His teaching is that arhats have neither cut off the taints nor fetters...there is no hermeneutical approach that can make that work with the suttas other than the hermeneutic of dishonesty.Modus.Ponens wrote:Regarding the above quotes from the Buddha I don't see them as dualistic. The process of letting go body, sensations, perceptions, volitions and consciousness lays bare the following: since there is nothing else that constitutes a person, when every constituent is abandoned as being not self, there is nothing left to even be considered self. So there is no self.
As for Ingram's teachings, I think they are compatible with some hermeneutical approaches to the suttas. If you try to be make a charitable interpretation of his writings, I think it is the case of the mentioned paragraph that it is compatible with buddhist doctrine.
His interpretation of anatta, on the otherhand, we could argue about forever, as with any other interpretation of anatta. But his interpretation of arhats, and thus of the goal and whole point of Buddhism is unquestionably wrong and thus irredeemable.