I have no wish to engage you in any sort of debate regarding MCTB, perhaps others will but I see no practical value in doing so. There are a few inaccurate statements and apparent misinterpretations which I'd like to point out though:
1.
Michael:
His claim seems to deem the path navigating to the result is nothing more than an arbitrary and useless result of misconstrued imagination and expectations.
It may just be the way I'm interpreting your words here, but that sounds like an awfully extreme view to take based on, in the various times I've read MCTB, very little actual evidence to support such an assertion. Have you perhaps misunderstood the concept of how even the path needs to be let go of? After a while, conceptual maps no longer serve any purpose other than as a point of reference or as a means of communicating ideas and experiences with others. Ever heard the phrase: "All dharmas are empty"?
2.
Michael:
If you went through enlightment and found that cycles are the only distinguishable aspect that is luminous, then why bother?
How in the name of Kenneth Folk did you come to that conclusion? I am entirely unable to see where you'd have gotten this from.
3.
Michael:
Second, nibbana is microscopically analyzed to its centre and labeled as the unconditioned, permannent, unborn, undying.
To say that "nibbana is microscopically analyzed to it's centre and labelled as..." sounds a bit silly to be honest. Nibbana has no centre, no labels, nothing that you could possibly ever communicate in language, however certain aspects of it (which is inaccurate since there's no "it" 'there' any way) be 'pointed towards' via metaphor, allegory or other symbolic language.
4.
Michael:
Another criticism i like to point is also claiming that Buddhism is heavily influenced by Hinduism, which any buddhist scholar knows is not true.
For a start, are
you a Buddhist scholar? If not, who are you to speak for each and every Buddhist scholar in existence?
Did you try typing:
Buddhism and Hinduism into a search engine?
Buddhism would have developed from the basic framework of Hinduism, it was the cultural and social paradigm of the era. Look at Jesus and Judaism: "Christianity" didn't exist until waaaaayyy after the death of Jesus, and "Buddhism" didn't exist until equally waaaaayyy after the death of the Buddha. Much of the terminology and symbolism involved in pretty much every single school of Buddhism involved, or is influenced by, symbolism which is originally found in the Hindu traditions predating it.
The overall tone of your review and your choice to post it in the Dharma Battleground gives me reason to question your motives for posting it. While your initial posts appear to have been genuine, this post appears to be quite confrontational and I'd like to know why you've chosen to take this, as you say, "polemical" stance with, as far as I can see, very little 'hands-on' experience of what's being discussed?
Let me just be clear here, as you'll no doubt think otherwise, that I have no interest in defending Daniel Ingram or MCTB; he's a big boy and can fight his own battles, however there's no value for anyone in a review based on misunderstanding and a lack of experience.
Did you find the book useful in a practical sense? Did it help you with your own practice?
Or are you more interested in the beliefs of the person writing it? (Bearing in mind, it was written a number of years ago and, as the author has discussed
here is currently in the process of being expanded upon based on a more collective approach and on his own experience since, rightly or wrongly, claiming Arahatship?)
Your own experience is the only thing you can
ever know, don't waste time that could be put to better use on solid practice. Go test the techniques for yourself for a few weeks and see what you think after that.