loss and sorrows of life. Practices that emphasize suffering can miss the joy of life.
As you reflect on these shadows, consider your own spiritual path and tradition. Let yourself sense its strengths and weaknesses, its gifts and the ways it can be misused. Notice where you may be caught and what more you might need. Remember that there is nothing wrong with any of these practices per se. They are simply tools for opening and awakening. Each can be used skillfully or unknowingly misused. As you mature in your own spiritual life, you can take responsibility for your own practice and reflect wisely on where you are entangled and what can awaken you to freedom in every realm.
Re: Dark night experiences, I found the following part of Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s introduction interesting…
The first point concerns the Buddhist teaching on action, or kamma (karma). The general understanding of this teaching is that actions from the past determine present pleasure and pain, while present actions determine future pleasure and pain. Or, to quote a recent book devoted to the topic, “Karma is the moral principle that governs human conduct. It declares that our present experience is conditioned by our past conduct and that our present conduct will condition our future experience.” This, however, does not accurately describe the Buddha’s teaching on karma, and is instead a fairly accurate account of the Nigantha teaching, which the Buddha explicitly refutes here.
The Buddha points to one of the most distinctive features of his own teaching on kamma: that the present experience of pleasure and pain is a combined result of both past and present actions. This seemingly small addition to the notion of kamma plays an enormous role in allowing for the exercise of free will and the possibility of putting an end to suffering before the effects of all past actions have ripened. In other words, this addition is what makes Buddhist practice possible, and makes it possible for a person who has completed the practice to survive and teach it with full authority to others.
The second important point touched on in this sutta — how to put an end to pain and suffering — relates to the first. If the cause of present suffering were located exclusively in the past, no one could do anything in the present moment to stop that suffering; the most that could be done would be to endure the suffering while not creating any new kamma leading to future suffering. Although this was the Jain approach to practice, many people at present believe that it is the Buddhist approach as well. Meditation, according to this understanding, is the process of purifying the mind of old kamma by training it to look on with non-reactive equanimity as pain arises. The pain is the result of old kamma, the equanimity adds no new kamma, and thus over time all old kamma can be burned away. In this sutta, however, the Buddha heaps ridicule on this idea.
The Buddha then provides his own account of how meditation actually works in putting an end to pain and suffering. His discussion shows that the problem underlying pain is not past action, but passion — in the present — for the causes of pain. In other words, pain is not inevitable. Present suffering can be prevented by changing one’s understanding of, and attitude toward, the cause of suffering in the present.
Thus the practice must focus on ways to understand and bring about dispassion for the causes of stress and pain here and now.
IMHO, this EBT idea of understanding and achieving dispassion towards the causes of Suffering while pursuing the Path to awakening is what is missing in Ingram’s book. There is a section in the MCTB where he discusses the issue of understanding and overcoming emotions, but he is quite ambivalent about such models, dismissing them as promoting emotional repression. This may be the reason for the pronounced Dark Night symptoms in followers of that path.
First, let me say that I managed to misread the original sutta you linked to. It quite clearly says that the results of actions will be experienced in this life by one who lives in the divine abiding of upekkha. I can’t see how I managed to read it otherwise! A brain fart, I guess!
I haven’t found any sutta yet that supports Buddhaghosa, who often is at odds with the early discourses. But I did come across this interesting (and well-known) sutta (AN 3.100) that sheds more light on the “accelerated fruition” (if I can call it that) of past karma in this very life. It seems to suggest that the results of past deeds will be experienced in a milder form in one who has “developed their physical endurance, ethics, mind, and wisdom.” While even a minor misdeed might send a lesser person to hell, for the developed person the results are experienced in this life, with nothing left over.
To begin by stating what i am guilty of: i have not read Daniel Ingram’s work nor Ven. Analayo’s refutation of it. I have read some of the reflections from other discussants which triggered thoughts if i may share.
The idea of secular Buddhism seems to be the outcome of modern western thought. It does not only view the Buddha’s teachings and monasticism as a religion to begin with, but they probably view the Buddha as a reformer of Indian religions. After all, western enlightenment is often contrasted with the old superstitions propagated by the church, and the rediscovery of Greek philosophy especially Aristotelian logic of which the Buddha’s teachings came to deconstruct. As such, the Buddha’s teachings on Kamma and rebirth are to be discarded. If the Buddha’s teachings can be understood through and contrasted with Aristotelian logic, so enlightenment should have a universal quality, a sort of equal opportunity once the road map is detailed in a way that the modern mind can comprehend.
From what I have read, he downplays the importance of sila, renunciation and monsticism. At least if his views on sila are as described by some input, I don’t see how he reconciles this with karma and rebirth. Anyway, as I said, I didn’t read his work
I had been studying the suttas for several years prior to encountering Dharma Overground soon after it started up and could not figure out Daniel’s interpretation of Buddhist teachings. I have over the years pondered this and have concluded that Daniel is confused – though I am sure he probably feels its me. This is what I think happened:
Daniels initial exposure to Buddhism was through the Mahasi Sayadaw vipassana practice. This school essentially teaches a rigorous insight practice separate from a concentration practice. I have not seen anything to suggest that Daniel is familiar with the history of this style of practice and how it was intentionally crafted during the British occupation of Burma. Ven. Sujato has talked about this some and there are a number of good articles discussing this. The Mahasi insight practice in turn is derived from the progress of insight in the Visuddhimagga.
Daniel sees the EBT’s through this lens (Mahasi →Visuddhimagga → EBTs). Here he writes (my emphasis):
One of the factors that actually adds to the confusion is that the concentration state terminology (jhanas) is used in the original texts to describe both the … concentration states and also the progress of insight, with little delineation of which was which . This was solved to some degree … when the stages of the progress of insight were articulated in the canonical commentaries, but the original problem was not mentioned . It was only in the second half of the 20 th Century that the problem was sorted out to some degree by the Burmese…(From the 2007 version of MCTB pg 133)
When Daniel looks at the EBTs he sees them as confused. You could point him to suttas all day long and it wouldn’t make any difference. For Daniel, maintaining mindfulness means fast noting. Insight practice and concentration practice are separate and only the former leads to enlightenment. Morality (sila) – is also viewed as a separate practice that is not required for enlightenment.
Daniel acknowledges that concentration and morality practices can assist insight practice but he doesn’t see how in the EBT’s they are all aspects of a single practice or if he does – he views this as a corruption of the true teaching (which for him means rapid noting practice into the three characteristics).
He follows his rapid noting practice to its end (4 complete insight cycles) and finds that the results don’t match what is in the EBTs. But he already knows that the EBT’s are corrupted so it stands to reason that the descriptions of an arahant found in those texts are also corrupted.
When Daniel rants and raves about teachers and monastics keeping the true practice secret here is how I understand this: Because Daniel believes that fast noting practice is the most effective means of reaching enlightenment and that this is the true teaching of the Buddha he is angry that monks and lay teachers alike have kept this truth (rapid noting practice as well as true nature of an arahant) a secret. As crazy as this seems, I do believe this is what is going on.
There are many other examples in his writing to support this but I wanted to keep it short.
The source text I am working from can be found here.
I personally have sympathy with the notion that monastics hide aspects from lay people, but this in itself is not a secret. For example, in the suttas, the Buddha discourages his disciples from showing off their psychic power before lay people, likening the act to a sex worker showing off her private parts. This is meant to be a reminder for lay people on what they might be missing . Dedicating more time and effort to the practice bears fruit. No conspiracy out there!
Based on your description, he turned the progress of insight into a technique (fast noting), while the Buddha’s path is natural. For someone who is consumed with a certain task, concentration becomes natural and no time or energy would be wasted. Why to go into lengths of separating the path! The meaning of terms changes as we progress with our practice. The term Jhana has a parallel in Arabic language (جنة) which is the ultimate goal for Muslims. It is probably a supramundane state and falls short from enlightenment. He does not even seem to know that.
In general, why do people read to someone who claims to be an arahant? If ariya knowledge can be conveyed by words other than whats been taught by the Buddha, then the Buddha was not a good teacher! If what people care about is certain experiences described to them so they can fantasize about, then it says about their failure not only in spiritual matters, but more in worldly matters. Drugs, sex, alcohol, money, fame …etc work just fine.
I read this quote a few days ago, but didn’t realize at the time how much it would stay with me. So I wanted to come back and thank you for stating this so clearly. I have found your clear statement very helpful.
Listened to the first 50 minutes or so of the interview.
Bhante Analayo’s article impressed me as quite well argued. And I’ve learned a lot from Bhante Analayo’s books and talks.
Daniel Ingram seemed quite reasonable in his interview. I thought he made good points.
In sum:
I don’t know enough to come to conclusions about this argument and who is presenting a stronger position - I will leave it to others
While I don’t have a desire to read Ingram’s book or learn more about his teachings, I have to say my impression of him has gone up since seeing him in this interview
So I leave this issue with the thought, “Not my circus, not my monkeys.”
When I read the original article by Analayo I was surprized by two things. One that such otherwise acknowledged scholar would produce this kind of mediocre quality, slightly veiled personal attack. I expected a critique of better quality.
Second - that a journal that claims to be scientific would publish this. It’s an opinion piece, it has no science in it. It would be fitting to publish it here on discourse, not in scientific journal.
But now this:
Daniel recounts that Analayo revealed to him that the article was requested by a senior mindfulness teacher to specifically damage Daniel’s credibility, to quote Daniel quoting Analayo ‘we are going to make sure that nobody ever believes you again.’
I paste that from the descritpion under the video. It’s discussed in the first part of the podcast and returns multiple times in later parts.
If this is true… are you kidding me? This is a motivation for a senior monastic? How that is right speach? How is that sila practice?
Honestly, if this is true, how worthy is he of the robes he wears?
This journal publishes peer-reviewed papers that examine the latest research findings and best practices in mindfulness. It explores the nature and foundations of mindfulness, its mechanisms of actions, and its use across cultures. In addition, Mindfulness features papers that address issues involving the training of clinicians, institutional staff, teachers, parents, and industry personnel in mindful provision of services.
Coverage in the journal includes reliability and validity of assessment of mindfulness; clinical uses of mindfulness in psychological distress, psychiatric disorders, and medical conditions; alleviation of personal and societal suffering; the nature and foundations of mindfulness; mechanisms of action; and the use of mindfulness across cultures. Mindfulness features diverse viewpoints, including psychology, psychiatry, medicine, neurobiology, psychoneuroendocrinology, cognitive, behavioral, cultural, philosophy, spirituality, and wisdom traditions. It serves as a much-needed forum for the broad-based, leading-edge research in this burgeoning field.
I read Analayo’s article and didn’t get a hint of a veiled attack. I suppose if I were looking for one I might read that in. I saw a scholar monk scrutinizing a person’s teachings by comparing those teachings to the suttas. I thought it sounds pretty fair and less dogmatic than it certainly could have been.
Only Daniel and Bhikkhu Analayo know the truth about the motivation of the article. I honestly can’t imagine the Venerable Analayo on a malice driven vendetta to damage anyones credibility.
I have not watched the video yet, but I agree with Adytiya. A key point of the article is that Ingram’s definition of an arahant is not consistent with Early Buddhist Texts. I see nothing controversial about that. It’s obvious to anyone reading the book who has read almost any EBTs. Ingram himself is quoted as saying:
“The theory says that anagamis feel no lust, but I certainly felt lust… taht anagamis are unable to become angry, but I could” (p.490)
In my view, it is important to have articles in such journals pointing out these (obvious) differences in interpretation between Buddhist texts and various modern teachers. There are many versions of “mindfulness” being taught, and being studied. I don’t think anyone is claiming that all modern teachings are worthless. But it is important to be aware of the differences.
I hope you’re doing okay! I know that being ace in our highly sexualized culture can be difficult. You do you.
Rather just some doubts about the nature of the various enlightenment paths (first, second, third, fourth) in the MCTB scheme and the rather large dose of emotional turmoil (getting on a hamster-wheel of dark nights, A&Ps and the like) that seemed to go with that in seemingly a good percentage of cases.
). IMO some pretty wise advice in there generally, e.g. if traumatic stuff or past issues comes to the surface up in meditation then maybe the best way to deal with it isn’t necessarily always more meditation, which is described as like poking the fire a bit more with the same stick.
). There’s a story about Dipa Ma there too (one of the side-effects of deep concentation seems to be a temporary shutting down of the brain’s multi-tasking and executive functioning capacities). Seemingly after such meditation she often had real difficulties for a spell doing simple everyday tasks like trying to open the front door (“How do I open the front door?” “Don’t I need something?” “Oh, yes, a key” “Now where is that key?” “Oh, yes, in my back pocket” 
)