Ingram, et al - "Hard Core Dharma" & claims of attainment

[Mr Man]

What is the proper way to learn the definition(s) of the word arahant?

8 fold path?

[Modus.Ponens]

Modus,

You've yet to respond to my post about Dr. Ingram admitting that he may be "full of s**t" at ~2:08 in the video.

Here, I've actually taken a few minutes to transcribe his words so you get the context. Watch the video itself for proof.

So my best skeptical inquiry into the nature of the thing doesn’t find any last, little things, you know. And if they’re there I’m totally deluded about them, you know, which is another option. You’ve gotta keep that one in mind, I might be just totally full of s**t, you know, excuse my language. You know, so, but, uhm, if it is, it’s a level of delusion I haven’t managed to crack, so I’ll leave that skillful door open if that makes sense from a reasonable skepticism point of view.

-From 2:08:06-2:08:32

Here are the premises:

1) Dr. Ingram claims he is an arahant.
2) Dr. Ingram claims he might be "totally deluded", might be "totally full of s**t", and might have "a level of delusion I haven't managed to crack".

Here's the question:

Do you think an arahant could have those uncertainties listed in the second premise?

I think continuing this discussion is pointless. You (all?) have made up your mind. I have too, in the ways I've described here. The hostility is palpable, so there's nothing to be gained by continuing to discuss this.

[Mkoll]

Modus,

OK, I understand.

But if you change your mind, I would like to hear your answer to my question.

[IanAnd]

What I found interesting in watching this video is how inarticulate he was in talking about his experiences.

Are you suggesting that an arahant (either ancient or modern) is immune from being inarticulate?

If so, what are your thoughts about the communication skills of the person who many accept as being a modern-day arahant the Ven. Acariya Maha Boowa?

(BTW, I understand your comment and agree with it. I, too, sometimes find Daniel's communication to be somewhat puzzling as to what point he is intending to make.)

[MisterRunon]

To those who think this topic ispointless: it is not.

I recently discovered Daniel. My curiosity was piqued when I'd heard that he was a self-proclaimed Arahant, which led me to google up "daniel ingram arahant." It landed me on this site. I'd say this issue has already been settled; it came out of Daniel's own mouth that he is not an Arahant in the Buddha-Dhamma context.

Discussion about this topic is important because Daniel claims to teach Buddhism, but he actually conflates it with some other practice that he has created himself. In that regard, I do think people of the Buddhist community have the right to bring his claims to the fore. If someone is using your reputation as a means for their credibility, then you have every right to respond.

U Pandita is still alive, right? Has anyone brought up Daniel's claims to him, and has he officially said anything? I'd think it would be an issue worth clarifying (for U Pandita), since Daniel has been building a following in the name of The Buddha.

[Modus.Ponens]

To those who think this topic ispointless: it is not.

I recently discovered Daniel. My curiosity was piqued when I'd heard that he was a self-proclaimed Arahant, which led me to google up "daniel ingram arahant." It landed me on this site. I'd say this issue has already been settled; it came out of Daniel's own mouth that he is not an Arahant in the Buddha-Dhamma context.

Discussion about this topic is important because Daniel claims to teach Buddhism, but he actually conflates it with some other practice that he has created himself. In that regard, I do think people of the Buddhist community have the right to bring his claims to the fore. If someone is using your reputation as a means for their credibility, then you have every right to respond.

U Pandita is still alive, right? Has anyone brought up Daniel's claims to him, and has he officially said anything? I'd think it would be an issue worth clarifying (for U Pandita), since Daniel has been building a following in the name of The Buddha.

It is a relevant discussion but maybe not in the setting of a strictly theravadin forum. But, this being the dhamma for all section, I'll try to say something more than before.

Theravada buddhism, zen buddhism, tibetan buddhism are different in their tendencies and statements. Wildly different versions of the truth _ at the surface. There are many buddhisms, but only one reality and thus, one truth. In my opinion, tibetan buddhism deviated from the original teachings in the direction of superstition and esoteric practices. Zen buddhism deviated from the original teachings by summarising it way too much and by becoming excentric. Theravada buddhism, in my opinion, deviated from the original teachings in the direction of idealistic purity.

Obviously there's no doubt to anyone who knows the history of buddhism that theravada is the most reliable version. But it is still a version. The teachings were written down 300 years after the Buddha died. The abidhamma was added and commentaries became the normative interpretation. And who knows what happened since the writing down? Some people feel offended by someone suggesting that the teachings of the suttas are not the almost perfect recording of the Buddha's word because it implies that the sangha didn't preserve the teachings in their perfection. I would say otherwise. The fact that the teachings in the suttas are so sound, coherent and clear is a testament of the fantastic quality of the Buddha's disciples for centuries after.

So you're kind of right that Daniel Ingram doesn't teach strictly theravada. But do you claim that he does not teach the truth? That's an interesting road to take. Are you ready to claim that Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche wasn't an arahat? And what about the Dalai Lama? Or Trulshik Rinpoche? Or Ajahn Chah? Or Ajahn Sumedho? Or Ajahn Brahm? Or Ayya Khema? What about zen teachers and recluses like the anonymous people on retreat in chinese mountains?
How many teachers are you going to say are not arahats because they express things in a different language? The teaching is "just" about eliminating suffering by destroying the illusion that there is a permanent and independent self. All these traditions, one way or another, teach this. And the other traditions have views in them at least as troublesome as Daniel Ingram's.

So, unless you are one of those people that would reject that a teacher is an arahat if that teacher would sit in a bench one inch taller than what is allowed by the vinaya/uposatta rules it's best if you can back up your statements without dogmatic arguments.

[MisterRunon]

It is a relevant discussion but maybe not in the setting of a strictly theravadin forum. But, this being the dhamma for all section, I'll try to say something more than before.

Theravada buddhism, zen buddhism, tibetan buddhism are different in their tendencies and statements. Wildly different versions of the truth _ at the surface. There are many buddhisms, but only one reality and thus, one truth. In my opinion, tibetan buddhism deviated from the original teachings in the direction of superstition and esoteric practices. Zen buddhism deviated from the original teachings by summarising it way too much and by becoming excentric. Theravada buddhism, in my opinion, deviated from the original teachings in the direction of idealistic purity.

Obviously there's no doubt to anyone who knows the history of buddhism that theravada is the most reliable version. But it is still a version. The teachings were written down 300 years after the Buddha died. The abidhamma was added and commentaries became the normative interpretation. And who knows what happened since the writing down? Some people feel offended by someone suggesting that the teachings of the suttas are not the almost perfect recording of the Buddha's word because it implies that the sangha didn't preserve the teachings in their perfection. I would say otherwise. The fact that the teachings in the suttas are so sound, coherent and clear is a testament of the fantastic quality of the Buddha's disciples for centuries after.

So you're kind of right that Daniel Ingram doesn't teach strictly theravada. But do you claim that he does not teach the truth? That's an interesting road to take. Are you ready to claim that Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche wasn't an arahat? And what about the Dalai Lama? Or Trulshik Rinpoche? Or Ajahn Chah? Or Ajahn Sumedho? Or Ajahn Brahm? Or Ayya Khema? What about zen teachers and recluses like the anonymous people on retreat in chinese mountains?
How many teachers are you going to say are not arahats because they express things in a different language? The teaching is "just" about eliminating suffering by destroying the illusion that there is a permanent and independent self. All these traditions, one way or another, teach this. And the other traditions have views in them at least as troublesome as Daniel Ingram's.

So, unless you are one of those people that would reject that a teacher is an arahat if that teacher would sit in a bench one inch taller than what is allowed by the vinaya/uposatta rules it's best if you can back up your statements without dogmatic arguments.

I can't say that I am well-versed in Mahyana, Vajrayana, or any other sect of Buddhism, but I wonder if you could find me an example of any other Buddhist sect that re-defines the meaning of Complete Liberation in a similar manner that Daniel has? That's the issue right there - the ultimate objective in Buddhism is to attain Arahanthship, and Daniel has completely uprooted its meaning.

I'm currently reading his book, and it's quite obvious that he still has attachment to conceit. In the 2nd chapter, and he is quite cynical to the struggles of meditationstudents, whom he claims "whine about their problems to teachers" at retreats." As a side note also seems to be lacking in Metta, though I'm not saying it nullifies Arahanthood. He's made other boastful claims that many find quite a turn-off.

Are you saying that there are no characteristics that one should have, if he/she is indeed enlightened? Because I find your equating Daniel's teaching with dogma to be hyperbolic and irrelevant. Comparing whether someone sits on a prop to how someone defines Arahantship is apples to oranges. He is not trying to create a new sect of Buddhism, but something distinctly different.

As for who is an Arahant and who is not: I don't know who is an Arahant and make no such claims. However, it's usually much easier to distinguish who isn't one. I don't know what the "truth" is in your context, and I never intended to use that word in any form; all I am saying is that what he is teaching is quite a departure from Buddhism.

[tiltbillings]

So you're kind of right that Daniel Ingram doesn't teach strictly theravada.

If one wants to follow Ingramism, that is one's choice. As this thread graphically illustrates, there is enough in what Ingram and his followers have said and teach, that I would prefer to look elsewhere for a more sound quality of Dhamma.

[MisterRunon]

So you're kind of right that Daniel Ingram doesn't teach strictly theravada.

If one wants to follow Ingramism, that is one's choice. As this thread graphically illustrates, there is enough in what Ingram and his followers have said and teach, that I would prefer to look elsewhere for a more sound quality of Dhamma.

Another thing to note: Every school of Buddhism strictly follows the Noble Eightfold Path, which includes "Right Speech." If he is indeed an Arahant, then he has achieved the ultimate goal by not even following this path. At 2:08, he uses profanity as well as in his book. I say this again: every Buddhist sect that I know of follows the Noble Eightfold Path, yet Daniel does not. It's a major diversion (in addition to his other ones), and I wouldn't have any issues if he claimed to teach Ingramism instead of Buddhism.

[tiltbillings]

What I found interesting in watching this video is how inarticulate he was in talking about his experiences.

Are you suggesting that an arahant (either ancient or modern) is immune from being inarticulate?

If so, what are your thoughts about the communication skills of the person who many accept as being a modern-day arahant the Ven. Acariya Maha Boowa?

(BTW, I understand your comment and agree with it. I, too, sometimes find Daniel's communication to be somewhat puzzling as to what point he is intending to make.)

Goodness. I did not see this when it was posted, but it does warrant a response.

Are you suggesting that an arahant (either ancient or modern) is immune from being inarticulate?

What I am suggesting that a person as highly educated and supposedly experienced in the Dhamma as Ingram claims to be cannot express his own experiences more clearly is, in the very least, interesting.

As for Maha Bua, I have no particular opinion. I do not find him particularly convincing, but people want to believe just as they hanker for experiences.

[MisterRunon]

I just started the 2nd chapter in his book, and there's just way too much cynicism and talking other people down. I don't think I can continue on anymore, since it's the very thing in myself that I need to work on. I feel like reading his book might reinforce my own cynicism.

[Modus.Ponens]

So you're kind of right that Daniel Ingram doesn't teach strictly theravada.

If one wants to follow Ingramism, that is one's choice. As this thread graphically illustrates, there is enough in what Ingram and his followers have said and teach, that I would prefer to look elsewhere for a more sound quality of Dhamma.

Tilt, I'm sorry, but you do not decide my religious afiliation for me. Neither you, nor me, nor Ingram owns theravada buddhism or the suttas.

I try to analyse the things that are said and see if they are true or not, based on the suttas, combined with realistic logic.
What Ingram says about anger, or lust, if I understand correctly, is that the biological functions of anger and lust are present. I think what he's saying is that there's just no need, or greed for sex. And there's just no hatred behind the biological reaction of anger. The teaching of nibbana with remaining element seems perfect here: the fire is extinguished but the ashes are still hot.
By the way, Ayya Khema says something very similar. She taught that an arahat does feel things, there's just no greed or hatred behind those feelings. And she claimed to have experience on the jhanas. Plus, around the time she went through surgery she said that her suffering was long gone, indicating that she was an arahat for a long time by then. (This was when she had a near death experience)

And this view of emotions makes perfect sense. People here admit, as is painfuly obvious when reading the suttas, that an arahat can feel physical pain. And other sensations too, of course.
So if the miriad of different physical sensations, which are dependent on the body and brain, do not disapear, how could the miriad of mental sensations and emotions disapear? Mental sensations and emotions are dependent on the brain and body too. A curious thing also mentioned by Ayya Khema is that, when the Buddha was trying to figure out if he would teach or not, he thought to himself that if he would teach, and people misunderstand him, it would be a vexation for him. "Vexation" is an example of an emotion that the theravada dogmatic interpretations would want us to believe an arahat incapable of feeling.

Regarding morality, again, nothing is said that's so outrageous. The story of the first buddhist council ilustrates this. Some monks wanted to keep just a few rules, others intermidiate levels of rules and others the full number of rules. Why would arahats disagree on a matter so fundamental as vinaya rules if they are all equaly versed in morality? What Ingram says is that it's not impossible for an arahat to comit an imoral action. It's just very unlikely, but not literaly impossible. There are people here who would disregard a teacher as unenlightened if they even sat in a bench a milimiter taller than the rule!

[Modus.Ponens]

So you're kind of right that Daniel Ingram doesn't teach strictly theravada.

If one wants to follow Ingramism, that is one's choice. As this thread graphically illustrates, there is enough in what Ingram and his followers have said and teach, that I would prefer to look elsewhere for a more sound quality of Dhamma.

Another thing to note: Every school of Buddhism strictly follows the Noble Eightfold Path, which includes "Right Speech." If he is indeed an Arahant, then he has achieved the ultimate goal by not even following this path. At 2:08, he uses profanity as well as in his book. I say this again: every Buddhist sect that I know of follows the Noble Eightfold Path, yet Daniel does not. It's a major diversion (in addition to his other ones), and I wouldn't have any issues if he claimed to teach Ingramism instead of Buddhism.

Really? Why did the Buddha said that Devadatta was like spittle in the ground? This was when the Buddha was explaining that he wouldn't even give the leadership of the sangha to Sariputta after his death, let alone Devadatta!

Is that noble speech?

[tiltbillings]

So you're kind of right that Daniel Ingram doesn't teach strictly theravada.

If one wants to follow Ingramism, that is one's choice. As this thread graphically illustrates, there is enough in what Ingram and his followers have said and teach, that I would prefer to look elsewhere for a more sound quality of Dhamma.

Tilt, I'm sorry, but you do not decide my religious afiliation for me. Neither you, nor me, nor Ingram owns theravada buddhism or the suttas.

I certainly would not claim to, but it is obvious when you get some one such as Ingram who is reinterpreting the texts to fit his experience. This reinterpreting has been carefully illustrated in this thread more than once. Call yourself what you wish. Many do.

I try to analyse the things that are said and see if they are true or not, based on the suttas, combined with realistic logic.
What Ingram says about anger, or lust, if I understand correctly, is that the biological functions of anger and lust are present. I think what he's saying is that there's just no need, or greed for sex.

Maybe, but Ingram said a bit more than that as well, it seems. It looks that you are soft-selling Ignram's redefining of the Dhamma. I don't find his claim to be an arahant and his redefining the Dhamma to fit his needs at all compelling.

This Mkoll's msg is still waiting to be answered.

[Modus.Ponens]

I can't say that I am well-versed in Mahyana, Vajrayana, or any other sect of Buddhism, but I wonder if you could find me an example of any other Buddhist sect that re-defines the meaning of Complete Liberation in a similar manner that Daniel has? That's the issue right there - the ultimate objective in Buddhism is to attain Arahanthship, and Daniel has completely uprooted its meaning.

I'm currently reading his book, and it's quite obvious that he still has attachment to conceit. In the 2nd chapter, and he is quite cynical to the struggles of meditationstudents, whom he claims "whine about their problems to teachers" at retreats." As a side note also seems to be lacking in Metta, though I'm not saying it nullifies Arahanthood. He's made other boastful claims that many find quite a turn-off.

Are you saying that there are no characteristics that one should have, if he/she is indeed enlightened? Because I find your equating Daniel's teaching with dogma to be hyperbolic and irrelevant. Comparing whether someone sits on a prop to how someone defines Arahantship is apples to oranges. He is not trying to create a new sect of Buddhism, but something distinctly different.

As for who is an Arahant and who is not: I don't know who is an Arahant and make no such claims. However, it's usually much easier to distinguish who isn't one. I don't know what the "truth" is in your context, and I never intended to use that word in any form; all I am saying is that what he is teaching is quite a departure from Buddhism.

Well, most tibetans regard Padmasambhava as the second Buddha. But the curious thing is that his biography mentions that he killed a person with a vajra. I don't even know if this is true, and I certainly hope it is not. But the fact is that tibetan buddhists believe that an enlightened being can kill, if he thinks it's in your best interest. I personaly find this bizarre, but it's their belief, nonetheless.

Again, you are attributing stuff to Ingram's mind because you have already decided yours. I have seen monks use harsh words but I do not know the content of their mind when they said those words. And it's not uncommon that harsh words, when clarified, were actualy well intended, instead of malicious.

Of course there are characteristics. It's just that you can't pinpoint defining characteristics because no arahat is the same. Each arahat is dependent on the body and the accumulated knowledge of his life(s). Therefore each arahat is a bit different. I think that what makes sense is that being an arahat makes it very, very likely to act moral and have good behaviour. But being very, very likely is not the same as being absolutely inevitable and a universal and unbreakable rule.
Yes, it was a hyperborlic analogy, but it makes sense if you read the previous posts in the debate. There are people who believe the sutta that establishes the moral behaviour of an arahat as if it's an infallible document. And it seems ridiculous to me that a person is so attached to that, that he would potentialy dismiss an arahat because of sitting on a bench that is slightly higher than permited.

(By the way, just for fun: if the bench is one milimeter bellow the allowed limit, but there's a tiny rock under one of the benche's leg, would an arahat sit on it? Or if there is a glass of whater with 1 single molecule of Xanax in it, would an arahat drink it? What about two? And three? Where does it stop? If he wouldn't drink in the first place, there might as well be no arahats in this world, because finding a molecule of Xanax in a cup of water is not that hard. )

Is it easy? I don't know, I'm not so sure. The Patrul Rinpoche that lived in Tibet a long time ago showed his penis in a debate about dharma. Yet even the most famous lamas of his time respected him like almost noone else. One example of this wandering hermit is the story where someone offered him silver before he camped to sleep. When he left from his camp, he left the silver on the fire ashes.

I wish things were simple. It's a lot easier to take a book with a prescription and eliminate everything that doesn't fit the prescription. But the world is complicated and organic. And we have to think more than we feel confortable with because we are at spiritual loss otherwise.