Hi everyone, I have included a link to Bikkhu Analayo's article 'Meditation Maps, Attainment Claims, and the Adversities of Mindfulness' in the description :-)
@@4everflow To be fair, the "institution" that Ingram is combating is barely a century old lol. What do you mean "there is no other side and it's all emptiness"?
Frank, did u read the original article? The author claims that all arhants have erectyle dysfunction & become asexual. F-frank, y-you can still get h-hard, r-right?
Personal Entertainment : BA mentioned the loss of desire as a marker of liberation. DI was quoted referencing potential clinical causes for erectile dysfunction. These are two different points. This point is discussed the the interview. Note DI became animated by the possibility that an Arhant would not feel sexual desire. Perhaps this is because …?
I’ve been responding to a lot of the negative comments about Daniel. Some people assume they can understand Daniel’s experience. I’m not saying I know either. What I can do is try to understand Daniel from my own experience. What I do is imagine a liberation so freeing that one can defend their work and have petty shit arise and fall away effortlessly. The best we can do is look at Daniel’s work and actions: free book, free help, willingness to be open and share experiences, desire to share teachings but not be a teacher. If he does have this grand ego inside him, that some claim in the comments below or in the pages of a magazine, I’d say this: This grand ego could have made a lot more money and gotten a lot more power in this lifetime by selling teachings and being a power hungry teacher (and it is clear he could have the following to do that). Personally I am very grateful for the courage that arose in Daniel when he published and shared his first book and the courage that continues to arise in him today. Keep rocking the boat Daniel, there is no better way to wake people up then an unexpected, yet refreshing, swim in the river.
Liberation goes beyond conceptual thinking. You can't imagine that as long as you are within conceptual thinking. Like a person born blind can not imagine what light looks like. The buddhist type of liberation frees you from illusions. After that there is no longer any need to defend anything. Beyond words, beyond thoughts, beyond description, prajnaparamita, as the heart sutra states. You cross that event horizon, you stop thinking the way conventional beings are tied to. Your interaction wtih the world is no longer based on thinking but on wisdom insight. But attention. You can have experiences of this, and fall out of it again. And, no, concentration states can feel pretty freeing and empowering and magical, but are not liberation.
@@Colin055 If you talk about it you need to describe it within some kind of conceptual framework. Otherwise, how would you talk about something that is not going on within the mind of conceptual thoughts. As the heart sutra states, beyond words, beyond thought, beyond description. But you have to be able to communicate about it somehow, or there would be no buddhist teaching that can be taught to people who do not yet know this from first hand experience. It can not be described in and by itself, but one can describe what attributes it has and which it hasn't. You can definitely describe what is NOT liberation.
@@Colin055 No, it's the conceptual framework of how to provoke "far out there" meditation experiences. That's something different than realisation. But he believes it's realisations. That's in fact what a ton of Tibetan texts on the subjects warn about, do not mistake meditative experience for realisation, and if there really is frequent warning of it, apparently it's a common mistake or a mistake that is very easy to fall into. That's why in traditions like mahamudra or dzogchen your living, qualified master (same if you work with a master in zen) regularly checks the meditative experiences of the student to catch and correct things like this. I do not believe that the theravada tradition has this in depth checkup system for meditative experiences and realisation. In the Tibetan tradition you find a ton of anecdotes mocking meditators who after a few experiences it got to their heads and think they are enlightened. It's the same with the self declared "enlightened" people in the hindu based sanyas scene by the way, so this is actually not uncommon. It's just, yeah, one more of those guys. By the way, I watched his talks on this channel about magic, which I found extremely interesting but where I also found in terms of the "buddhist magic" he is totally missing the point and quite uncomfortably worldly in his attitude towards it.
Daniel is the trailblazer who stepped out into the wild alone, and then took a load of arrows to the back just to open up the Path for more people in our modern age. Whether you agree with him or not, he made hardcore insight practice into something accessible. His work influenced and inspired my own Path, and even though I don't utilize the same models anymore, I have immense respect for what he's done and his bravery in speaking out in the face of backlash from puritans and traditionalists. Another quality episode, Steve; thanks again for your work in bringing these conversations into the world of RUclips and beyond.
I think your post sums the core issue with what Daniel Ingram does. He certainly is making things more accessible, but he is doing so by altering the definitions and watering them down. He is also in effect stating that Theravadan Arahants that exist today, or have existed in the past, many of whom were monastics who selflessly have their lives to the Dhamma, were all deluded or exaggerating. That for 2500 years of people walking this path and accomplishing it, everyone has been wrong , and that Daniel Ingram, with his new definition of Arahant is right. It's like dropping the standard for what constitutes an A grade so that everyone can say they got the top marks. It certainly may make getting top marks more accessible, but is it really good in the long term? Is motivating people by making the standards lower worth the damage that is done. Because of Daniel Ingram there are now people who discover Theradavan Insight meditation who believe that the traditional Arahantship is a myth. I think that is very sad.
@@youtubeyyolhdusn8771 ok, fair. Let’s figure out what neutral science can lend to the discussion and move from the realm of quotes and informed opinions to harder data. Interested in helping to make this happen? Www.theeprc.org
@@youtubeyyolhdusn8771 yes! very well said 👏 Arahant are taintless this lineage has existed for 2500 years an incredible long time.. At the the time of the buddha all arahant including the buddha himself stated arahants are taintless and passion free, devoid of craving etc There wasn't even 1 Arahant who could have sex now Daniel new age Arahant says otherwise??? Something is fishy either he is lying or he is telling the truth....who knows really.... Besides if Arahant could have sex why on earth would lord buddha set down a rule forbidden 🚫 sex? Why would he makes sex taboo for monks? they answer is abvious 🙂 Buddha himself said there are 9 things that is impossible for a arahant to do This is from sutavan sutta Buddha stated here: "it is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse" -sutavan sutta- Maybe Daniel really attained a permanent spirtual state But he shouldn't mistake it for nibbana and neither should he says that he is an arahnt a taintless person if he know he's state does not match the sutta's
Daniel sounded fairly full of ego to me. Both protagonists seem rather lost in concepts. I don’t care if Daniel is an arahant or not. I can see he has some attainments. The scientific community will carry on being scientific, and I expect, largely unswayed by this. I just care about progressing on my own path. To get even somewhere close to Daniel’s attainments in this lifetime, would be wonderful for me 😊
Thank you, Viking for an honest, intelligent, and incisive interview. Daniel Ingram's command of information is certainly impressive. Having read the article that originates the interview, I couldn't find any science in it. I saw a fundamentalist argument against an opposing point of view. If the discussion about meditation is kept in the realm of poetry, which is what the “holy” scriptures in all religions do, there will never be any agreement on anything. As Daniel states in the final remarks (2:17 forward) the tiebreaker is science. Let's get the data!
This guy is a true genius!! 😍👌 Cant express enough gratitude towards this fellow, the way that he inspires and shares with openess, Clairity and deep knowledge and Wisdom that is thousand years old wich is almost forgetten today is totally mindblowing! Greatful for your hard work and that you are sharing with us Daniel! 🙏💕
Wow, after hearing Daniel's defenses I now have even more faith in his views. And reassurance that we're all human, whatever our attainments or whatever are.
@@backwardthoughts1022 hey, it's been a while since I watched the interview, I would be increadibly thankful if you reminded me what he said that would be classified as physicalism. If you do, thank you very much!!!! Have a great day! :)
Great interview. Despite it being adversarial in nature it was very cordial. I really appreciate Daniel and his book. I read part of it at the right place at the right time and it helped me go through a _very_ difficult period of my life. For that I am forever thankful.
I think in the interest of fairness, there is a kind of lazy, uncritical openness that is just as ridiculous as control-freak gatekeeping. Especially since the unfolding of dharma teachings in the West is still in its infancy. Anyone that has observed dharmaoverground example for years sees so much confusion, a lack of precision, and a spirit of perennialism taken beyond a reasonable limit where everything just becomes a brown mess. The fact that Ingram mentioned that he regularly receives hundreds of emails from people making (per his assessment) very mistaken claims to attainment points to the dangers of the other extreme as well. I'm sure you wouldn't call his assessment of their mistaken claims to be "gatekeeping", and once we acknowledge that then we're having a much more nuanced discussion because that is exactly what some genuine traditional lineages do as well (that is, correct and protect people from major contemplative mistakes).
Just came across this. Daniel has been the most impactful teacher I have encountered. Gil Fronsdal, Michael Taft and Culadasa have/had nothing on him. And amazing reporter of phenomenology and an adept Dharma friend (he seems to prefer this term rather than teacher). Daniel has made concepts clear to me in a sentence that others have failed to help me see or just plain refused to address. Keep on keeping on, Daniel. Those of us who are goal oriented need you.
The idea that an authority is required to certify a subjective experience is quite absurd, especially when one can't even prove anyone other than oneself is conscious, and even that is debatable. One might even argue that believing you know someone else's subjective experience is a form of delusion
Regarding Bhikku Analayo's claim that the stages of insight apply only to theravadin insight practitioners, I attended several sesshins with Rinzai Roshi Joshu Sasaki back in the 80's and 90's, and he described the same experience that Daniel does in his book, the experience of the rising and falling, the flickering, of the phenomenal world, or at least the perception thereof. If the stages of insight only pertain to Theravadin practitioners, how is it that a practitioner of zazen reports an experience of the same insight into the impermanence of the phenomenal world?
Great robust discussion! Good that Daniel gets to put a defence of his work out there. Shame that he’s defending himself from something appearing in a scientific journal which may be countering some of the good research done into these states and traits and put future researchers off. Great questioning.
Enlightened or not , Daniel took terms from other traditions and redefined them. It doesn’t affect me if he is enlightened or not, the point is whilst many people can agree he is helpful, there is an issue of the misappropriation and misrepresentation. You can describe misappropriation in multiple ways, “adopting,taking and using customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one society by another, misrepresenting them and benefiting.” Literally inappropriate use, its causes personal gain and unnecessary harm to the original society. The Mahasi Sayadaw who Daniel says his practice is based on , didn’t describe the stages of insight (a phrased he used originally) as Daniel does, if Daniel suggests he is in line with this, he is misleading people and misrepresenting Mahasi Vipassana. By calling his description “stages of insight” , he implies it is what the Mahasi Sayadaw taught, whilst there is similarities, it isn’t. This is misrepresentation. The word Arahant isn’t a protected title, but we know it means a specific thing associated to Buddhism. Daniel might say I don’t call myself a Buddhist but strongly presents himself as one by taking typically Buddhist words to describe himself and his findings. We know if people see it they would be interested and think it’s Theravada or Mahayana. He implies he is the enlightened person described by Buddhist schools when he is something else. Again, this is misrepresentation. The stages of insight and the word Arahant are well respected because of traditional schools. Describing your own findings with those buzzwords means it will get more credibility and following even though they have deviated and may not be deserving. He may not be getting money but misrepresentation is giving his own methods recognition and fame. This is misappropriation and misrepresentation which leads to his gain. If formulating new ideas please don’t suggest to people its the same as some respected authorities ideas and get the respect they earned . Make it clear, I have deviated from my teachers and use your own words. Earn your respect, credibility and following, if your practice is fine it would do that without taking from other ones. Daniel might not be misappropriating consciously and have good intention, what a vivacious spirit he has, but it doesn’t mean a very negative thing isn’t happening. There’s a more positive ways to spread our discoveries. May we all be at peace, may we all be free from suffering🙏.
A really great interview. I think Daniel argued his points really well. I love Analyos books but I think this article was an uncharitable reading of Daniels presentation of The Buddhas teachings. From an ethical point of view I think Analayo should have 'owned it' - regardless of whether he was encouraged to write it or not. Analayo did make some good points and I am still not clear how subtle micro experiences of the nanas fear/disgust etc relate to macro experiences of cycling the nanas over months/weeks. However I think the good points of his critique were overshadowed by his unkind reading of Daniels work - this ultimately hurt his argument rather than helped it. - Having practiced mindfulness for decades in various forms...I have never had experiences that clearly lined up with the stages of insight in the ways Daniel describes....but I always assumed this was because the dosage wasn't high enough. I am also sensitive to the fact that this seeming lack of progress...might make me susceptible to interpreting my experience that put me further along than I am.
When I look at Delson Armstrong, he's very present, calm and on point. There's an intensity around Daniel I find a bit uncomfortable if that's the end state. That's me though.
Delson claims that the Brahma viharas can be reached to the formless realms, each one dropping off at each increasingly higher formless jhana. That alone with his very very unlikely claims to experience literally no suffering, even a shred, ever, even in the worst possible circumstances, turned me off of him. The video of him speaking to his monastery audience after the teacher there died (vimalaramsi) was something too. He made all kinds of claims about being reborn with that teacher all the way from the time of the Buddha if I recall correctly. Not that any of that means he is a fraud, it's just those are big claims, and teaching about the jhanas in ways that multiple other teachers whom I trust MUCH more say is not possible makes me highly skeptical. I liked him initially.
Privately breaking into open cheers at home, by myself, on my couch, when Daniel goes off on not including negative emotions as an acceptable part of awakened character; and to calling out mainstream psychology and medicine for basically realizing fuck-all about all this stuff for over a hundred years.
As a non-Buddhist, I find the whole dispute rather entertaining. Just reading: "... according to some accounts, there has not been an Arahat for the last two thousand years." (Self-Liberation, Through Seeing With Naked Awareness, 2000, p. 83)
I think Daniel does pretty well here. New to his ideas, but being open about arhatship possibly being possible in this very life is a gamechanger. Grating communication style but his openness is refreshing.
I’m about 28 minutes in when they talk about the abstract. I may not personally agree with the dark night stuff (I think it’s rarer than people think) - I started with breath meditation, moved to TMI, and then to Shinzen. None of which really talk deeply about insight stages. Now i am reading Daniels book and am nodding along. I think the biggest issue is that the author of the abstract has not done long periods of practice personally. Yoga, meditation, tai chi, etc. all produce sensory phenomenon and experiences that relate to this. That’s why there is so much common discussion with spiritual experiences: Holy Spirit, light, energy, chi, kundalini awakening, and so on. This is just the weird shit that happens when you focus on sensory experience. Example: Shinzen style noting isn’t “fast” and is designed specifically to NOT construct experiences. He doesn’t say to look for specific things ... work with what arises and gives some general advice. There is no scripting. He does not even say to look for impermanence, dissatisfaction, or no self. He just comments and gives examples of what can arise, without giving preference for anything specific. Ramblings...my apologies. Summary: you don’t need to know about the maps to experience weird shit or things on the maps. The article is invalid from the abstract :( Sorry you have to deal with this Daniel.
"I think the biggest issue is that the author of the abstract has not done long periods of practice personally." What makes you think that? According to the two interviews linked to below "long periods of practice" is what Anālayo spends most of his time doing. www.buddhistinquiry.org/article/a-conversation-with-bhikkhu-an%C4%81layo/ archive.is/20101111112754/nidahas.com/2010/10/analayo_meditative_scholar/
@@dhammanandobhikkhu1244 I am neither agreeing or disagreeing but there's also differences between long periods of practice, how one practices and what's their nature
I think these issues are pretty subtle and it seems unlikely that most can really fairly litigate one way or another. That said, I'll rather arrogantly share my impression: Independent of any judgement on Ingram, there really does seem to be a general trend where the more rigorous and involved a practitioner or teacher is in traditional or 'neo-traditional' buddadharma, the less persuaded they are by Ingram's claims. There also appears to be a countertrend of people who are generally skeptical of the traditional Buddhist project more broadly that seem to be more receptive to Ingram. Make of that what you will. After many years of observing all of this it seems that the Theravada reformists of the last 100ish years have incidentally opened the door to people like Ingram. They themselves have pushed questionable interpretations while claiming interpretative authority on the suttas. Similarly they have pushed reformist views of practice and all too often reject older Sravaka practice lineages. Anyone familiar with the very political history of the reformist movement will find none of that is surprising. In a way Ingram seems to be doing something similar. Perhaps back and forth between Theravadin reformers and "Buddhist modernists" who focus on the suttas may be a good thing if it leads to more clarity, but I think we're still waiting for that. Perhaps not. I'm not going to speak to his intentions, but I do believe his interpretation is less than fitting and not reflective of what the vast majority of buddadharma practitioners understood arhatship and liberation to mean at least in in some crucial sense. My own view is that it's dishonest to redefine terms (such as arahant) in the way people like Ingram have done for the sake of self-adorning it, it has created a lot of confusion and seems pretty unnecessary. One has to wonder why he didn't just reject the category of arahant outright if he finds all of the definitions wanting! To note, I think he is making quite a bit more of the supposed historical "redefining" of arhatship than is justified. It seems like Ingram isn't familiar enough with what Indo-Tibetan traditions say about arhatship. Motivational rhetoric intended for Mahayanists or drawing distinctions between Mahayana and that of pursuing arhatship isn't the same as "redefining" it. You'll find defenses and disagreements concerning arhats throughout Tibetan literature regarding their relative status to pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, vidyadharas, and Buddhas, but not typically about whether or not arhats entirely eliminate afflictive obscurations. This is a very critical distinction exactly because it concerns an essential component of the definition of arhatship and Ingram seems to overlook this. His justification for redefining arhatship seems to rest, at least in part, on fairly basic observations Mahayanans have made for a very long time, observations of which include the character of insight into no self but do not themselves entail a justification for redefining what an arhat is. Perhaps he would be better justified in claiming that the method he prefers doesn't get you to arhatship proper, perhaps something closer to path of the pratyekabuddha or a lapsed Mahayanist. Secondly, that modern Theravadins may have gotten something quite wrong in imagining arhatship as something other than historically contingent (a view held by many Mahayanists). His framing of the relationship of no self, sexuality, and liberation seem to be divorced from the broader discussion in Buddhism and instead is constrained to a pretty myopic focus on arhats and theravada. It is trivial to acknowledge that the broader discussion in Buddhism distinguishes between ending afflictive obscurations and say sexuality or desire in of itself. Instead of trying to arbitrarily redefine terms he can simply say he agrees with other Buddhist traditions on the matter. Historically arhats haven't been the primary focus of most of Buddhism as Buddhism intellectually matured. Why is this the emphasis at all especially given that there are already ways to understand insight into no self, impermanence and the ending of afflictive obscurations that do not depend on the label "arhat" or the specific contingent features of the arhat path? In short, so much of his project seems to be, with all due respect, somewhat unclear, entirely unnecessary, and could be avoided to focus on far more important things (including work that Ingram to his credit does seem to be involved in) save his crusade to trademark and self-market a new, and wholly unnecessary, definition of arhat. Or, he could have saved everyone a lot of time and said that he simply agrees with some of the practitioners during the 4-5th century interacting with Vasubhandu who asserted that some arhats retained sexual impulses etc., that he rejects contrary views, and that he wishes to resurrect or honor this view in light of how certain methods he favors play out. That would have been a more fruitful, and frankly more interesting, project. It also would be less likely to promote the level of discord and confusion that his current approach seems to bring about. Moving on, in my own practice I've found his approach to be honestly limited and his "creative" interpretations or understanding of Vajrayana and Dzogchen are unquestionably mistaken and fairly uninformed. Perhaps this is less of a concern to others because Ingram isn't claiming to be an expert in these traditions, and fair enough, but he does speak very confidently about them, not uncommonly citing anonymous sources. I'm sure Ingram has many positive qualities as a person, it really does seem so, but personally I find his bold pronouncements about those things (Vajrayana/Dzogchen) in particular to be unwise, unhelpful, and causing a lot of confusion in people who listen to what he says. Something I've verified several times over being the confusions of others who claim they learned x or y about Dzogchen from Ingram. Lastly, it seems a bit inappropriate for him to preempt the discussion by basically poisoning the well and claiming nothing short of a personal conspiracy against him. These are pretty serious accusations and without evidence. Obviously even if it were true it has no bearing on the substance of the critique, but I really would have preferred a more impersonal and even-minded response from Ingram. The paper in question seems fair enough, even if one rabidly disagrees with it. I myself wasn't impressed with swaths of it and I think Ingram's critique of elements of the paper, for example as it relates to say mindfulness, is very fair. I also think for example there is a valid Dzogchen-informed constructionist critique of Ingram's approach that goes much further than the paper is able to and includes the implicitly constructionist elements of even the "noticing" Ingram speaks of, but such a critique isn't appropriate in a Theravadin context and is less concerning afflictive obscurations and more concerns knowledge obscurations. When one decides to blend one's public identity with the label "arahant" and then teaches to this effect, if there is a robust critique to be had, then there really is no way for some of it not to fall into the sphere of said public identity. That specific consequence doesn't seem to be a fault of Analayo's. If anything, this speaks to the questionable wisdom of actively marketing oneself in this way. One might be led to wonder whether it would be difficult for Ingram to ever publicly acknowledge that he was simply wrong on this point of attaining arhatship qua arhatship, or that marketing himself this way has done more harm than good, given how enmeshed his reputation and social identity is in all of this. I acknowledge that could be a difficult position to be in. For these and other reasons, myself and some of the senior practitioners I know from the TIbetan traditions can't justify giving support to Ingram's claims, nor recommending him. If anything, it seems appropriate to relay a word of caution if the topic comes up. Again, this isn't meant as some kind of condemnation of him as a person. I think Ingram expressed himself quite well throughout the conversation and made some very good points. Thanks for the conversation.
Your thoughtful response passes my eye test for awakening far more than the sense I get from Ingram. His nervousness and defensiveness jump off the screen at me. His interest in throwing others under the rug, his detracting from all the established "rules" except where they fit his own narrative... this is all about him. He may be supremely intelligent and may be incredibly helpful to many, but I see a delusional narcissist here, not someone who has dropped the fetters and embodies enlightenment.
I did not read the article by Bhikkhu Analayo as a personal attack. Bhikkhu Analayo's primary concern is to defend the Theravadan viewpoint. Bhikkhu Analayo argues that based on the Theravadan tradition and Daniel's own statements about himself, he is not an arahant. Another way of seeing it is that as a monk - and therefore as someone who has dedicated his life to the teachings of the Buddha - he does not want the teaching of the Buddha to be devalued. Daniel has kind of set himself up for this by saying that he is an 'arahant' (i.e. using a specific and clearly defined term from the Pali canon) while simultaneously admitting that he does not share the characteristics of an arahant described by those texts. I think that if you read the Bhikku Analayo article he does make a strong case.
Are you kidding? The article is super personal. He doesn't just claim Daniel is not an arahant, he claims that Daniel has not even reached the first insight stage. That alone shows personal ill will, as he doesn't know Daniel and yet he's insecure enough to write a whole article about him and say he's nothing. Daniel not having the qualities of the traditional Arahant is fair, the texts were passed by word for hundreds of years and then written down for thousands through so many different people. If you or anybody else likes impossible standards for enlightenment then lol
Meditation is a means to experience what we are and how we grow, and change so as to learn how to facilitate rather than hinder the process. It is not the process itself.
it is a dark age, we are full of spiritual pride. why this is in any way helpful? if any practitioner measure hes own realization or try to critique another practitioner, he is an asura, on a paranoia state. if he clings to a jnana state, he is on the realm of gods. not out of the wheel of suffering. am i right? or my understanding is just tibetan buddhism? i think that theses scholar debates are actually anti buddhist, cause if we want true freedom, we cannot orchestrate any attempt of achieving anything. and here i am arguing and measuring others, what a naughty scene.
The critiques have convinced me to re-read his book - even to ignore the magick etc. Arhat - he explains this, even with timestamps. Equanimity while watching TV? Practice should be carried off the mat - so why not find yourself feeling the equanimity of all - while watching a truly moving piece of music, or art, or journalism, or documentary.... And the critiques of green monsters or faeries - have we read the Bardo Thodol lately? Here we see why so many pursue a solo practice. Pacceka for me ty ;)
I just watched this video now and I want to thank Daniel Ingram for everything he has done! I had no idea about stages of insight before reading MCTB2 and I was in complete shock when - after reading it- I discovered I had A&P first time back in 2019 - I could luckily find my descriptions of the experience and I could also easily see soon after A&P I went into the Dark Night stages, that I thought back then were sort of a Jungian "entrance into the Unconscious". I could find the Fear stage and later Disgust stage which I also experienced in very straightforward way - again these happened while I was not practicing vipassana and had no clue about insight stages at all. I have at least 5 friends who I think had A&P and further went into Dark Night territory, none of them were vipassana meditators back then or had any clue about the insight stages; 2 of them did start doing serious practice after. There is absolutely NO WAY that insight stages don't happen to people who do other practices. No way. Yes, the stages will look a little different to different practitioners and there may be content that pops up that is colored by each person's worldview for sure but that's different from "the stages only exist within Theravada Buddhist insight practice". And I'm so grateful for having the chance to find this out ! Cause had I not found out I would not be doing insight meditation NOW. Many more great points made here; maybe personal anecdotes are not appreciated but then I am not a Buddhist scholar, I can only say my experience and my friends' experience does match the map as presented by Daniel Ingram in his book and we definitely didn't script them cause we didn't know the map even existed when we first had them.
@guruviking thanks for the interview! Would you please next time when interview Daniel ask him about his opinion on rebirth? I would really appreciate it!
this is a lack of integrity and a lack of realization by Bikkhu Analayo. When academics mistake knowledge for realization, they get lost believing it's about interpretation instead of being about existing as the unconditioned self, and simply describing your direct experience. institutionalized corruption of the teachings of the Buddha with unwarranted authority from scholars without realizations. Bikkhu Analayo is spreading misinformation and misguiding people with his greed, unfortunate and shameful from someone in his position.
I find this particular part of BA's discussion at Harvard on Rebirth interesting, and wish he had shown something like that spirit a bit in the article: ruclips.net/video/YLT63llyQgI/видео.html You might back up a minute or two if you want a bit more context.
im reading MCTB and it's a treasure, but watching Daniel explaining those things live on camera is just next-level insightful. Big thanks to Viking, for me it shines through how much time and thought he puts into preparing his interviews with Daniel. The only small critique i'd see is that this one felt a bit scripted, there were no follow-up questions after Daniel's responses, but i can understand that, dealing revolt of certain personas of Buddhist orthodoxy is tough, and fair enough that Daniel himself had patience and grace to clearly answer each point of those unsurprisingly strawman-filled attacks. Anyway, bell-subscribed and looking forward for more of thorough exchanges. Appreciated!
The video description makes the conspiratorial claim that Ven Analayo "revealed" that his article was requested by a meditation teacher to damage Ingram's credibility and make sure no-one believed Ingram again. This doesn't sound like Analayo at all, so I emailed him to check. He confirmed that this didn't happen. What did happen was a meditation teacher sent Analayo a copy of Ingram’s book, apparently in the hope that he would write a critique. But there was no mention of “damaging credibility” or “making sure nobody ever believes you again”. @guruviking could you change the description and note that Ingram's claims are not true, thanks.
Hello Sujato Bhikkhu, Thank you for your comment. To clarify, the video description does not make the claim that 'Ven Analayo "revealed" that his article was requested by a meditation teacher to damage Ingram's credibility and make sure no-one believed Ingram again'. If you watch the video you will see that it is Daniel Ingram who makes that claim, which the video description states.
@@GuruViking Well, a more neutral phrasing would be "Daniel claims that Analayo told him". More to the point, it didn't happen. Does this not give you pause?
@@fintefriends respectfully, how do you know that it didn't happen? One party claims one thing, the other claims another. Other than personal trust and public credibility within religious contexts, and I suppose monastic vows and precepts? Editing the description to add that the claims are untrue would seem to depart from neutrality into a judgement of truthiness. I think your more neutral phrasing is a fair edit to make.
@@lewiji Just noting that so far, only one person in the room has actually made the effort to do some basic fact-checking. Hi there! What Ingram says happened did not in fact happen. If OP has doubts, it is his responsibility to fact-check things he is posting on his channel, not mine.
@@fintefriends Hello sir! Well, I would like to fact check your claim that "what Ingram says happened did not in fact happen", as well as Daniel's claims, but to me, a third party, the contents of 2 private conversations (between Ingram and Ven. Analayo, and yourself and Ven. Analayo) aren't verifiable, due to their private nature. There is no data or evidence either way.
As Bhikkhu Analayo said, he would have had no issue if Ingram purely used his methods for medical science without bringing in the traditional terms and attainments. It is one thing to claim arahantship and attainments on the traditional path of liberation and another to "modernize" the dhamma for scientific use. Ingram should make clear on the distinction of the two. Do not confuse one's ego for one's wish to benefit the world.
It is the freedom of the heart that is the purpose of all the practices that are done - and that freedom is the final arbiter of what is useful, and therefore good. - Ajahn Amaro
the unending war between the magical/mythical ideal of perfect transcedence from the samsaric world and the secular/scientific argument of attainable improvements over a flawed but unavoidable mammalian biology. The rational mind tends to discard the former, but then i think about ramana maharshi and the mind goes blank... impossible to understand.
or the war between a reductionist western adaptation of a rich tradition by people who hold nothing but contempt for it and a monk who has dedicated his life to that tradition.... two sides.
another way to say it would be that some westerner throw out the baby with the bath water not because they are inconsiderate, but because the baby doesn’t bear a resemblance to them
@@John_Smith0 wouldn't be the first time in history. And interestingly Analayo has spoken about this as extension of a colonial mindset. The arrogance that you can somehow cleanse dharma of the superstitions held by these backwards cultures.. is rooted in ignorance about evolution of dharma/practices itself. If you look at the the "pragmatic" dharma crowd sees themselves as the heroes saving buddhism from the cultures that nurtured it for millennia. That's partially why many teachers prefer to use their own terminology when it comes to these maps than be adamant that the original meanings be modified to match their experience. May be... just may be the real baby is still in the bathwater. or may be the baby is..uh.. dependently arisen.
What i don't understand is how any of the people involved can both claim to be above suffering yet also be involved in the politics of anything. I don't understand how an abbot would mince words about someone's enlightenment. I don't understand how people can be involved or bothered by slanders after enlightenment. The back and forth of he said she said doesn't fit. But what do i know? I just got into meditation 3 months ago and bought his book two days ago. I just feel like if i was above pain and suffering i wouldn't mince words and i wouldn't be bothered by harsh words or slander. ..Or maybe i'm confusing lack of suffering with lack of empathy.
Yeah be skeptical, and try to best define truth for yourself. Everyone is human, so don't don't fall into the authority/guru trap. "enlightenment" is just a line in the sand people made up. These people are arguing about a line in the sand. Am I on this side or the other side? What do lines in the sand say about sand in itself? What do lines say about the people who made them? ;-) Reality is your conscious experience. In some sense when you meditate you give yourself more control over that experience because can step back and see that you aren't fully in control of your desires/emotions/feelings/thoughts etc. Is there some point where you have some level control over your experience that makes you enlightened? An arhat perhaps? Where does it begin and end? But most importantly does enlightenment give you super powers? ;-) There is truth in everything, and also likely a lot of BS. Buddhism is a philosophy and religion, and thusly attracts every type of person to it.
Schisms should be prevented in Buddhism, and that is what Ingram is creating. He is fabricating his own religion and labeling it 'Theravada Buddhism'. That is the problem with him.
@@chadkline4268 no he's not. He specifically states in his book that Theravada worked great for him and seemed to fit with the models of enlightenment perfectly until either 3rd or 4th path, can't remember which.
@@user-fg3fv9hl3b he proclaims the Burmese insight practices, where without deep meditation, one suddenly attains insight and the stages of enlightenment. Personally, I don't buy it. Buddha did not seem to teach that way. I am far more aligned with the masters of the Thai Forest Tradition. Based on the texts, I think an arahant should have at least these qualities: 1) never missing a breath in their life, 2) nearly impervious to pain, 3) lives in a state without material desires or wealth, 4) is celibate. And Ingram does not fit that bill at all.
Definitely will be interesting especially a place where Im at to see this. Because although i have practiced under a theravada teacher ive come to a place in my practice where things have opened up and have made me question the dogmatic stance theravada tradition has taken especially western bhikkhus when it comes to the suttas. Hope this shines some light on it and i know it will fun! . Thank you Guru Viking for youre awesome and incredible interviews it has so much variety and expansiveness cant wait for this one. 🙏😁
I think there’s such beauty in the diversity of approaches and maps so everyone can find what works and resonates with them either in general or in a particular stage. I love that many people go through stages without any maps or reference points and only later discover that countless others share similar experiences and help them find language to talk about their experiences. I never understood the vibe of exclusivity or elitism around any one approach, tradition, method, map, path, etc. I also never understood the evaluations such as “the only way”, or “the correct, wrong, or right” way. They are simply different. Thank you for this wonderful conversation. A beautiful example of a response to a personal attack in an impersonal, intelligent, honest and non-defensive way.
The fact that the journal Mindfulness flatly refused to publish Daniel's letter in response to their article tells me everything I need to know about how much institutional integrity they have. Analayo looks pretty bad here but as for Mindfulness the journal, the only thing to do here is just thank them for letting the world know who they are and consign them forever to the ignore box. Daniel is perhaps over-reliant on his fastball as a writer. That's his style and that combined with his public self-proclamation as an arahant leave him vulnerable to all kinds of attacks, some fair and others less so. Whatever. His passion is inspiring to me as a practitioner and even if he ultimately is proven incorrect about the universality of the mindfulness stages as he lays them out (and he has slightly softened his claims about that over the years) he would still be what he is, in my view, today-- a valuable and skilled advocate for the dharma, a fair and honest and enthusiastic voice on the scene. I don't want to go point-by-point but I do have to say one thing-- didn't Bill Hamilton eventually concede that he was wrong in not authenticating Daniel's stream entry and other subsequent attainments? That's the sense I got from MCTB. If so, for Analayo to cite Bill Hamilton's initial skepticism as third-hand evidence that Daniel was riding the quack train to mount delusion is really sleazy.
Ok, just got to that point in the interview. Doesn't sound like Bill Hamilton necessarily ever changed his mind. That being said, I'm not sure how long he lived after the time in question.
Could we develop language for compartmentalized attainments within insight, ethics, or concentration; rather than the package deal definitions of attainments?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but hasn't that already been done? Concentration, the jhanas. Ethics, brahmaviharas and the precepts, etc. And Insight, the path model, three characteristics, non duality, emptiness, etc.
@@VeritableVagabond The insight path model (to many people) have ethics and concentration implications rolled into it. I am wondering if we can untangle these and label the attainments separately, to avoid a lot of this miscommunication/confusion here
I'd like to hear Bikkhu Analayo and Daniel discuss this here, face to face. Thus far Daniel comes across as very credible, and Bikkhu Analayo as acting largely in bad faith. Perhaps the most disheartening aspect of this entire conflict is that Analayo very possibly believes he is acting in good faith.
Finally had a chance to read Analyo's article. After reading it, I have to say I agree with his critique of Ingram. Seems the main contention he brings up is that rather than Ingram evaluating himself based on the general Buddhist consensus of what an Arahant is, he instead starts with the assumption that he is an Arahant and any description of that stage of enlightenment that isn't reflected in his own life (for instance the eradicaiton of lust), he simply claims that it must be lies and propaganda. Either the Buddhist concept of an Arahant is an impossible ideal that no one can attain, in which case he isn't an arahant... Or the Buddhist concept of an Arahant IS possible to attain, it's just that he hasn't attained it.
The more I study all of the details surrounding Ingram, the more I feel (comment was snipped while/after posting) ... He is a charlatan. He is creating a schism instead of creating his own new religion. I think I said something like that. He thinks he can out-perform the Buddha. I wrote more in reply to the pinned comment.
@@stephananemaat the more my sense of him is that he is a charlatan. Maybe not intentionally, but due to his intellect and subtle experiences, he thinks more of himself than he has actually accomplished. I read his MTCB book, and my sense of it was some good and bad. Primarily, it troubles me that nobody is clear about the exact stages of enlightenment. In my view, they are clear and distinct and perfectly describable, and when people are vague about them, I don't trust them. Also, I have read a lot about people doing retreats in Burma, and they are all vague and unclear while claiming to be Arahants. And I sense that there are places that will tell you what you want to hear if you pay them enough. I don't think I am authoritive in a way to say who is and who is not an arahant, but most making the claim seem very sketchy to me. I know cessation, and I have yet to see anyone even explain that very well. And until I do, I don't trust them.
Thank you for your discussion. Vey fascinating. To be honest I think monasteries would probably die out more so without modern mindfulness and deeper interest it causes.
I don’t think he’s an Arahant. If anything, he’s too focused on intellectual obsession with the concept of enlightenment and the stages of it like sports trophies to collect. There is no way he can continue to live like a layman if he is truly an Arahant.
It’s a good thing the guy who wrote this article wasn’t around when the Buddha was. All the same arguments that he hits Daniel with could be thrown right in the Buddha‘s face: - ‘maps’ of the current religion during the Buddha’s lifetime not conforming to the Buddha’s current teaching - the Buddha biasing his own subjective experience over the religious texts at that time - The Buddha’s experience differing from the current religion of the time and the Buddha claiming the religion of the time was wrong and mythologized - The Buddha’s own old teachers likely claimed he was delusional, since they now differed from their own view - The Buddha rejecting other advice over his own experience of being enlightened - Where the Buddha’s experience disagreed with the current religion he said they were wrong - I’m sure many thought the Buddha was a blind man who couldn’t see colour as they didn’t share the same experience as the Buddha - I’m sure many people denied the possibility of enlightenment from the Buddha as they had other versions of religious goals. - And my favourite: if the Buddha’s teaching would have just remained the failed delusions of a failed meditator, these fantasies would not be harmful to the millions of people who meditate... oh wait lol.
When you’ll study Buddhist history you will soon realize that what you call “Dharma drama” started with the Buddha himself and has pervaded its development.
@@jonathannadeau6218 probably even before the buddha. I think there have been reformers / radical teachers back in jainism & hinduism, and buddha wasnt the first one.
@@garad123456 tottaly true the yogic amd ascetic way exists even before the buddha. Bud the buddha is universal and very down to earth about his teachings. While other traditions. Always pass their secret teachings though lineage or whatever you want to call it
The argument over method vs no method was around back in the day of Krishnamurti which is controversial also in advaita vs neo-advaita today. Basically K said that only in silence comes the eternal and the truth is a pathless land.
Calm Down. U Pandita suggested concentration or samadhi practice to ground yourself. You seem to have misunderstood this to mean practice am even more intense form of dry insight and mental noting. It also seems like he was saying, "look, this is all there is. All the time" as a way of getting you out of your head. No big deal. It's just this. Joseph Goldstein adviced you to nail down what you got, and gave you a Zen book, which, rather than being simply 'interesting', might have helped you to ground your awareness and loosen your grip on your conceptual thinking. I'm glad for the video, as it shows very clearly some of the pitfalls of dry insight practice and what an addiction to books and thinking can do. Very impressed with the interviewer for sticking with this for almost three hours, whilst being centred and good natured. That four hour sit has nothing on this. Thanks Metta and Compassion to both of you
Daniel should have just used his own terms, not referenced Buddhism, and not called it "The core teachings of the buddha". Then it would have been fine and no issue. Instead by using Buddhism it is like: when he didn't arrive at the result he wanted in his practice, instead of realising his own mistakes and consulting teachers, he decided that everyone else has been wrong 2500 years, and that he is right. He changed the teachings to fit his own delusions and failings. It is like climbing a mountain and being unable to find the summit. So instead of taking guidance, just deciding that where you currently are is the summit, and that everyone else who has ever gone further is making it up.
I guess that's one way to look at it... can't speak for everyone, but I definitely don't see it that way. the Buddhist teachings are a gift, I feel fortunate and inspired to have come upon teachings from great masters of several different lineages. edit: that said, if you would prefer for me to simply not refer to myself as a Buddhist, that would be perfectly fine with me. it wouldn't change anything about my beliefs or the teachers that I listen to... Daniel/MCTB does not say to simply call yourself an Arahat based on whatever criteria you see fit...
@@waldowitt2307 People can determine their own interpretations of the Buddhist teachings if they wish. There are many traditions of Buddhism due to this. I don't think anybody would take issue with that. People take issue with Daniel Ingram not because he is making up his own criteria, but because he is redefining the criteria, teachings and standards of Theravadan Buddhism and claiming them to be Theravadan, whilst at the same time stating all those who ever acheived the higher standards which he considers impossible, are lying, deluded or physically damaged.
@@youtubeyyolhdusn8771 with all due respect... I don’t think that’s what he’s saying at all. Have you read the book? Or the interview? (MCTB is not Theravadan) Anyway... it is helpful to hear your opinion, so thank you :)
@@waldowitt2307 Hi. Yes he is saying that. You can read the publication by Ven. Analayo linked in the video description by a GuruViking which has the direct quotes which state this from Daniel Ingram. Daniel himself doesn't dispute this either.
Wow, I don’t think Daniel understands how helpful this all is, coming from the west and understanding deeply how dogmatic beliefs can really impact one’s life for the worse if you expand your knowledge. This coming over to Early Buddhist sects, and meeting with lots of people who just blindly follow them,can be very harsh for someone who knows what harm comes from that.
@@Colin055 I practice in the bodhisattva vehicle, I could name one or two true bodhisattvas. I have no idea who has or has not attained any real realisation in theravada. As I understand it the theravada tradition is even less about "sporting attainments" than zen or tantric Tibetan, but the theravada nun I know has extremely good metta, patience, agreeableness, humility. You want a bodhisattva, one has a ton of stuff here on youtube actually, and doing some of his teachings online due to corona. Go find the channel Garchen Buddhist Institute. Garchen Rinpoche survived 20 years in a Chinese torture and labour camp without psychological damage or a grudge. That's proof enough for me in terms of having real realisation. Passed all tests.
Daniel didn’t do anything wrong and does not deserve this treatment from mainstream Buddhism. The accusations against him are baseless and designed to harm his reputation to limit the spread of his message.
Why is Daniel concerned as to what anyone thinks about him. People can disagree, it is part of being human, but I feel there may be other reasons as to why Daniel is taking this approach to having been rebuffed.
Because he received lots of hate because of what Bhikku Analayo did, and he has the right to defend himself. If your style is to be passive good for you. He took everything Bhikku Analayo threw at him and turned it into something constructive.
So does the journal “Mindfulness” publish actual research? Or are they mostly in the business of running Op Ed’s? Honestly, I’ve used toilet paper that was stronger than the arguments in that article.
It’s interesting how this secret teacher, instead of doing it themselves, essentially found someone who could be their literary hitman all while teaching metta for all, I’m sure, in the next breath.
I really love this talk, though it is horrible what happened to him. The number of lamas said to be saintly that have exhibited horrible behavior to me calls for a critical analysis of the entire canon of all religions. One part of this is to "demystify" mysticism, inner engineering is not about the religion but the mind-body experience. There is a gradient of capacity, and success, and clearly you can experience bliss and results and still experience anger and desire. I think key to this is understanding that the mind and humans are far more complex than this complaint speaks to, the mythology of Arahats robs us of success if we believe that success is so distant. And religions are just a vehicle. One of the greatest teaching that I received early on is to keep the sangha real, not on a holy mountain but right where it is most needed, in the gutter, in the city where it is needed most. Retreat is great, but it needs to be brought back to the world, one seen as a Garden of Eden not the Hell that some turn it into. The Karmapa's Pure Land is here and everywhere, it is not distant, it is not separate.
I think awakening happens when ignorance is removed from consciousness. If consciousness is not the same as the brain, consciousness is transformed but the body and brain are not as affected by awakening. If this is correct, an awakened human being is a manifestation of purified consciousness, filtered through human nature, which will involve human imperfections. Incidentally, this might be one of the main reasons why the order of monks is so important: awakened monks can be better manifestations of awakened purified consciousness because they practice day and night, making the manifestation stronger.
I've never heard of anyone saying the insight stages are not canonical. The Buddha referred to the stages from sotapanna to arahant all the time. Nobody denies that. What am I not understanding about what Daniel is asserting? 😃
It seems to me that the Bikkhu’s reaction is really one based on disgust that Daniel broke the widely accepted norm among Buddhists not to openly claim that you are enlightened. While I share the distaste since it is difficult to corroborate I think we have to be intellectually honest and admit this has more to do with religious norms and taboos as well as gatekeeping than on any objectively verifiable fact in either direction.
Some cowardly person triggered Analayo and launched him at David for the audacity of claiming to be an arhat. Analayo is a tool in someone else’s game. The cowardly person needs to be forced into the light possibly through civil legal action.
I read B. Analayo's article. I am indebted to him for making me aware of Daniel's work. Not all truth has been discovered and set in stone 25 centuries ago, never to challenged. His diatribe (Analayo's) is not especially unusual to occur when you question the cherished beliefs of the Venerable ones. The heretics who disagree must be burned at the stake, or, if they are not available for torture, then destroyed by whatever means is possible.
it'd be cool to actually spell out exactly how Dalai Lama redefined arahantship in that book, because I actually searched it as advised and found nothing to confirm that claim.
This Danial needs psychological help. No signs of any enlightment. A good contrast can be seen in the podcast with Daniel and Delson. No arahant ever ever goes around claiming arahantship. I am from the land of arahants. These guys are just trying to make a buck or trying to become famous. Sad to see the suffering these guys are bringing to themselves. This is very dangerous territory for the impure.
I just read the first 8 pages (of 11) article by Bhikkhu Analayo and it doesn't seem consistent with what Daniel is saying in the first 19 mins of this video. Bh Analayo doesn't say one needs to practice Theravada style to get stages of enlightenment. I'm pretty confident no Theravada Bhikkhu would claim that as its very well known many Mahayana masters and Vajrayana masters, lay people at the time of the Buddha, masters from other schools of Buddhism as well as many more in other traditions consistent with the Noble Eightfold Path have accomplished that, it would be basic Wrong View and I see no mention of that at all from Bhikkhu Analayo. He does say however that in the Early Buddhist Texts(i.e. the discourses that we can be confident, from an academic perspective, that the historical figure Gotoma Buddha actually gave during his lifetime) the description of stages of enlightenment don't match what Daniel has written about. Now that's a pretty straightforward argument as it seems like Daniel relies on later works that cannot, at least from an academic perspective, be attributed to Gotama Buddha, for what he describes. He also quotes Daniel seeming to contradict discourses that we can pretty accurately assume did come from Gotama Buddha which to me certainly seems to warrant further investigation. I don't know for sure who is right or wrong but before you make up your mind I would encourage reading Bhikkhu Analayo's articles (links in description) as I feel Daniel misrepresents what I read in Bhikkhu Analayo's article and the article highlights some issues I personally find inconsistent with my practice and studies of Buddhist texts. May you all be well, peaceful and happy🙏
SN 12.64 "Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?" "On the western wall, lord." "And if there is no western wall, where does it land?" "On the ground, lord." "And if there is no ground, where does it land?" "On the water, lord." "And if there is no water, where does it land?" "It does not land, lord." John 3:8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know from where it comes and where it goes. Thus is everyone having been born of the Spirit."
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. SN 56.11 Now during this utterance, there arose in the venerable Kondañña the spotless, immaculate vision of the True Idea: "Whatever is subject to arising is all subject to cessation."
If I define an astronaut as someone who looks up at the night sky, I guess that makes me an astronaut based on my own personal definition, but then what would even be the point of words and language?
Imagine being so deluded by your own experience that you become unable to recognize that other people can reach high levels of attainment without necessarily using the way that you, in your own limited existence and comprehension, are positive that is the one and only way. This kind of drama is exactly why I can never say I "take refuge" in the Sangha. Instead of being happy to discover that there is a faster and more practical way to RID THE WORLD FROM SUFFERING, you instead retreat and start criticizing those who argue "Hey, there's a faster way to that!"
Bhikkhu Sujato confirms there is the probability ( high) of misrepresentation of Bhikkhu Analayo’s alleged statements. Once lost, credibility is difficult to regain. So why would a person claim enlightenment? Why claim to be an Arhat? Bragging serves only the ego. How many times did Daniel mention his book? He claims no need for money so is the book free or does profit go to charity? There are politicians that have made people follow by claiming the “institutions or establishment” are out to get them. I suspect this criticism will only enrich Ingram.
Christianity faces a similar conflict of earlier and later codices representing more authentic or less authentic expressions of the actual Gospel of Jesus Christ. Protestant traditions prefer earlier, and argued to be more authoritative/original Alexandrian codices, while Catholics elevate later and more Catholicaly traditional codices from the Levant and Near East. The problem is the Alexandrian codices are from the geographic center of Gnosticism, and thus these earlier texts while prior, reveal a skewed disposition of the writing toward the tenants of Gnosticism which are profoundly at odds with core doctrine of Christianity at large. And further, the later Codices (by roughly 200 years) that the Catholic church has relied upon while later, are from the geographical region where Christ's ministry actually occurred, and where the early church began after His ascension, and are thus the product of the culture and cultural disposition of Christ. While I vehemently reject the Catholic church, I do believe the later codices to be more accurate, and authentic. Earlier in time is not always earlier in right, or more authentic. We must consider the full context from which a text is produced, and in particular, be mindful of forces from that time and place which are likely to distort the meaning of the intellectual framework that underlies doctrine. This textual conflict is ubiquitous, and scholarly textual research is absolutely necessary in all contexts, we must also rely on the spirit of truth within us to evaluate the work of these scholars, and to evaluate their initial dispositions, educational history, prejudices, and funding.
Analayo's view that insight stages cannot be experienced in daily life outside of intensive retreat settings leads me to suspect his competence as a practitioner.
The article he wrote doesn't seem to claim that, more that he claims Ingram has mistaken relatively mundane, everyday experiences of insight or epiphanies for more than what they actually are, ie. believing those experiences to be markers comparable to the four stages of enlightenment outlined by the Buddha. Full disclosure, I agree with Analyo's assessment and think that Ingram is mistaken.
did you ever think he's just trying to test your arhatship? a la the Torei Enji's bodhisattva vow. I think it is quite traditional for zen colleagues to attempt to undermine each others legitimacy...
@@Jenterke I should write comments on youtube... I talk out of my ass. However, If you read about Obaku and Rinzai exchanges there is a lot of this kind of thing there.
It seems apparent based on Daniel Ingram’s speech patterns and body language that he has yet to attain deep levels of stillness within. I’m not denying that he has a lot of knowledge, but that should not be conflated with attainments on the path. This does not mean that he offers nothing of value to others, but it means that since he is likely confused about his own attainments that there may also be some inaccuracies in his teachings that lead his students astray.
Claiming to be an arhat is not backed by any science. And frankly, what Ingram teaches about inducing far out meditative experiences has nothing to do with the mindfulness movement or the role of mindfulness in mental health today. There, mindfulness of a totally different kind is used to reduce stress and get more mentally balanced and focussed. The goal of enlightenment or other higher spiritual attainments is not the topic of the more psychology/science approved mindfulness methods. Mindfulness to better cope with life in modern society and mindfulness to attain liberation, two radically differant goals and different approaches.
@@petrairene Claiming to be an arhat *could* be backed by more rigorous science, if religious fundamentalists would stop trying to censor the work of free-thinking people who aren't bound by orthodoxy.
@@lewiji Nobody is censoring him. He is free to say whatever he likes. However, given that he has taken to claiming a title/attainment of Theravadan Buddhism, while at the same time redefining what that is to suit himself, and claiming all others in history or present who have attained the traditional definition are WRONG and deluded, and that he alone is RIGHT , gives a pretty good basis for a scholar and experienced Theravadan practioner like Ven. Analayo to refute him. If he called whatever it is he believed himself to have attained by some others terms there would be no issue, but by taking a term which has another definition , and watering it down is poor form. It would be like climbing halfway up Mount Everest, being unable to go further due to not following the guidance of those who have summited previously, and instead deciding that halfway up is the real true summit, and all those who have previously claimed to have summited were just exagerating. In that circumstance do you not think it would be appropriate for the climbing community to refute that persons claim? This is all Ven. Analayo is doing here.
@@lewiji Nope, arhatship could not be proven. It's not even possible to scientifically prove that there is life after death. The only thing they can do these days is using funcional MRI to determine which areas of the brain are particularly active in an individual at a given time. You ccould for example prove that someone does not have a normal pain and aversion reaction if you prick his skin while in the machine. They have indeed checked long time meditators in functional MRI, ven. Matthieu Ricard was one of the test subjects and it was done in the USA I think. You can find that on the internet, it has been published. And nope, they did not determine on which of the bodhisattva levels Matthieu is after the tests. By the way, I'm in Germany, here in Europe there is zero influence of Religion on university work.
@@youtubeyyolhdusn8771 > claiming all others in history or present who have attained the traditional definition are WRONG and deluded, and that he alone is RIGHT Could you point out where Daniel makes that exact claim? > by taking a term which has another definition , and watering it down is poor form ... This is all Ven. Analayo is doing here. As in any fragmented tradition of long centuries past, the definition has been in dispute since written history. Ven. Analayo is no exception, and I don't think Daniel's claims that Analayo has his own specific criteria and tradition on the term, which other religious branches may dispute, is controversial, is it? > It would be like climbing halfway up Mount Everest, being unable to go further due to not following the guidance of those who have summited previously, and instead deciding that halfway up is the real true summit To loop back to the original point: if rigorous, clinical science were developed in the area, in the future someone could easily say "look, I've got to the REAL summit, and you can tell because you can see it by these results". If such efforts are stymied by orthodoxy, that's more difficult. Even if Daniel's claims are wrong, at least with research and methodology that can be clearly shown.
So sad to see Daniel being defamed by people who clearly either haven't paid enough attention to the fine details of his work, can't appreciate the factor of individual differences in psychology &/or simply have something personally against him, the latter of which is frankly disappointing coming from practitioners many of us look up to.
Right around 2:15 Daniel states exactly why Bhikkhu Analyo is correct about him when he says “this is a 4 billion dollar industry.” The Buddha did not teach a set of commodities to be bought and sold. He taught the ending of suffering through the destruction of its cause (craving) and condition (ignorance). These mental highs and acrobatics Daniel sells are not the path or goal of the Dhamma. You may as well just do psychedelics if getting high is your goal.
Hi everyone, I have included a link to Bikkhu Analayo's article 'Meditation Maps, Attainment Claims, and the Adversities of Mindfulness' in the description :-)
Yes, but the only thing available is the abstract. The article itself is behind a pay wall. Thanks anyway.
@@annabodhi38 The publisher has also made a public version available: rdcu.be/b4aDZ
@@GuruViking Thanks.
@@GuruViking brilliant stuff, cheers!
@@annabodhi38 A
Daniel never ceases to amaze and inspire. Takes a lot of courage to be so open.
@@4everflow To be fair, the "institution" that Ingram is combating is barely a century old lol.
What do you mean "there is no other side and it's all emptiness"?
Frank, did u read the original article? The author claims that all arhants have erectyle dysfunction & become asexual. F-frank, y-you can still get h-hard, r-right?
@@personalentertainment2168 in one of his videos he says his girlfriend was almost born arhant if i believe. So i think they can
Personal Entertainment : BA mentioned the loss of desire as a marker of liberation. DI was quoted referencing potential clinical causes for erectile dysfunction. These are two different points. This point is discussed the the interview. Note DI became animated by the possibility that an Arhant would not feel sexual desire. Perhaps this is because …?
Yeap
Respect to Daniel Ingram for being an open-book. Guru Viking is a titan of an interviewer, wow!
I’ve been responding to a lot of the negative comments about Daniel. Some people assume they can understand Daniel’s experience. I’m not saying I know either. What I can do is try to understand Daniel from my own experience. What I do is imagine a liberation so freeing that one can defend their work and have petty shit arise and fall away effortlessly. The best we can do is look at Daniel’s work and actions: free book, free help, willingness to be open and share experiences, desire to share teachings but not be a teacher. If he does have this grand ego inside him, that some claim in the comments below or in the pages of a magazine, I’d say this: This grand ego could have made a lot more money and gotten a lot more power in this lifetime by selling teachings and being a power hungry teacher (and it is clear he could have the following to do that). Personally I am very grateful for the courage that arose in Daniel when he published and shared his first book and the courage that continues to arise in him today. Keep rocking the boat Daniel, there is no better way to wake people up then an unexpected, yet refreshing, swim in the river.
Liberation goes beyond conceptual thinking. You can't imagine that as long as you are within conceptual thinking. Like a person born blind can not imagine what light looks like. The buddhist type of liberation frees you from illusions. After that there is no longer any need to defend anything. Beyond words, beyond thoughts, beyond description, prajnaparamita, as the heart sutra states. You cross that event horizon, you stop thinking the way conventional beings are tied to. Your interaction wtih the world is no longer based on thinking but on wisdom insight. But attention. You can have experiences of this, and fall out of it again. And, no, concentration states can feel pretty freeing and empowering and magical, but are not liberation.
@@petrairene Do you think it is possible that what you said here is just a conceptual framework of what you think liberation should be?
@@Colin055 If you talk about it you need to describe it within some kind of conceptual framework. Otherwise, how would you talk about something that is not going on within the mind of conceptual thoughts. As the heart sutra states, beyond words, beyond thought, beyond description. But you have to be able to communicate about it somehow, or there would be no buddhist teaching that can be taught to people who do not yet know this from first hand experience. It can not be described in and by itself, but one can describe what attributes it has and which it hasn't. You can definitely describe what is NOT liberation.
@@Colin055 No, it's the conceptual framework of how to provoke "far out there" meditation experiences. That's something different than realisation. But he believes it's realisations. That's in fact what a ton of Tibetan texts on the subjects warn about, do not mistake meditative experience for realisation, and if there really is frequent warning of it, apparently it's a common mistake or a mistake that is very easy to fall into. That's why in traditions like mahamudra or dzogchen your living, qualified master (same if you work with a master in zen) regularly checks the meditative experiences of the student to catch and correct things like this. I do not believe that the theravada tradition has this in depth checkup system for meditative experiences and realisation. In the Tibetan tradition you find a ton of anecdotes mocking meditators who after a few experiences it got to their heads and think they are enlightened. It's the same with the self declared "enlightened" people in the hindu based sanyas scene by the way, so this is actually not uncommon. It's just, yeah, one more of those guys.
By the way, I watched his talks on this channel about magic, which I found extremely interesting but where I also found in terms of the "buddhist magic" he is totally missing the point and quite uncomfortably worldly in his attitude towards it.
@@petrairene yep , that's what i was taught ... that's what we've all been taught .
Daniel is the trailblazer who stepped out into the wild alone, and then took a load of arrows to the back just to open up the Path for more people in our modern age. Whether you agree with him or not, he made hardcore insight practice into something accessible. His work influenced and inspired my own Path, and even though I don't utilize the same models anymore, I have immense respect for what he's done and his bravery in speaking out in the face of backlash from puritans and traditionalists.
Another quality episode, Steve; thanks again for your work in bringing these conversations into the world of RUclips and beyond.
Thank you very much, I'm happy you enjoyed the episode! :-)
I think your post sums the core issue with what Daniel Ingram does. He certainly is making things more accessible, but he is doing so by altering the definitions and watering them down. He is also in effect stating that Theravadan Arahants that exist today, or have existed in the past, many of whom were monastics who selflessly have their lives to the Dhamma, were all deluded or exaggerating. That for 2500 years of people walking this path and accomplishing it, everyone has been wrong , and that Daniel Ingram, with his new definition of Arahant is right.
It's like dropping the standard for what constitutes an A grade so that everyone can say they got the top marks. It certainly may make getting top marks more accessible, but is it really good in the long term? Is motivating people by making the standards lower worth the damage that is done. Because of Daniel Ingram there are now people who discover Theradavan Insight meditation who believe that the traditional Arahantship is a myth. I think that is very sad.
@@youtubeyyolhdusn8771 ok, fair. Let’s figure out what neutral science can lend to the discussion and move from the realm of quotes and informed opinions to harder data. Interested in helping to make this happen? Www.theeprc.org
@@youtubeyyolhdusn8771 yes! very well said 👏
Arahant are taintless this lineage has existed for 2500 years an incredible long time..
At the the time of the buddha all arahant including the buddha himself stated arahants are taintless and passion free, devoid of craving etc
There wasn't even 1 Arahant who could have sex now Daniel new age Arahant says otherwise??? Something is fishy either he is lying or he is telling the truth....who knows really....
Besides if Arahant could have sex why on earth would lord buddha set down a rule forbidden 🚫 sex? Why would he makes sex taboo for monks? they answer is abvious 🙂
Buddha himself said there are 9 things that is impossible for a arahant to do
This is from sutavan sutta
Buddha stated here:
"it is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse" -sutavan sutta-
Maybe Daniel really attained a permanent spirtual state
But he shouldn't mistake it for nibbana and neither should he says that he is an arahnt a taintless person if he know he's state does not match the sutta's
@@ijikayuto2950 he's got 'wrong view' according to the Buddha's teaching which makes him an unenlightened being. nowhere near.
Very happy to see Daniel voicing himself. You did an excellent job in this interview, Steve. Big love to you and Daniel.
Thankyou, Steve, for giving Daniel this opportunity to address this situation with all the nuances that it needs!
Hey! It's Tommy M from the DhO! I had no idea about the recent criticisms, so this should be fun! Hahahaha!
Thank you, Linda 🙏
Daniel sounded fairly full of ego to me. Both protagonists seem rather lost in concepts. I don’t care if Daniel is an arahant or not. I can see he has some attainments. The scientific community will carry on being scientific, and I expect, largely unswayed by this. I just care about progressing on my own path. To get even somewhere close to Daniel’s attainments in this lifetime, would be wonderful for me 😊
Thank you, Viking for an honest, intelligent, and incisive interview. Daniel Ingram's command of information is certainly impressive. Having read the article that originates the interview, I couldn't find any science in it. I saw a fundamentalist argument against an opposing point of view. If the discussion about meditation is kept in the realm of poetry, which is what the “holy” scriptures in all religions do, there will never be any agreement on anything. As Daniel states in the final remarks (2:17 forward) the tiebreaker is science. Let's get the data!
Very good Mr. Ingram, parrying the attack from the establishment with utmost maturity and credibility!
This guy is a true genius!! 😍👌 Cant express enough gratitude towards this fellow, the way that he inspires and shares with openess, Clairity and deep knowledge and Wisdom that is thousand years old wich is almost forgetten today is totally mindblowing! Greatful for your hard work and that you are sharing with us Daniel! 🙏💕
Wow, after hearing Daniel's defenses I now have even more faith in his views. And reassurance that we're all human, whatever our attainments or whatever are.
severe attachment to physicalism. grow a brain.
@@backwardthoughts1022 hey, it's been a while since I watched the interview, I would be increadibly thankful if you reminded me what he said that would be classified as physicalism. If you do, thank you very much!!!! Have a great day! :)
Great interview. Despite it being adversarial in nature it was very cordial.
I really appreciate Daniel and his book. I read part of it at the right place at the right time and it helped me go through a _very_ difficult period of my life. For that I am forever thankful.
Love hearing Daniel speak. He's wicked sharp, and always inspiring.
The gatekeepers in all areas are going through a massive freak out at the moment. Times are changing fast and some don’t like it.
This!
thank god for the internet, the world waking up to itself.
I think in the interest of fairness, there is a kind of lazy, uncritical openness that is just as ridiculous as control-freak gatekeeping. Especially since the unfolding of dharma teachings in the West is still in its infancy. Anyone that has observed dharmaoverground example for years sees so much confusion, a lack of precision, and a spirit of perennialism taken beyond a reasonable limit where everything just becomes a brown mess.
The fact that Ingram mentioned that he regularly receives hundreds of emails from people making (per his assessment) very mistaken claims to attainment points to the dangers of the other extreme as well. I'm sure you wouldn't call his assessment of their mistaken claims to be "gatekeeping", and once we acknowledge that then we're having a much more nuanced discussion because that is exactly what some genuine traditional lineages do as well (that is, correct and protect people from major contemplative mistakes).
Monthly Daniel interviews? I'm for it!
Yes please!
You should get Alan Chapman on too
@@dreadskin1 great suggestion alan chapman would be great..also duncan barford
@@davidstrickland1127 could you imagine! Have you seen duncans blog is back?
@@dreadskin1 hey where can I find Duncan's blog? :D
Just came across this. Daniel has been the most impactful teacher I have encountered. Gil Fronsdal, Michael Taft and Culadasa have/had nothing on him. And amazing reporter of phenomenology and an adept Dharma friend (he seems to prefer this term rather than teacher). Daniel has made concepts clear to me in a sentence that others have failed to help me see or just plain refused to address. Keep on keeping on, Daniel. Those of us who are goal oriented need you.
The idea that an authority is required to certify a subjective experience is quite absurd, especially when one can't even prove anyone other than oneself is conscious, and even that is debatable. One might even argue that believing you know someone else's subjective experience is a form of delusion
Regarding Bhikku Analayo's claim that the stages of insight apply only to theravadin insight practitioners, I attended several sesshins with Rinzai Roshi Joshu Sasaki back in the 80's and 90's, and he described the same experience that Daniel does in his book, the experience of the rising and falling, the flickering, of the phenomenal world, or at least the perception thereof. If the stages of insight only pertain to Theravadin practitioners, how is it that a practitioner of zazen reports an experience of the same insight into the impermanence of the phenomenal world?
Thank you Guru Viking and Daniel 🙏Was really looking forward to this one!
Great robust discussion! Good that Daniel gets to put a defence of his work out there. Shame that he’s defending himself from something appearing in a scientific journal which may be countering some of the good research done into these states and traits and put future researchers off. Great questioning.
Thanks for watching, Matty B :-)
Not to be a wise ass here but i remember years ago a great Buddhist teacher saying
" There is Nothing
To Defend " .
Enlightened or not , Daniel took terms from other traditions and redefined them. It doesn’t affect me if he is enlightened or not, the point is whilst many people can agree he is helpful, there is an issue of the misappropriation and misrepresentation.
You can describe misappropriation in multiple ways, “adopting,taking and using customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one society by another, misrepresenting them and benefiting.” Literally inappropriate use, its causes personal gain and unnecessary harm to the original society.
The Mahasi Sayadaw who Daniel says his practice is based on , didn’t describe the stages of insight (a phrased he used originally) as Daniel does, if Daniel suggests he is in line with this, he is misleading people and misrepresenting Mahasi Vipassana. By calling his description “stages of insight” , he implies it is what the Mahasi Sayadaw taught, whilst there is similarities, it isn’t. This is misrepresentation.
The word Arahant isn’t a protected title, but we know it means a specific thing associated to Buddhism. Daniel might say I don’t call myself a Buddhist but strongly presents himself as one by taking typically Buddhist words to describe himself and his findings. We know if people see it they would be interested and think it’s Theravada or Mahayana. He implies he is the enlightened person described by Buddhist schools when he is something else. Again, this is misrepresentation.
The stages of insight and the word Arahant are well respected because of traditional schools. Describing your own findings with those buzzwords means it will get more credibility and following even though they have deviated and may not be deserving. He may not be getting money but misrepresentation is giving his own methods recognition and fame. This is misappropriation and misrepresentation which leads to his gain.
If formulating new ideas please don’t suggest to people its the same as some respected authorities ideas and get the respect they earned . Make it clear, I have deviated from my teachers and use your own words. Earn your respect, credibility and following, if your practice is fine it would do that without taking from other ones.
Daniel might not be misappropriating consciously and have good intention, what a vivacious spirit he has, but it doesn’t mean a very negative thing isn’t happening. There’s a more positive ways to spread our discoveries. May we all be at peace, may we all be free from suffering🙏.
I sense an agenda associated with this comment
Daniel is such a G.
A really great interview. I think Daniel argued his points really well. I love Analyos books but I think this article was an uncharitable reading of Daniels presentation of The Buddhas teachings. From an ethical point of view I think Analayo should have 'owned it' - regardless of whether he was encouraged to write it or not. Analayo did make some good points and I am still not clear how subtle micro experiences of the nanas fear/disgust etc relate to macro experiences of cycling the nanas over months/weeks. However I think the good points of his critique were overshadowed by his unkind reading of Daniels work - this ultimately hurt his argument rather than helped it. - Having practiced mindfulness for decades in various forms...I have never had experiences that clearly lined up with the stages of insight in the ways Daniel describes....but I always assumed this was because the dosage wasn't high enough. I am also sensitive to the fact that this seeming lack of progress...might make me susceptible to interpreting my experience that put me further along than I am.
When I look at Delson Armstrong, he's very present, calm and on point. There's an intensity around Daniel I find a bit uncomfortable if that's the end state. That's me though.
Delson claims that the Brahma viharas can be reached to the formless realms, each one dropping off at each increasingly higher formless jhana. That alone with his very very unlikely claims to experience literally no suffering, even a shred, ever, even in the worst possible circumstances, turned me off of him. The video of him speaking to his monastery audience after the teacher there died (vimalaramsi) was something too. He made all kinds of claims about being reborn with that teacher all the way from the time of the Buddha if I recall correctly. Not that any of that means he is a fraud, it's just those are big claims, and teaching about the jhanas in ways that multiple other teachers whom I trust MUCH more say is not possible makes me highly skeptical. I liked him initially.
Privately breaking into open cheers at home, by myself, on my couch, when Daniel goes off on not including negative emotions as an acceptable part of awakened character; and to calling out mainstream psychology and medicine for basically realizing fuck-all about all this stuff for over a hundred years.
It was rather epic.
Great interview! Really glad to have found this channel. It is a great resource. Excellent interviews and exploration of these subjects.
I can't get enough of listening to Daniel Ingram. Must have something to do with his wizard powah.
Expelliarmus!
or its the tendency of fickle ppl to easily be impressed by the superficial
@@backwardthoughts1022 What's superficial here?
As a non-Buddhist, I find the whole dispute rather entertaining. Just reading: "... according to some accounts, there has not been an Arahat for the last two thousand years." (Self-Liberation, Through Seeing With Naked Awareness, 2000, p. 83)
Maybe so .. that may be true. Edit: actually, I think the Thai Forest tradition is an exception.
I think Daniel does pretty well here. New to his ideas, but being open about arhatship possibly being possible in this very life is a gamechanger. Grating communication style but his openness is refreshing.
why not trying to organize an interview with both of them?
The chances look slim at the moment, but I have suggested it and would be happy to moderate it.
That would be great.
Check your guns at the door :-)
My guess is that DI would agree in a heartbeat, and BA would be somehow too busy.
I’m about 28 minutes in when they talk about the abstract.
I may not personally agree with the dark night stuff (I think it’s rarer than people think) - I started with breath meditation, moved to TMI, and then to Shinzen. None of which really talk deeply about insight stages. Now i am reading Daniels book and am nodding along.
I think the biggest issue is that the author of the abstract has not done long periods of practice personally. Yoga, meditation, tai chi, etc. all produce sensory phenomenon and experiences that relate to this. That’s why there is so much common discussion with spiritual experiences: Holy Spirit, light, energy, chi, kundalini awakening, and so on. This is just the weird shit that happens when you focus on sensory experience.
Example: Shinzen style noting isn’t “fast” and is designed specifically to NOT construct experiences. He doesn’t say to look for specific things ... work with what arises and gives some general advice. There is no scripting. He does not even say to look for impermanence, dissatisfaction, or no self. He just comments and gives examples of what can arise, without giving preference for anything specific.
Ramblings...my apologies.
Summary: you don’t need to know about the maps to experience weird shit or things on the maps. The article is invalid from the abstract :(
Sorry you have to deal with this Daniel.
"I think the biggest issue is that the author of the abstract has not done long periods of practice personally."
What makes you think that? According to the two interviews linked to below "long periods of practice" is what Anālayo spends most of his time doing.
www.buddhistinquiry.org/article/a-conversation-with-bhikkhu-an%C4%81layo/
archive.is/20101111112754/nidahas.com/2010/10/analayo_meditative_scholar/
@@dhammanandobhikkhu1244 I am neither agreeing or disagreeing but there's also differences between long periods of practice, how one practices and what's their nature
@@halweststar absolutely, or all monks would be enlightened. Quality over quantity.
I think these issues are pretty subtle and it seems unlikely that most can really fairly litigate one way or another.
That said, I'll rather arrogantly share my impression: Independent of any judgement on Ingram, there really does seem to be a general trend where the more rigorous and involved a practitioner or teacher is in traditional or 'neo-traditional' buddadharma, the less persuaded they are by Ingram's claims. There also appears to be a countertrend of people who are generally skeptical of the traditional Buddhist project more broadly that seem to be more receptive to Ingram. Make of that what you will.
After many years of observing all of this it seems that the Theravada reformists of the last 100ish years have incidentally opened the door to people like Ingram. They themselves have pushed questionable interpretations while claiming interpretative authority on the suttas. Similarly they have pushed reformist views of practice and all too often reject older Sravaka practice lineages. Anyone familiar with the very political history of the reformist movement will find none of that is surprising. In a way Ingram seems to be doing something similar. Perhaps back and forth between Theravadin reformers and "Buddhist modernists" who focus on the suttas may be a good thing if it leads to more clarity, but I think we're still waiting for that. Perhaps not.
I'm not going to speak to his intentions, but I do believe his interpretation is less than fitting and not reflective of what the vast majority of buddadharma practitioners understood arhatship and liberation to mean at least in in some crucial sense. My own view is that it's dishonest to redefine terms (such as arahant) in the way people like Ingram have done for the sake of self-adorning it, it has created a lot of confusion and seems pretty unnecessary. One has to wonder why he didn't just reject the category of arahant outright if he finds all of the definitions wanting!
To note, I think he is making quite a bit more of the supposed historical "redefining" of arhatship than is justified. It seems like Ingram isn't familiar enough with what Indo-Tibetan traditions say about arhatship. Motivational rhetoric intended for Mahayanists or drawing distinctions between Mahayana and that of pursuing arhatship isn't the same as "redefining" it. You'll find defenses and disagreements concerning arhats throughout Tibetan literature regarding their relative status to pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, vidyadharas, and Buddhas, but not typically about whether or not arhats entirely eliminate afflictive obscurations. This is a very critical distinction exactly because it concerns an essential component of the definition of arhatship and Ingram seems to overlook this.
His justification for redefining arhatship seems to rest, at least in part, on fairly basic observations Mahayanans have made for a very long time, observations of which include the character of insight into no self but do not themselves entail a justification for redefining what an arhat is. Perhaps he would be better justified in claiming that the method he prefers doesn't get you to arhatship proper, perhaps something closer to path of the pratyekabuddha or a lapsed Mahayanist. Secondly, that modern Theravadins may have gotten something quite wrong in imagining arhatship as something other than historically contingent (a view held by many Mahayanists). His framing of the relationship of no self, sexuality, and liberation seem to be divorced from the broader discussion in Buddhism and instead is constrained to a pretty myopic focus on arhats and theravada. It is trivial to acknowledge that the broader discussion in Buddhism distinguishes between ending afflictive obscurations and say sexuality or desire in of itself. Instead of trying to arbitrarily redefine terms he can simply say he agrees with other Buddhist traditions on the matter.
Historically arhats haven't been the primary focus of most of Buddhism as Buddhism intellectually matured. Why is this the emphasis at all especially given that there are already ways to understand insight into no self, impermanence and the ending of afflictive obscurations that do not depend on the label "arhat" or the specific contingent features of the arhat path? In short, so much of his project seems to be, with all due respect, somewhat unclear, entirely unnecessary, and could be avoided to focus on far more important things (including work that Ingram to his credit does seem to be involved in) save his crusade to trademark and self-market a new, and wholly unnecessary, definition of arhat.
Or, he could have saved everyone a lot of time and said that he simply agrees with some of the practitioners during the 4-5th century interacting with Vasubhandu who asserted that some arhats retained sexual impulses etc., that he rejects contrary views, and that he wishes to resurrect or honor this view in light of how certain methods he favors play out. That would have been a more fruitful, and frankly more interesting, project. It also would be less likely to promote the level of discord and confusion that his current approach seems to bring about.
Moving on, in my own practice I've found his approach to be honestly limited and his "creative" interpretations or understanding of Vajrayana and Dzogchen are unquestionably mistaken and fairly uninformed. Perhaps this is less of a concern to others because Ingram isn't claiming to be an expert in these traditions, and fair enough, but he does speak very confidently about them, not uncommonly citing anonymous sources. I'm sure Ingram has many positive qualities as a person, it really does seem so, but personally I find his bold pronouncements about those things (Vajrayana/Dzogchen) in particular to be unwise, unhelpful, and causing a lot of confusion in people who listen to what he says. Something I've verified several times over being the confusions of others who claim they learned x or y about Dzogchen from Ingram.
Lastly, it seems a bit inappropriate for him to preempt the discussion by basically poisoning the well and claiming nothing short of a personal conspiracy against him. These are pretty serious accusations and without evidence. Obviously even if it were true it has no bearing on the substance of the critique, but I really would have preferred a more impersonal and even-minded response from Ingram. The paper in question seems fair enough, even if one rabidly disagrees with it. I myself wasn't impressed with swaths of it and I think Ingram's critique of elements of the paper, for example as it relates to say mindfulness, is very fair. I also think for example there is a valid Dzogchen-informed constructionist critique of Ingram's approach that goes much further than the paper is able to and includes the implicitly constructionist elements of even the "noticing" Ingram speaks of, but such a critique isn't appropriate in a Theravadin context and is less concerning afflictive obscurations and more concerns knowledge obscurations.
When one decides to blend one's public identity with the label "arahant" and then teaches to this effect, if there is a robust critique to be had, then there really is no way for some of it not to fall into the sphere of said public identity. That specific consequence doesn't seem to be a fault of Analayo's. If anything, this speaks to the questionable wisdom of actively marketing oneself in this way. One might be led to wonder whether it would be difficult for Ingram to ever publicly acknowledge that he was simply wrong on this point of attaining arhatship qua arhatship, or that marketing himself this way has done more harm than good, given how enmeshed his reputation and social identity is in all of this. I acknowledge that could be a difficult position to be in.
For these and other reasons, myself and some of the senior practitioners I know from the TIbetan traditions can't justify giving support to Ingram's claims, nor recommending him. If anything, it seems appropriate to relay a word of caution if the topic comes up. Again, this isn't meant as some kind of condemnation of him as a person. I think Ingram expressed himself quite well throughout the conversation and made some very good points. Thanks for the conversation.
Please write a 5-line summary
Your thoughtful response passes my eye test for awakening far more than the sense I get from Ingram. His nervousness and defensiveness jump off the screen at me. His interest in throwing others under the rug, his detracting from all the established "rules" except where they fit his own narrative... this is all about him. He may be supremely intelligent and may be incredibly helpful to many, but I see a delusional narcissist here, not someone who has dropped the fetters and embodies enlightenment.
I did not read the article by Bhikkhu Analayo as a personal attack. Bhikkhu Analayo's primary concern is to defend the Theravadan viewpoint. Bhikkhu Analayo argues that based on the Theravadan tradition and Daniel's own statements about himself, he is not an arahant. Another way of seeing it is that as a monk - and therefore as someone who has dedicated his life to the teachings of the Buddha - he does not want the teaching of the Buddha to be devalued. Daniel has kind of set himself up for this by saying that he is an 'arahant' (i.e. using a specific and clearly defined term from the Pali canon) while simultaneously admitting that he does not share the characteristics of an arahant described by those texts. I think that if you read the Bhikku Analayo article he does make a strong case.
Are you kidding? The article is super personal. He doesn't just claim Daniel is not an arahant, he claims that Daniel has not even reached the first insight stage. That alone shows personal ill will, as he doesn't know Daniel and yet he's insecure enough to write a whole article about him and say he's nothing. Daniel not having the qualities of the traditional Arahant is fair, the texts were passed by word for hundreds of years and then written down for thousands through so many different people. If you or anybody else likes impossible standards for enlightenment then lol
Meditation is a means to experience what we are and how we grow, and change so as to learn how to facilitate rather than hinder the process. It is not the process itself.
it is a dark age, we are full of spiritual pride. why this is in any way helpful? if any practitioner measure hes own realization or try to critique another practitioner, he is an asura, on a paranoia state. if he clings to a jnana state, he is on the realm of gods. not out of the wheel of suffering. am i right? or my understanding is just tibetan buddhism? i think that theses scholar debates are actually anti buddhist, cause if we want true freedom, we cannot orchestrate any attempt of achieving anything. and here i am arguing and measuring others, what a naughty scene.
The comment section is some of the most insightful, and telling, Dharma discussions I have seen in so long.
The critiques have convinced me to re-read his book - even to ignore the magick etc. Arhat - he explains this, even with timestamps. Equanimity while watching TV? Practice should be carried off the mat - so why not find yourself feeling the equanimity of all - while watching a truly moving piece of music, or art, or journalism, or documentary.... And the critiques of green monsters or faeries - have we read the Bardo Thodol lately? Here we see why so many pursue a solo practice. Pacceka for me ty ;)
Great discussion. Thank you both!
Always Enjoy The positive energy listening to Daniel
I just watched this video now and I want to thank Daniel Ingram for everything he has done!
I had no idea about stages of insight before reading MCTB2 and I was in complete shock when - after reading it- I discovered I had A&P first time back in 2019 - I could luckily find my descriptions of the experience and I could also easily see soon after A&P I went into the Dark Night stages, that I thought back then were sort of a Jungian "entrance into the Unconscious". I could find the Fear stage and later Disgust stage which I also experienced in very straightforward way - again these happened while I was not practicing vipassana and had no clue about insight stages at all.
I have at least 5 friends who I think had A&P and further went into Dark Night territory, none of them were vipassana meditators back then or had any clue about the insight stages; 2 of them did start doing serious practice after.
There is absolutely NO WAY that insight stages don't happen to people who do other practices. No way. Yes, the stages will look a little different to different practitioners and there may be content that pops up that is colored by each person's worldview for sure but that's different from "the stages only exist within Theravada Buddhist insight practice".
And I'm so grateful for having the chance to find this out ! Cause had I not found out I would not be doing insight meditation NOW.
Many more great points made here; maybe personal anecdotes are not appreciated but then I am not a Buddhist scholar, I can only say my experience and my friends' experience does match the map as presented by Daniel Ingram in his book and we definitely didn't script them cause we didn't know the map even existed when we first had them.
What kind of meditation and routine were you and your friends doing when you reached A&P? Thanks!
Fascinating and illuminating. Thank you for making this available!
@guruviking thanks for the interview!
Would you please next time when interview Daniel ask him about his opinion on rebirth?
I would really appreciate it!
this is a lack of integrity and a lack of realization by Bikkhu Analayo. When academics mistake knowledge for realization, they get lost believing it's about interpretation instead of being about existing as the unconditioned self, and simply describing your direct experience.
institutionalized corruption of the teachings of the Buddha with unwarranted authority from scholars without realizations.
Bikkhu Analayo is spreading misinformation and misguiding people with his greed, unfortunate and shameful from someone in his position.
I find this particular part of BA's discussion at Harvard on Rebirth interesting, and wish he had shown something like that spirit a bit in the article: ruclips.net/video/YLT63llyQgI/видео.html
You might back up a minute or two if you want a bit more context.
im reading MCTB and it's a treasure, but watching Daniel explaining those things live on camera is just next-level insightful. Big thanks to Viking, for me it shines through how much time and thought he puts into preparing his interviews with Daniel. The only small critique i'd see is that this one felt a bit scripted, there were no follow-up questions after Daniel's responses, but i can understand that, dealing revolt of certain personas of Buddhist orthodoxy is tough, and fair enough that Daniel himself had patience and grace to clearly answer each point of those unsurprisingly strawman-filled attacks. Anyway, bell-subscribed and looking forward for more of thorough exchanges. Appreciated!
The video description makes the conspiratorial claim that Ven Analayo "revealed" that his article was requested by a meditation teacher to damage Ingram's credibility and make sure no-one believed Ingram again. This doesn't sound like Analayo at all, so I emailed him to check. He confirmed that this didn't happen. What did happen was a meditation teacher sent Analayo a copy of Ingram’s book, apparently in the hope that he would write a critique. But there was no mention of “damaging credibility” or “making sure nobody ever believes you again”. @guruviking could you change the description and note that Ingram's claims are not true, thanks.
Hello Sujato Bhikkhu,
Thank you for your comment.
To clarify, the video description does not make the claim that 'Ven Analayo "revealed" that his article was requested by a meditation teacher to damage Ingram's credibility and make sure no-one believed Ingram again'.
If you watch the video you will see that it is Daniel Ingram who makes that claim, which the video description states.
@@GuruViking Well, a more neutral phrasing would be "Daniel claims that Analayo told him". More to the point, it didn't happen. Does this not give you pause?
@@fintefriends respectfully, how do you know that it didn't happen? One party claims one thing, the other claims another. Other than personal trust and public credibility within religious contexts, and I suppose monastic vows and precepts? Editing the description to add that the claims are untrue would seem to depart from neutrality into a judgement of truthiness. I think your more neutral phrasing is a fair edit to make.
@@lewiji Just noting that so far, only one person in the room has actually made the effort to do some basic fact-checking. Hi there! What Ingram says happened did not in fact happen. If OP has doubts, it is his responsibility to fact-check things he is posting on his channel, not mine.
@@fintefriends Hello sir! Well, I would like to fact check your claim that "what Ingram says happened did not in fact happen", as well as Daniel's claims, but to me, a third party, the contents of 2 private conversations (between Ingram and Ven. Analayo, and yourself and Ven. Analayo) aren't verifiable, due to their private nature. There is no data or evidence either way.
As Bhikkhu Analayo said, he would have had no issue if Ingram purely used his methods for medical science without bringing in the traditional terms and attainments. It is one thing to claim arahantship and attainments on the traditional path of liberation and another to "modernize" the dhamma for scientific use. Ingram should make clear on the distinction of the two. Do not confuse one's ego for one's wish to benefit the world.
It is the freedom of the heart that is the purpose of all the practices that are done - and that freedom is the final arbiter of what is useful, and therefore good. - Ajahn Amaro
the unending war between the magical/mythical ideal of perfect transcedence from the samsaric world and the secular/scientific argument of attainable improvements over a flawed but unavoidable mammalian biology. The rational mind tends to discard the former, but then i think about ramana maharshi and the mind goes blank... impossible to understand.
or the war between a reductionist western adaptation of a rich tradition by people who hold nothing but contempt for it and a monk who has dedicated his life to that tradition....
two sides.
another way to say it would be that some westerner throw out the baby with the bath water not because they are inconsiderate, but because the baby doesn’t bear a resemblance to them
@@John_Smith0 wouldn't be the first time in history. And interestingly Analayo has spoken about this as extension of a colonial mindset. The arrogance that you can somehow cleanse dharma of the superstitions held by these backwards cultures.. is rooted in ignorance about evolution of dharma/practices itself.
If you look at the the "pragmatic" dharma crowd sees themselves as the heroes saving buddhism from the cultures that nurtured it for millennia. That's partially why many teachers prefer to use their own terminology when it comes to these maps than be adamant that the original meanings be modified to match their experience. May be... just may be the real baby is still in the bathwater. or may be the baby is..uh.. dependently arisen.
What i don't understand is how any of the people involved can both claim to be above suffering yet also be involved in the politics of anything.
I don't understand how an abbot would mince words about someone's enlightenment. I don't understand how people can be involved or bothered by slanders after enlightenment.
The back and forth of he said she said doesn't fit.
But what do i know? I just got into meditation 3 months ago and bought his book two days ago.
I just feel like if i was above pain and suffering i wouldn't mince words and i wouldn't be bothered by harsh words or slander.
..Or maybe i'm confusing lack of suffering with lack of empathy.
Yeah be skeptical, and try to best define truth for yourself. Everyone is human, so don't don't fall into the authority/guru trap. "enlightenment" is just a line in the sand people made up. These people are arguing about a line in the sand. Am I on this side or the other side? What do lines in the sand say about sand in itself? What do lines say about the people who made them? ;-)
Reality is your conscious experience. In some sense when you meditate you give yourself more control over that experience because can step back and see that you aren't fully in control of your desires/emotions/feelings/thoughts etc. Is there some point where you have some level control over your experience that makes you enlightened? An arhat perhaps? Where does it begin and end? But most importantly does enlightenment give you super powers? ;-) There is truth in everything, and also likely a lot of BS. Buddhism is a philosophy and religion, and thusly attracts every type of person to it.
Well i said it a little while ago and ill say it here .
Years ago i saw a great Buddhist teacher tell us :
" There is Nothing to
Defend "
Schisms should be prevented in Buddhism, and that is what Ingram is creating. He is fabricating his own religion and labeling it 'Theravada Buddhism'. That is the problem with him.
@@chadkline4268 no he's not. He specifically states in his book that Theravada worked great for him and seemed to fit with the models of enlightenment perfectly until either 3rd or 4th path, can't remember which.
@@user-fg3fv9hl3b he proclaims the Burmese insight practices, where without deep meditation, one suddenly attains insight and the stages of enlightenment. Personally, I don't buy it. Buddha did not seem to teach that way. I am far more aligned with the masters of the Thai Forest Tradition. Based on the texts, I think an arahant should have at least these qualities: 1) never missing a breath in their life, 2) nearly impervious to pain, 3) lives in a state without material desires or wealth, 4) is celibate. And Ingram does not fit that bill at all.
Definitely will be interesting especially a place where Im at to see this. Because although i have practiced under a theravada teacher ive come to a place in my practice where things have opened up and have made me question the dogmatic stance theravada tradition has taken especially western bhikkhus when it comes to the suttas. Hope this shines some light on it and i know it will fun! . Thank you Guru Viking for youre awesome and incredible interviews it has so much variety and expansiveness cant wait for this one. 🙏😁
Thank you! I hope you enjoy :-)
Daniel ingram is so cool that i everyone who have read his book also becomes cool to me
I think there’s such beauty in the diversity of approaches and maps so everyone can find what works and resonates with them either in general or in a particular stage. I love that many people go through stages without any maps or reference points and only later discover that countless others share similar experiences and help them find language to talk about their experiences. I never understood the vibe of exclusivity or elitism around any one approach, tradition, method, map, path, etc. I also never understood the evaluations such as “the only way”, or “the correct, wrong, or right” way. They are simply different.
Thank you for this wonderful conversation. A beautiful example of a response to a personal attack in an impersonal, intelligent, honest and non-defensive way.
The fact that the journal Mindfulness flatly refused to publish Daniel's letter in response to their article tells me everything I need to know about how much institutional integrity they have. Analayo looks pretty bad here but as for Mindfulness the journal, the only thing to do here is just thank them for letting the world know who they are and consign them forever to the ignore box.
Daniel is perhaps over-reliant on his fastball as a writer. That's his style and that combined with his public self-proclamation as an arahant leave him vulnerable to all kinds of attacks, some fair and others less so. Whatever. His passion is inspiring to me as a practitioner and even if he ultimately is proven incorrect about the universality of the mindfulness stages as he lays them out (and he has slightly softened his claims about that over the years) he would still be what he is, in my view, today-- a valuable and skilled advocate for the dharma, a fair and honest and enthusiastic voice on the scene.
I don't want to go point-by-point but I do have to say one thing-- didn't Bill Hamilton eventually concede that he was wrong in not authenticating Daniel's stream entry and other subsequent attainments? That's the sense I got from MCTB. If so, for Analayo to cite Bill Hamilton's initial skepticism as third-hand evidence that Daniel was riding the quack train to mount delusion is really sleazy.
Forgot to say-- thanks to Guru Viking for doing this, and for doing such an excellent job of it!
Ok, just got to that point in the interview. Doesn't sound like Bill Hamilton necessarily ever changed his mind. That being said, I'm not sure how long he lived after the time in question.
Could we develop language for compartmentalized attainments within insight, ethics, or concentration; rather than the package deal definitions of attainments?
Good idea
I agree this would be incredibly useful and allow us all to side step these sorts of episodes
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but hasn't that already been done? Concentration, the jhanas. Ethics, brahmaviharas and the precepts, etc. And Insight, the path model, three characteristics, non duality, emptiness, etc.
@@VeritableVagabond The insight path model (to many people) have ethics and concentration implications rolled into it. I am wondering if we can untangle these and label the attainments separately, to avoid a lot of this miscommunication/confusion here
Excellent, Steve. and Daniel, of course.
Grateful.
1:27:52 - fruition ?
I'd like to hear Bikkhu Analayo and Daniel discuss this here, face to face. Thus far Daniel comes across as very credible, and Bikkhu Analayo as acting largely in bad faith. Perhaps the most disheartening aspect of this entire conflict is that Analayo very possibly believes he is acting in good faith.
Looking forward to this!
Hm... I have a deep trust in Analayo's work. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I included a link to Bikkhu Analayo's article in the description in case people would like to do some pre-reading in advance of the premier.
@@GuruViking Thank you! Will check it out
I do not require Analayo’s article-I formulated my opinion of DI based on his interviews and his writing. To me DI seems off the mark.
Finally had a chance to read Analyo's article. After reading it, I have to say I agree with his critique of Ingram. Seems the main contention he brings up is that rather than Ingram evaluating himself based on the general Buddhist consensus of what an Arahant is, he instead starts with the assumption that he is an Arahant and any description of that stage of enlightenment that isn't reflected in his own life (for instance the eradicaiton of lust), he simply claims that it must be lies and propaganda. Either the Buddhist concept of an Arahant is an impossible ideal that no one can attain, in which case he isn't an arahant... Or the Buddhist concept of an Arahant IS possible to attain, it's just that he hasn't attained it.
I agree. To me it seems that Daniel isn't an arahant and is simply trying to redefine the concept to fit him.
The more I study all of the details surrounding Ingram, the more I feel (comment was snipped while/after posting) ... He is a charlatan. He is creating a schism instead of creating his own new religion. I think I said something like that. He thinks he can out-perform the Buddha. I wrote more in reply to the pinned comment.
@@chadkline4268 the more you feel what?
@@chadkline4268 that's a strong assumption to make.
@@stephananemaat the more my sense of him is that he is a charlatan. Maybe not intentionally, but due to his intellect and subtle experiences, he thinks more of himself than he has actually accomplished. I read his MTCB book, and my sense of it was some good and bad. Primarily, it troubles me that nobody is clear about the exact stages of enlightenment. In my view, they are clear and distinct and perfectly describable, and when people are vague about them, I don't trust them.
Also, I have read a lot about people doing retreats in Burma, and they are all vague and unclear while claiming to be Arahants. And I sense that there are places that will tell you what you want to hear if you pay them enough. I don't think I am authoritive in a way to say who is and who is not an arahant, but most making the claim seem very sketchy to me. I know cessation, and I have yet to see anyone even explain that very well. And until I do, I don't trust them.
Thank you for your discussion. Vey fascinating. To be honest I think monasteries would probably die out more so without modern mindfulness and deeper interest it causes.
I don’t think he’s an Arahant. If anything, he’s too focused on intellectual obsession with the concept of enlightenment and the stages of it like sports trophies to collect. There is no way he can continue to live like a layman if he is truly an Arahant.
It’s a good thing the guy who wrote this article wasn’t around when the Buddha was. All the same arguments that he hits Daniel with could be thrown right in the Buddha‘s face:
- ‘maps’ of the current religion during the Buddha’s lifetime not conforming to the Buddha’s current teaching
- the Buddha biasing his own subjective experience over the religious texts at that time
- The Buddha’s experience differing from the current religion of the time and the Buddha claiming the religion of the time was wrong and mythologized
- The Buddha’s own old teachers likely claimed he was delusional, since they now differed from their own view
- The Buddha rejecting other advice over his own experience of being enlightened
- Where the Buddha’s experience disagreed with the current religion he said they were wrong
- I’m sure many thought the Buddha was a blind man who couldn’t see colour as they didn’t share the same experience as the Buddha
- I’m sure many people denied the possibility of enlightenment from the Buddha as they had other versions of religious goals.
- And my favourite: if the Buddha’s teaching would have just remained the failed delusions of a failed meditator, these fantasies would not be harmful to the millions of people who meditate... oh wait lol.
Is the person critisizing actually a buddhist monk? Doesn't that violate some of the ordination precepts?
Dharma drama! I have very conflicting feelings about this
I'll be curious what you think after you watch :-)
When you’ll study Buddhist history you will soon realize that what you call “Dharma drama” started with the Buddha himself and has pervaded its development.
@@jonathannadeau6218 probably even before the buddha. I think there have been reformers / radical teachers back in jainism & hinduism, and buddha wasnt the first one.
@@garad123456 tottaly true the yogic amd ascetic way exists even before the buddha.
Bud the buddha is universal and very down to earth about his teachings.
While other traditions. Always pass their secret teachings though lineage or whatever you want to call it
The argument over method vs no method was around back in the day of Krishnamurti which is controversial also in advaita vs neo-advaita today. Basically K said that only in silence comes the eternal and the truth is a pathless land.
Calm Down.
U Pandita suggested concentration or samadhi practice to ground yourself. You seem to have misunderstood this to mean practice am even more intense form of dry insight and mental noting. It also seems like he was saying, "look, this is all there is. All the time" as a way of getting you out of your head. No big deal. It's just this.
Joseph Goldstein adviced you to nail down what you got, and gave you a Zen book, which, rather than being simply 'interesting', might have helped you to ground your awareness and loosen your grip on your conceptual thinking.
I'm glad for the video, as it shows very clearly some of the pitfalls of dry insight practice and what an addiction to books and thinking can do.
Very impressed with the interviewer for sticking with this for almost three hours, whilst being centred and good natured. That four hour sit has nothing on this.
Thanks
Metta and Compassion to both of you
love it when Daniel goes on a full on praxeology rampage about the dharma
Indeed, well put!
Daniel should have just used his own terms, not referenced Buddhism, and not called it "The core teachings of the buddha". Then it would have been fine and no issue. Instead by using Buddhism it is like: when he didn't arrive at the result he wanted in his practice, instead of realising his own mistakes and consulting teachers, he decided that everyone else has been wrong 2500 years, and that he is right. He changed the teachings to fit his own delusions and failings. It is like climbing a mountain and being unable to find the summit. So instead of taking guidance, just deciding that where you currently are is the summit, and that everyone else who has ever gone further is making it up.
I guess that's one way to look at it... can't speak for everyone, but I definitely don't see it that way. the Buddhist teachings are a gift, I feel fortunate and inspired to have come upon teachings from great masters of several different lineages.
edit: that said, if you would prefer for me to simply not refer to myself as a Buddhist, that would be perfectly fine with me. it wouldn't change anything about my beliefs or the teachers that I listen to...
Daniel/MCTB does not say to simply call yourself an Arahat based on whatever criteria you see fit...
@@waldowitt2307 People can determine their own interpretations of the Buddhist teachings if they wish. There are many traditions of Buddhism due to this. I don't think anybody would take issue with that.
People take issue with Daniel Ingram not because he is making up his own criteria, but because he is redefining the criteria, teachings and standards of Theravadan Buddhism and claiming them to be Theravadan, whilst at the same time stating all those who ever acheived the higher standards which he considers impossible, are lying, deluded or physically damaged.
@@youtubeyyolhdusn8771 with all due respect... I don’t think that’s what he’s saying at all. Have you read the book? Or the interview? (MCTB is not Theravadan)
Anyway... it is helpful to hear your opinion, so thank you :)
@@waldowitt2307 Hi. Yes he is saying that. You can read the publication by Ven. Analayo linked in the video description by a GuruViking which has the direct quotes which state this from Daniel Ingram. Daniel himself doesn't dispute this either.
@@youtubeyyolhdusn8771 If you say so! I'm not a Buddhist anyway ;) Just a Budd-ish-t
Wow, I don’t think Daniel understands how helpful this all is, coming from the west and understanding deeply how dogmatic beliefs can really impact one’s life for the worse if you expand your knowledge. This coming over to Early Buddhist sects, and meeting with lots of people who just blindly follow them,can be very harsh for someone who knows what harm comes from that.
Nisargadatta's I Am That behind on the bookshelf 👌👍
By the way, there is a middle ground beyond fraud who knows nothing and "Arhat".
That's what I feel in regards to Daniel.
Could you share an example of someone you think is an Arhat?
@@Colin055 I practice in the bodhisattva vehicle, I could name one or two true bodhisattvas. I have no idea who has or has not attained any real realisation in theravada. As I understand it the theravada tradition is even less about "sporting attainments" than zen or tantric Tibetan, but the theravada nun I know has extremely good metta, patience, agreeableness, humility. You want a bodhisattva, one has a ton of stuff here on youtube actually, and doing some of his teachings online due to corona. Go find the channel Garchen Buddhist Institute. Garchen Rinpoche survived 20 years in a Chinese torture and labour camp without psychological damage or a grudge. That's proof enough for me in terms of having real realisation. Passed all tests.
@@petrairene a rigid definition leads to narrow results my friend.
And if ones definition is incorrect, no results at all.
Daniel didn’t do anything wrong and does not deserve this treatment from mainstream Buddhism. The accusations against him are baseless and designed to harm his reputation to limit the spread of his message.
Why is Daniel concerned as to what anyone thinks about him. People can disagree, it is part of being human, but I feel there may be other reasons as to why Daniel is taking this approach to having been rebuffed.
Because whilst he is clever, he isn't wise.
Because he received lots of hate because of what Bhikku Analayo did, and he has the right to defend himself. If your style is to be passive good for you. He took everything Bhikku Analayo threw at him and turned it into something constructive.
So does the journal “Mindfulness” publish actual research? Or are they mostly in the business of running Op Ed’s?
Honestly, I’ve used toilet paper that was stronger than the arguments in that article.
It’s interesting how this secret teacher, instead of doing it themselves, essentially found someone who could be their literary hitman all while teaching metta for all, I’m sure, in the next breath.
Dang. That's a reaaaally good point I didn't think of.
I really love this talk, though it is horrible what happened to him. The number of lamas said to be saintly that have exhibited horrible behavior to me calls for a critical analysis of the entire canon of all religions. One part of this is to "demystify" mysticism, inner engineering is not about the religion but the mind-body experience. There is a gradient of capacity, and success, and clearly you can experience bliss and results and still experience anger and desire. I think key to this is understanding that the mind and humans are far more complex than this complaint speaks to, the mythology of Arahats robs us of success if we believe that success is so distant. And religions are just a vehicle. One of the greatest teaching that I received early on is to keep the sangha real, not on a holy mountain but right where it is most needed, in the gutter, in the city where it is needed most. Retreat is great, but it needs to be brought back to the world, one seen as a Garden of Eden not the Hell that some turn it into. The Karmapa's Pure Land is here and everywhere, it is not distant, it is not separate.
I think awakening happens when ignorance is removed from consciousness. If consciousness is not the same as the brain, consciousness is transformed but the body and brain are not as affected by awakening. If this is correct, an awakened human being is a manifestation of purified consciousness, filtered through human nature, which will involve human imperfections.
Incidentally, this might be one of the main reasons why the order of monks is so important: awakened monks can be better manifestations of awakened purified consciousness because they practice day and night, making the manifestation stronger.
I've never heard of anyone saying the insight stages are not canonical. The Buddha referred to the stages from sotapanna to arahant all the time. Nobody denies that. What am I not understanding about what Daniel is asserting? 😃
It seems to me that the Bikkhu’s reaction is really one based on disgust that Daniel broke the widely accepted norm among Buddhists not to openly claim that you are enlightened. While I share the distaste since it is difficult to corroborate I think we have to be intellectually honest and admit this has more to do with religious norms and taboos as well as gatekeeping than on any objectively verifiable fact in either direction.
Some cowardly person triggered Analayo and launched him at David for the audacity of claiming to be an arhat. Analayo is a tool in someone else’s game. The cowardly person needs to be forced into the light possibly through civil legal action.
I read B. Analayo's article.
I am indebted to him for making me aware of Daniel's work. Not all truth has been discovered and set in stone 25 centuries ago, never to challenged.
His diatribe (Analayo's) is not especially unusual to occur when you question the cherished beliefs of the Venerable ones.
The heretics who disagree must be burned at the stake, or, if they are not available for torture, then destroyed by whatever means is possible.
Some forms of criticism (as the original article) are best advertisement :-)
Exactly. BA's article has this effect. Makes me want to know more of DI.
it'd be cool to actually spell out exactly how Dalai Lama redefined arahantship in that book, because I actually searched it as advised and found nothing to confirm that claim.
This Danial needs psychological help. No signs of any enlightment. A good contrast can be seen in the podcast with Daniel and Delson. No arahant ever ever goes around claiming arahantship. I am from the land of arahants. These guys are just trying to make a buck or trying to become famous. Sad to see the suffering these guys are bringing to themselves. This is very dangerous territory for the impure.
Who is doing the fast noting ?
Guru Viking good interview
I just read the first 8 pages (of 11) article by Bhikkhu Analayo and it doesn't seem consistent with what Daniel is saying in the first 19 mins of this video.
Bh Analayo doesn't say one needs to practice Theravada style to get stages of enlightenment. I'm pretty confident no Theravada Bhikkhu would claim that as its very well known many Mahayana masters and Vajrayana masters, lay people at the time of the Buddha, masters from other schools of Buddhism as well as many more in other traditions consistent with the Noble Eightfold Path have accomplished that, it would be basic Wrong View and I see no mention of that at all from Bhikkhu Analayo. He does say however that in the Early Buddhist Texts(i.e. the discourses that we can be confident, from an academic perspective, that the historical figure Gotoma Buddha actually gave during his lifetime) the description of stages of enlightenment don't match what Daniel has written about. Now that's a pretty straightforward argument as it seems like Daniel relies on later works that cannot, at least from an academic perspective, be attributed to Gotama Buddha, for what he describes. He also quotes Daniel seeming to contradict discourses that we can pretty accurately assume did come from Gotama Buddha which to me certainly seems to warrant further investigation. I don't know for sure who is right or wrong but before you make up your mind I would encourage reading Bhikkhu Analayo's articles (links in description) as I feel Daniel misrepresents what I read in Bhikkhu Analayo's article and the article highlights some issues I personally find inconsistent with my practice and studies of Buddhist texts. May you all be well, peaceful and happy🙏
SN 12.64
"Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?"
"On the western wall, lord."
"And if there is no western wall, where does it land?"
"On the ground, lord."
"And if there is no ground, where does it land?"
"On the water, lord."
"And if there is no water, where does it land?"
"It does not land, lord."
John 3:8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know from where it comes and where it goes. Thus is everyone having been born of the Spirit."
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
SN 56.11
Now during this utterance, there arose in the venerable Kondañña the spotless, immaculate vision of the True Idea: "Whatever is subject to arising is all subject to cessation."
If I define an astronaut as someone who looks up at the night sky, I guess that makes me an astronaut based on my own personal definition, but then what would even be the point of words and language?
Imagine being so deluded by your own experience that you become unable to recognize that other people can reach high levels of attainment without necessarily using the way that you, in your own limited existence and comprehension, are positive that is the one and only way.
This kind of drama is exactly why I can never say I "take refuge" in the Sangha.
Instead of being happy to discover that there is a faster and more practical way to RID THE WORLD FROM SUFFERING, you instead retreat and start criticizing those who argue "Hey, there's a faster way to that!"
Bhikkhu Sujato confirms there is the probability ( high) of misrepresentation of Bhikkhu Analayo’s alleged statements. Once lost, credibility is difficult to regain. So why would a person claim enlightenment? Why claim to be an Arhat? Bragging serves only the ego. How many times did Daniel mention his book? He claims no need for money so is the book free or does profit go to charity? There are politicians that have made people follow by claiming the “institutions or establishment” are out to get them. I suspect this criticism will only enrich Ingram.
Christianity faces a similar conflict of earlier and later codices representing more authentic or less authentic expressions of the actual Gospel of Jesus Christ. Protestant traditions prefer earlier, and argued to be more authoritative/original Alexandrian codices, while Catholics elevate later and more Catholicaly traditional codices from the Levant and Near East.
The problem is the Alexandrian codices are from the geographic center of Gnosticism, and thus these earlier texts while prior, reveal a skewed disposition of the writing toward the tenants of Gnosticism which are profoundly at odds with core doctrine of Christianity at large. And further, the later Codices (by roughly 200 years) that the Catholic church has relied upon while later, are from the geographical region where Christ's ministry actually occurred, and where the early church began after His ascension, and are thus the product of the culture and cultural disposition of Christ.
While I vehemently reject the Catholic church, I do believe the later codices to be more accurate, and authentic. Earlier in time is not always earlier in right, or more authentic. We must consider the full context from which a text is produced, and in particular, be mindful of forces from that time and place which are likely to distort the meaning of the intellectual framework that underlies doctrine.
This textual conflict is ubiquitous, and scholarly textual research is absolutely necessary in all contexts, we must also rely on the spirit of truth within us to evaluate the work of these scholars, and to evaluate their initial dispositions, educational history, prejudices, and funding.
Analayo's view that insight stages cannot be experienced in daily life outside of intensive retreat settings leads me to suspect his competence as a practitioner.
The article he wrote doesn't seem to claim that, more that he claims Ingram has mistaken relatively mundane, everyday experiences of insight or epiphanies for more than what they actually are, ie. believing those experiences to be markers comparable to the four stages of enlightenment outlined by the Buddha. Full disclosure, I agree with Analyo's assessment and think that Ingram is mistaken.
Makes me wonder if there's a backlash to doing magic
This attack on Daniel Ingram causes me to have more interest in Daniel's work!
The robe moment was INCREDIBLE 😂😂😂 seriously rolfing. Love you magical brothers and sisters
did you ever think he's just trying to test your arhatship? a la the Torei Enji's bodhisattva vow. I think it is quite traditional for zen colleagues to attempt to undermine each others legitimacy...
any other examples?
@@Jenterke I should write comments on youtube... I talk out of my ass. However, If you read about Obaku and Rinzai exchanges there is a lot of this kind of thing there.
the only difference is the exchange would last two seconds because they lived in the same place and knew exactly how enlightened the other one was!
@@mattrkelly Thanks for the elaboration!
It seems apparent based on Daniel Ingram’s speech patterns and body language that he has yet to attain deep levels of stillness within. I’m not denying that he has a lot of knowledge, but that should not be conflated with attainments on the path. This does not mean that he offers nothing of value to others, but it means that since he is likely confused about his own attainments that there may also be some inaccuracies in his teachings that lead his students astray.
This whole thing just feels like old religious Buddhism fighting Modern Science backed meditation and insight.
Claiming to be an arhat is not backed by any science. And frankly, what Ingram teaches about inducing far out meditative experiences has nothing to do with the mindfulness movement or the role of mindfulness in mental health today. There, mindfulness of a totally different kind is used to reduce stress and get more mentally balanced and focussed. The goal of enlightenment or other higher spiritual attainments is not the topic of the more psychology/science approved mindfulness methods. Mindfulness to better cope with life in modern society and mindfulness to attain liberation, two radically differant goals and different approaches.
@@petrairene Claiming to be an arhat *could* be backed by more rigorous science, if religious fundamentalists would stop trying to censor the work of free-thinking people who aren't bound by orthodoxy.
@@lewiji Nobody is censoring him. He is free to say whatever he likes. However, given that he has taken to claiming a title/attainment of Theravadan Buddhism, while at the same time redefining what that is to suit himself, and claiming all others in history or present who have attained the traditional definition are WRONG and deluded, and that he alone is RIGHT , gives a pretty good basis for a scholar and experienced Theravadan practioner like Ven. Analayo to refute him. If he called whatever it is he believed himself to have attained by some others terms there would be no issue, but by taking a term which has another definition , and watering it down is poor form. It would be like climbing halfway up Mount Everest, being unable to go further due to not following the guidance of those who have summited previously, and instead deciding that halfway up is the real true summit, and all those who have previously claimed to have summited were just exagerating. In that circumstance do you not think it would be appropriate for the climbing community to refute that persons claim? This is all Ven. Analayo is doing here.
@@lewiji Nope, arhatship could not be proven. It's not even possible to scientifically prove that there is life after death. The only thing they can do these days is using funcional MRI to determine which areas of the brain are particularly active in an individual at a given time. You ccould for example prove that someone does not have a normal pain and aversion reaction if you prick his skin while in the machine. They have indeed checked long time meditators in functional MRI, ven. Matthieu Ricard was one of the test subjects and it was done in the USA I think. You can find that on the internet, it has been published. And nope, they did not determine on which of the bodhisattva levels Matthieu is after the tests.
By the way, I'm in Germany, here in Europe there is zero influence of Religion on university work.
@@youtubeyyolhdusn8771 > claiming all others in history or present who have attained the traditional definition are WRONG and deluded, and that he alone is RIGHT
Could you point out where Daniel makes that exact claim?
> by taking a term which has another definition , and watering it down is poor form ... This is all Ven. Analayo is doing here.
As in any fragmented tradition of long centuries past, the definition has been in dispute since written history. Ven. Analayo is no exception, and I don't think Daniel's claims that Analayo has his own specific criteria and tradition on the term, which other religious branches may dispute, is controversial, is it?
> It would be like climbing halfway up Mount Everest, being unable to go further due to not following the guidance of those who have summited previously, and instead deciding that halfway up is the real true summit
To loop back to the original point: if rigorous, clinical science were developed in the area, in the future someone could easily say "look, I've got to the REAL summit, and you can tell because you can see it by these results". If such efforts are stymied by orthodoxy, that's more difficult. Even if Daniel's claims are wrong, at least with research and methodology that can be clearly shown.
Can an unvirtuous person know of an unvirtuous person that this person is an unvirtuous person?
So sad to see Daniel being defamed by people who clearly either haven't paid enough attention to the fine details of his work, can't appreciate the factor of individual differences in psychology &/or simply have something personally against him, the latter of which is frankly disappointing coming from practitioners many of us look up to.
Right around 2:15 Daniel states exactly why Bhikkhu Analyo is correct about him when he says “this is a 4 billion dollar industry.” The Buddha did not teach a set of commodities to be bought and sold. He taught the ending of suffering through the destruction of its cause (craving) and condition (ignorance). These mental highs and acrobatics Daniel sells are not the path or goal of the Dhamma. You may as well just do psychedelics if getting high is your goal.