Now that I've had an opportunity to see what you are talking about via Daniel M. Ingram - Dhamma book written by arahat? and Daniel M. Ingram and to confirm for myself what you are saying and the point you are making, I agree. In fact, I think I may have found one of the points of origin for his adherence to this non-dual viewpoint which I found on re-reading portions of his book.tiltbillings wrote:But it raises so many problems, especially in his case when his description of an arahant does not look like anything that has anything to do with the teachings found in the suttas. It comes across as the usual “non-dual” stuff and it rather makes him look foolishIanAnd wrote: And since they cannot or won't speak up, this leaves it up to people like Daniel, who is not bound by any vows, to stand up and say: "Yes. This is possible to do."
Actually, according to what Daniel has said and, I think, written about (if memory serves me correctly), this claim of the path stage of insight is not only coming from him, but from his teachers, U Pandita Jr. in particular, and other teachers with whom he has associated.mikenz66 wrote:Thank you for your observations. As I have said before, I find most of what Daniel writes is in line with what I've gathered from my teachers and other more conventional modern teachers, and with the Suttas and Commentaries. However, as Tilt points out, his description of the qualities of an Arahant seem extremely divergent from those sources.
Do you think that it's possible that he's overestimated where he is on the paths? After all, it seems common that people can be cycling through most of the insight stages without actually achieving a particular path. I think Daniel mentions this cycling somewhere in his book and certainly other teachers I listen to, such as Joseph Goldstein and Steve Armstrong mention this.
And yes, I agree with your inquiry that he (and perhaps others with whom he was associated) may have "overestimated" his path attainment. I think playing around with the non-dual crowd is dangerous for those of us attempting to walk the straight-and-narrow of early Buddhist thought and teaching. And especially the younger and more inexperienced we are (Daniel was 35 in 2004 when he wrote and finished his book). That inexperience (in correct discernment) can cost one dearly, especially if he feels he's nearing the end of the path attainments and becomes anxious to get over the final hump. The enticement of the non-dual honey can be a difficult obstacle to overcome, primarily because it "feels" so right at the time one is having these realizations.
I myself was almost taken in by the non-dual crowd. Except for a stinging essay by Bhikkhu Bodhi that I read and took some time to really contemplate, I might still be under that delusion. After that experience, it became obvious to me how easy it can be to accept an explanation about Dhamma that may not have been what the Buddha taught. That's when I put down all other books on Buddhism and concentrated solely on the translated discourses. It was a game changer of a decision for sure.