help critique Daniel Ingram's "hardcore dharma book"

[beoman]

At xabir's recommendation I've read through Daniel Ingram's self-described "unusually hardcore dharma book" (available here: http://web.mac.com/danielmingram/iWeb/Daniel%20Ingram's%20Dharma%20Blog/The%20Blook/The%20Blook.html ). To me, it seems pretty great. It seems an extremely sober presentation of what this type of spiritual life can offer, what enlightenment means, and how to help get there. Even when he goes on his abusive rants, I tend to see his arguments as making sense (as well as being pretty funny). It seems like a good guide with lots of practical advice that I can follow to help me on my way.

 

However, I also know how my personality works. Anytime I read something with a new point of view about something I don't know that much about, if the arguments seem to make sense to me (which false arguments easily can, due to my inexperience with the material), I tend to agree with it. I maybe agree with it to too large of an extent, that is, until I read another well-presented something perhaps from a different point of view.

 

To get to my point: what are the aspects of his book that you think aren't so true, or so helpful, or might even lead one down the wrong path? I'd like to see some criticism of the book, if you have any, to perhaps help me form a more balanced opinion¹.

 

¹On an unrelated note: doesn't that split infinitive sound good? I totally disagree with that arbitrary English grammar rule not to split them.

[Birch]

I read it when I was freaking out with no context to put my experiences in. It was somewhat helpful (as much as throwing a life-buoy to a drowning person might be.)

 

I found it hardcore, yes. It helped - no MADE me seek out more compassionate practices/practioners. I think he's a cool, extremely cool, very smart guy but I also think he wants his own system. I don't know how I feel about that. I guess he's a really good teacher in his way. Online. Open Source.

 

The pure technicality of it is awesomely written IMO and small experience but since experience varies,...

[Sunya]

Difficult to critique a practical work written by someone who is clearly a master of meditation. I don't believe anyone here is qualified.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

 

 

However, I also know how my personality works. Anytime I read something with a new point of view about something I don't know that much about, if the arguments seem to make sense to me (which false arguments easily can, due to my inexperience with the material), I tend to agree with it. I maybe agree with it to too large of an extent, that is, until I read another well-presented something perhaps from a different point of view.

 

To get to my point: what are the aspects of his book that you think aren't so true, or so helpful, or might even lead one down the wrong path? I'd like to see some criticism of the book, if you have any, to perhaps help me form a more balanced opinion¹.

 

 

 

 

WOW! I am very impressed with this. This is a very self-aware perspective to see your vulnerability to new material this way, and to state it. It is very true for everybody, but most are not able to grasp this because of ego.

[Guest sykkelpump]

I HIGHLY recomand this free ebook.after many many years with meditation this is absolutley the best "how to do meditation" book I have seen.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25864564/The-Anapanasati-Sutta-A-Practical-Guide-to-Mindfulness-of-Breathing-Bhante-Vimalaramsi

[Birch]

"I don't believe anyone here is qualified."

 

To what, exactly?

 

I agree I'm pretty unqualified per the road-book by Mr Ingram. Still, I consider that even if I don't follow his map, I can at least recognize some of the territory he describes.

 

Dogma comes in many forms. Not least of all the ones that resonate with you the most.

[Sunya]

"I don't believe anyone here is qualified."

 

To what, exactly?

 

I agree I'm pretty unqualified per the road-book by Mr Ingram. Still, I consider that even if I don't follow his map, I can at least recognize some of the territory he describes.

 

Dogma comes in many forms. Not least of all the ones that resonate with you the most.

 

It's like asking someone to critique the Honda Civic service manual and repair guide.... to do so you have to be a very experienced mechanic. Daniel has been meditating for atleast 20 years and done many retreats. The book is really just his own experiences of the territory which have been verified by others as well -- he is an MD so knows quite well that peer review is necessary. Many of the posts on DhO are of people who come to the board and say 'wow I read the book and it's describing exactly what I went through and helped me to go deeper' - so yeah, something there.

 

As for dogma, the book has little of that. But it's good to question. I don't agree with everything in the book. I'll reserve my comments though until i'm an expert mechanic

Edited August 11, 2010 by Sunya

[Birch]

"It's like asking someone to critique the Honda Civic service manual and repair guide...."

 

I'm a girl so I tend to just ask "what colour is it"

 

"to do so you have to be a very experienced mechanic. Daniel has been meditating for atleast 20 years and done many retreats."

 

- Good call

 

" The book is really just his own experiences of the territory"

 

- Good call. I think stories are really important.

 

" Which have been verified by others as well"

- This, I find pretty interesting. Do you mean they agreed with him?

 

- "he is an MD so knows quite well that peer review is necessary."

 

- absolutely vital

 

- "Many of the posts on DhO are of people who come to the board and say 'wow I read the book and it's describing exactly what I went through and helped me to go deeper' - so yeah, something there."

 

- Yes, but what exactly?

 

"As for dogma, the book has little of that."

 

- Why?

[beoman]

WOW! I am very impressed with this. This is a very self-aware perspective to see your vulnerability to new material this way, and to state it. It is very true for everybody, but most are not able to grasp this because of ego.

 

After this happened many times, I started noticing the pattern. And it was especially obvious when I read things that argued against what most people believe =P. Hopefully I can keep this in mind whenever I experience new material.

[beoman]

"As for dogma, the book has little of that."

 

- Why?

 

From what I read in the book, it seems to mostly focus on questioning existing dogma. I suppose he has his own in that he believes insight practices are the best to reach awakening, but he also says that this has just been his own experience, which is why he advocates it.

[beoman]

But it's good to question. I don't agree with everything in the book. I'll reserve my comments though until i'm an expert mechanic

 

Would you care to share any comments before then? =P. I'm sure he won't take it personally.. and we might all learn something from the discussion it creates.

[beoman]

If anything, the book is strange because it makes it seem so simple to reach enlightenment. Simple, yet a lot of work, that is. Something like: "First of all, it's important to learn to live in the real world. Now, to see things how they truly are and awaken, do insight practice, learn to see impermanence, suffering, and non-duality in all experiences. In order to do this, you'll need to be able to concentrate, so do these concentration practices to help with that. Don't get too caught up on anything along the way. Once you're enlightened you can go on living in the real world. Good luck!"

[Mattimo]

If anything, the book is strange because it makes it seem so simple to reach enlightenment.

 

Not at all trying to sound pretentious but WHY wouldn't attaining enlightenment be fundamentally simple? Do or do not there is no try? Moreover, since he emphasizes the importance of concentration it really adds credibility to that notion. Paying credence to doubt and the seething conflict of inner dialog is the antithesis of concentration. Have you ever done something you never thought you wouldn't do? Perhaps learned how to drive a car, ride a motorcycle or something else? What purpose did that initial doubt serve, was it valid? I would like to believe it's that simple but despite my rationalization I too still have doubt.

 

Matt

[beoman]

Not at all trying to sound pretentious but WHY wouldn't attaining enlightenment be fundamentally simple? Do or do not there is no try? Moreover, since he emphasizes the importance of concentration it really adds credibility to that notion. Paying credence to doubt and the seething conflict of inner dialog is the antithesis of concentration. Have you ever done something you never thought you wouldn't do? Perhaps learned how to drive a car, ride a motorcycle or something else? What purpose did that initial doubt serve, was it valid? I would like to believe it's that simple but despite my rationalization I too still have doubt.

 

Matt

 

Yea there's no intrinsic reason that I can think of at the moment for why it shouldn't be fundamentally simple, and attainable. But again that's why I asked this question =).

 

From Daniel's point of view, there's just been too much propaganda about enlightenment from the various traditions making it seem like something it's not, causing it to seem inaccessible when apparently it's not. And lots of pop culture stuff about it, such that if you say "I'm trying to reach enlightenment" most people will be like "oh that's nice..." He removes lots of mystique from what it is, saying it's just perceiving the world differently, and that makes it seem more accessible (and also seems like the most sane definition to me). He also doesn't build it up or say why anyone would want to do it ("highly recommended, can't say why").

[xabir2005]

Yea there's no intrinsic reason that I can think of at the moment for why it shouldn't be fundamentally simple, and attainable. But again that's why I asked this question =).

 

From Daniel's point of view, there's just been too much propaganda about enlightenment from the various traditions making it seem like something it's not, causing it to seem inaccessible when apparently it's not. And lots of pop culture stuff about it, such that if you say "I'm trying to reach enlightenment" most people will be like "oh that's nice..." He removes lots of mystique from what it is, saying it's just perceiving the world differently, and that makes it seem more accessible (and also seems like the most sane definition to me). He also doesn't build it up or say why anyone would want to do it ("highly recommended, can't say why").

Freedom from all clingings and afflictions (as taught by Buddha) are possible, despite his dissing of the emotional-elimination model of enlightenment in his book.

 

Daniel is recently starting to see how it is possible to be rid of emotions and attachments. He is still progressing.

 

We want enlightenment because it promises nothing short of the end of all sufferings.

Edited August 11, 2010 by xabir2005

[三江源]

Difficult to critique a practical work written by someone who is clearly a master of meditation. I don't believe anyone here is qualified.

 

Clearly true.

 

 

And I think 'chewing the fat' about it is what could actually happen, and communication is sometimes helpful, and equally sometimes it creates illusions of knowledge where there is none..

[beoman]

Freedom from all clingings and afflictions (as taught by Buddha) are possible, despite his dissing of the emotional-elimination model of enlightenment in his book.

 

Daniel is recently starting to see how it is possible to be rid of emotions and attachments. He is still progressing.

 

is that the distinction between an arahat and a "buddha"? just mastering how to live life in light of an awakened perception?

[xabir2005]

is that the distinction between an arahat and a "buddha"? just mastering how to live life in light of an awakened perception?

No, removing afflictions and sufferings are achieved even at the Arahat level. Buddhahood is on a totally different level and confers things like omniscience, perfection of virtues (paramitas), skillful means, powers, 32 major and 80 minor marks etc etc. I am not aware of any living Buddhas today among the ranks of the enlightened - mostly those who are enlightened in Buddhism are Bodhisattvas and Arhants (or Non Returners, Once Returners, Stream Enterers).

 

Even though Daniel Ingram has very deep insights and enlightenment, I do not think he has achieved Arahatship in Buddha's definition. His definition of Arahatship is in some ways at odds with the Buddha, whose criteria for Arhatship is strictly the elimination of fetters (such as greed, hatred, ignorance, etc) and afflictions and clinging and suffering.

 

Also, in terms of realization, through his previous practice he realized the 1st Stanza of Anatta, but only over the past few months through practicing 'Actualism' he is starting to experience and realize the 2nd Stanza of Anatta (see Thusness's article On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection). Well actually the 2nd Stanza of Anatta is all over Buddhism as well, and especially emphasized in Zen and some other traditions, but somehow he overlooked that aspect. But there is more insights on Anatta and Emptiness than the two stanzas. Also, he is starting to be more accepting to the elimination of afflictions because he is seeing how it is possible in experience.

 

His understanding and experience is still improving. He used to think that on the insight/wisdom front (in contrast to say, morality) his achievement is final and complete, but this position is recently challenged and he no longer holds this view. Nevertheless, you can take MCTB to be your practice guide because it already has very deep insights and practical advice and has led many people to enlightenment - there are few books out there that has this level of clarity and helpfulness/practicality. The MCTB guide will lead you very far before you need to worry about the other subtler aspects.

 

Thusness commented last year in his article Emptiness as Viewless View and Embracing the Transience:

 

...Similarly in Theravada mind is being de-constructed and not experienced as an entity but as mind moments. The transience is also fully embraced when we clearly see that mind as an arising moment is itself non-dual, non-local and complete. Mind moment does not arise or cease anywhere in particular. This is what I tried to bring out in Dharma Overground unfortunately the conditions aren't there and I am unable to convey this message across clearly. :-)

 

An interesting point worth mentioning is about the maps and techniques detailed in Daniel's MCTB (Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha). It is a very systematic way of leading one step by step towards the full integration of the transience. It is also the state of "No Mind" in Zen. Paraphrasing from Kenneth, "once we are familiar with the vocabulary, we are effectively talking the same stuff". That said, I think what lack in the approach of MCTB is an effective way to allow practitioners to have adequate experience of the vividness, realness and presence of Awareness and the full experience of these qualities in the transience. Without which it will not be easy to realize that "the arising and passing sensations are the very awareness itself." A balance is therefore needed, otherwise practitioners may experience equanimity but skewed towards dispassion and lack realization...

Edited August 11, 2010 by xabir2005

[markern]

Xabir would you say that a Buddha has no emotions and no sexuality? What do you think of actualism?

[beoman]

No, removing afflictions and sufferings are achieved even at the Arahat level. Buddhahood is on a totally different level and confers things like omniscience, perfection of virtues (paramitas), skillful means, powers, 32 major and 80 minor marks etc etc. I am not aware of any living Buddhas today among the ranks of the enlightened - mostly those who are enlightened in Buddhism are Bodhisattvas and Arhants (or Non Returners, Once Returners, Stream Enterers).

How would one go from Arahat to Buddhahood? =P. Does anyone know? Not that I have to worry about that at this moment...

 

But there is more insights on Anatta and Emptiness than the two stanzas.

Which insights? Anything you recommend reading?

 

The MCTB guide will lead you very far before you need to worry about the other subtler aspects.

hehe alright I'll bring it up again later then =P.

[beoman]

Even though Daniel Ingram has very deep insights and enlightenment, I do not think he has achieved Arahatship in Buddha's definition. His definition of Arahatship is in some ways at odds with the Buddha, whose criteria for Arhatship is strictly the elimination of fetters (such as greed, hatred, ignorance, etc) and afflictions and clinging and suffering.

 

Using Daniel's framework... would you say that's more work on the level of Training in Morality, or is it more insight practices that lead to that (from non-returner to Arhant)? or something else entirely? right now my scope is either: morality, concentration, or insight, mostly cause I just read the book.

Edited August 11, 2010 by beoman

[xabir2005]

Xabir would you say that a Buddha has no emotions and no sexuality? What do you think of actualism?

 

Actualism is pretty good and their online resource and articles are worth going through, but there are some problems - particularly the over emphasis on the practice. Right view is equally important to achieve Realization. Even though Richard had realized Anatta, he under-emphasized the Realization part, over-emphasized the practice to induce PCEs (Pure Consciousness Experience - which is simply an experience but not the realization of anatta), and over-emphasized his achievement. Also, whatever Richard experienced is found in Buddhism even though he thinks he is the first in the world to realize/experience whatever he experienced due to a lack of understanding of Buddhism (see my 47 pages document titled 'Actual Freedom and Buddhism' about this at http://www.box.net/shared/sbyi64jrms )

 

I and Thusness do not think Richard has overcomed all subtle dispositions. Richard still actively have sex and have a smoking habit, for example. Though he claims to be above passions, we doubt so. There is a 'grayscale of no self/Self' as Thusness puts it. This grayscale could be the difference between Stream Entry to Arhatship. After maturing the insight of Anatta, afflictions may be reduced to a large degree (but not totally removed) and one may easily over-estimate one's achievement, but without going through all aspects of life, it is best we do not over-claim. As Thusness said, even after maturing the insight of Anatta to a high degree, one still does not eliminate the deeper dispositions.

 

However, Thusness did talk about (from personal experience) transcending sexual lust since many years back. So yes, if you reach a very deep level of enlightenment, you go beyond lust. He also talks about fearlessness, anger-lessness, etc. However he recently told me that these are not totally removed (though reduced to a very high extent).

 

As I wrote in the 'Actual Freedom and Buddhism' document:

 

Update: Thusness just informed me that emotions still arise on some occasions, and that he has as-of-yet not completed his path, however emotions (if and when they do arise) recoils/self-liberates/subsides as soon as they arise. Still, my above mapping of the various stages of realizations and the observation that Thusness does not deny the ‘Buddhist 10 fetters/emotion-elimination model of enlightenment’ still stands valid. He also notes from experience that the momentum of the experience of pure sensate clarity without a self/soul in waking life will eventually carry on into dreams (even though he doesn’t dreams nowadays except when physically ill), and thereby allowing fears and negative emotions to subside in the dream state (PCE continues throughout the dream state and no affective quality/emotions are present therein).

 

Even though he does not deny that there is a link between the experience of Anatta and the ‘freedom from emotions/passions’, he also warned people not to over-claim what they have attained. He seems to think that it is highly possible to be tricked into thinking that one has attained something (like total and complete freedom from emotions) prematurely after the realization of Anatta. He said that one has to go through life (and its hardships) before proclaiming such things, and that there is a ‘grayscale of no-self’ and we have to go through life to experience the many faces of self/Self in the forms of attachments. He thinks that it is very naïve to think that one has overcome all sufferings and attachments when one has not faced with tremendous hardships in life (without the hardships, of course everything is fine) – for example being nailed to the cross like Jesus Christ. We should not make premature claims because we simply have not experienced all scenarios in life. He also said that (after the realization of Anatta), it may seem like complete freedom from emotions where emotions and passions never arises at all, but actually there are deeper dispositions than just a matter of directness. In directness, there is no subject-object division or gap, there is no separation, and without this separation it is simply ‘too short’ to have time and too simple to have thoughts, and one might think that therefore it is final, as stated in the 7 Phases of Thusness’s insights. Nevertheless, Thusness Phase 5 still leaves traces. He also mentioned that in practice, one should be sincere about tendencies because it conveys the deeper disposition. For example, when I asked Thusness for his opinion on Richard’s self-confessed habit of smoking, active sex-life, etc, he talks about them as examples of ‘deeper disposition’ that will not be removed even after maturing the insight of anatta.

 

In fact according to Buddha’s standards, if you are still having sex and smoking, you cannot by definition be an arhant since you have already transgressed 2 out of 9 principles (the third and the fifth) that an Arhant cannot transgress due to the complete end of fermentations and the ‘deeper dispositions’ and any subtle cravings that Thusness spoke of. (see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.007.than.html) By Buddha’s standards (the commentaries, and the modern masters, and Daniel Ingram all have different standards), I would say that perhaps Richard has only reached the level of Sotapanna or likely Sakadagami (first or second out of four levels of enlightenment towards Arhantship (complete liberation): see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sot%C4%81panna , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakadagami , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An%C4%81g%C4%81mi , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arahant). Having a realization of Anatta does not mean you have ended the deeper dispositions.

Edited August 11, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Using Daniel's framework... would you say that's more work on the level of Training in Morality, or is it more insight practices that lead to that (from non-returner to Arhant)? or something else entirely? right now my scope is either: morality, concentration, or insight, mostly cause I just read the book.

It is not a matter of training in morality... more like a combination of wisdom and samadhi perhaps, in the process of eliminating fetters.

 

However, when the afflictions are totally ended, it will also be a kind of perfection of morality. In traditional Buddhism, Arhants are also known to be perfect in sila or morality.

 

Therefore, the 'emotional elimination model' does in fact lead to the 'action elimination model' both of which are supported in the original scriptures by the original Buddha.

 

For example - if you do not have sexual lust anymore, you cannot rape someone. You cannot '...' (insert crime) because the afflictions/lust/anger are gone.

Edited August 11, 2010 by xabir2005

[beoman]

It is not a matter of training in morality... more like a combination of wisdom and samadhi perhaps, in the process of eliminating fetters.

 

However, when the afflictions are totally ended, it will also be a kind of perfection of morality. In traditional Buddhism, Arhants are also known to be perfect in sila or morality.

 

Therefore, the 'emotional elimination model' does in fact lead to the 'action elimination model' both of which are supported in the original scriptures by the original Buddha.

 

For example - if you do not have sexual lust anymore, you cannot rape someone. You cannot '...' (insert crime) because the afflictions/lust/anger are gone.

Isn't it more accurate to say "you could if you wanted to, but you don't"?

 

Or let's say you had all of your best friends and family in front of you, and they were being systematically shot until you committed a small crime, just for the pleasure of the people doing it to make an "enlightened" being do something "unenlightened". Would you be physically incapable of committing whatever small crime and saving your family? Would you just say "well it's not me that's causing my family to be killed, I'm just going to chill and watch", because of your 'perfect actions'? Ironically this question is one that I thought of posing when I first got into Buddhism, but later realized it's probably not that important. However, now that you talk about "perfect action", I'm curious what you think.

 

I also realize you could just have compassion for everyone involved but still not do the small crime. but wouldn't that cause "more" suffering than if you just 'conceded'?

Edited August 11, 2010 by beoman

[xabir2005]

See Buddha's high standards/criteria for claiming 'Arahantship':

 

http://www.yellowrobe.com/component/content/article/120-majjhima-nikaya/318-chabbisodhana-sutta-the-sixfold-purity.html "Discourse on six ways of testing Arahatship"

Edited August 11, 2010 by xabir2005