I have just finished reading Daniel Ingrams MTCB. After evaluating and reviewing, i had a polarized view concerjibg the content of the articles and wish to offer my two cents.

The positive feedback i can articulate about his attempt to display a fundamental and concise clear map of insight was meticulously detailed and demanded a great deal of praise which is possibly the highlight of the book. However, at the risk of sounding dogmatic and indoctrinated, i found some flawed characteristics pertaining to later chapters that solidified his beliefs and opinions concerning the modes of enlightment.

He begins to attack preconceived notions provided by mainstream practitoners mostly inherited by the westerb buddhist ideal and cements a systematic method of debunking their models. Now i do agree when he states that some images illustrating the embodiment of an enlightened individual such as perfection, morality, etc. However, he goes on to state that this practice is purely an aesthetical application which solely based on itsself, revolving only its aspects. He says that enlightment is not a myriad of beneficial states of minds, progressing nothing and absolutely gaining nothing(which i agree). 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. For example, he claims citing an author elucidating about enlightment as highly recommended but offers no empirical evidence backing up his view. I do understand the importance of open mindedness but then to say the Pali canon offers more paradoxical contradictions than it does elbaorating its essence with no propf is arrogant. Where are the contradictions? Considering the descriptions offered by the pali canon actually correlates with many persons who were victim to this expierence. As a matter of fact, read Richard Maurice Bucke Cosmic consciousness which compiles many people who went through Nirvana and were ingrained with perfected happiness and a permanent distinction between their old self. No, this doesnt mean Nirvana is emotional perfection or a a godlike status. But The Buddha disciplined his students not for a arbitrary life but to attain what he calls the highest happiness. Also, he urged to maintain ethical endurance and stabilize your ability to mold them for a beneift to mankind. It is the elimination of greed, hate etc. Oncd again, it doesnt mean no bad thoughts arise but ones perception is untangled from other harmful and pernicious views that attach itself to suffering. If you went through enlightment and found that cycles are the only distinguishable aspect that is luminous, then why bother? Claiming escaping rebirth is just dogmatic crap is self defeating. If we knew we had one life, once again why bother? Second, nibbana is microscopically analyzed to its centre and labeled as the unconditioned, permannent, unborn, undying.

Another criticism i like to point is also claiming that Buddhism is heavily influenced by Hinduism, which any buddhist scholar knows is not true. Go to accesstoinsight.org and read and find out. His outlines regarding insight completely neglects causal relationships which makes something nibbana so unique. I will post more later but at the risk of sounding polemical, i hope i can get some clairification and hey, if your an arahat then please share your as it wilexpierence will help me out.

I will not provided quotes or citatations to his book. Attempting to engage in a mode of debunking must require extoardinary proof. First of all, mindfulness does improve drastically, the nature of things is known and there are really some amazing things such as adapting to pain due to altering of perception(Shaloin monks comes to mind). Subjects of these expierenfes verfiy what was said in the pali canon though they also relate to his book too. These people did not have perfect lifestylex but they were not sexual predators or arrigant, tyrannical leaders that were mass murderers. To say inisight is completely distinct fr from a progression of morality is self defeating. One of the factors of enlightment is sympathetic joy, the while poijt is supposed to be selfless.

Due to my limitations, i will post more later. Please comment

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Taking a look back at the book to see what i missed and honestly this guy isnt more wrong if not delusional. In his models chapeter, he dispels the myth that the Buddha is an illuminating presence that embodies perpetual radiance which influences even the most brutal of people. He ignores the fact that yes Buddha may sound conceited when he states that he is unequal, unparraleled to amongst gods and men but Buddha was a human being who like Jesus, Muhammad etc werent always praised. As a matter of fact, that after Buddhas enlightment, he told an ascetic that he was enlightened with the ascstic replying with disbelief. And he is correct with the physical marks being misconcieved but no where does geuniune support seems to verofy his claim. Also, his concern regarding the causal relationship and karma are drastically misconstrued. He claims that dependent origination cannot be seen because it is so wide and vast and complex. Buddha seen that there was such thing as a causal relationship but no evidence is shown to support a view that he seen every relationship between cause and effect. Realizing that there was one, he can be used to eliminate stress and suffering. As a matter of fact, anyone on chaos theory or complex non linear system knows this. If you eliminate the conditions and causes of a certian pattern its results cease to exist. Therefore, that is why nibbana is seen as a unconditioned thing because it is outside that causal dependence. Karma is also vital to this, but he says thay an arahat has eliminated all karma and questions why buddha is seen almost killed, hurt and verbally abused. All buddhist scholars know is that an arahat has eliminated new karma and therefore any exis,ting karma will continue to run untill it is exhausted which gives a clear indication how causal karma works. It also seems hypocritical that he highly praises texts that gave him the navigation yet totally bags on it. He says Buddhism is not free from theological conceptions ad many buddhists worship buddha or buddha nature. No! That is like saying Is. lam is tyrannical because they have muslims that interpet jihad as merciless murder. The core essence of buddhism in no way condones worship of a nature or a buddha, actually buddha stated not to praise him but to challnege his claims. The fact that you must be bashing on a tradition and other traditions which actually correlate to. Modern day individuals testimony. Please read Ken wilbers book mysticisim. Howver, positive feedback is also suggested. He was right when he said that people should continue to seek other higher forms if possible and the fact that old tradtions can be wrong and we must correct them.

I will post more. If you wish to post, please do.

Appreciate the concern. But no i dont wish to be polemic or destructive with the post. Perhaps my post justs seems to analyrical and pernicious. However, my interpretation justs seems disjointed. But you said that " 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"?"

That is your quote above. What i meant here is that when Daniel Ingram goes on to supposebly debunk the characteristics of nibbana, he claims that none of it is benifical. So i ask what is the point? And second, no where in the MTCB does he ever map out whats so great about enlightment. He offers barely a first habd account and really describses as sort of job. Enlightment is given no primary characteristics but ends up doing what he said the texts erronouesly do, which is describing what it is not. Perhaps i need to read more carefully, but when does he ever state its hight recomendation but more importantly, where are the aspects which deem it convincing?

" 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."

Your quote above. I came to that conclusion because he barely describes what it is. Or maybe not so....

" To say that "nibbanaismicroscopically analyzed to it'scentre and labelled as..." soundsa bitsillyto behonest.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."

Ok this is my fault here but my point in this one is that he sees dependant origination as a false doctrine in which no man can percieve. Yes its not something you can communicate to another person but to eliminate causal relationship is ingorant as its0 vit to the whole purpose of the path. This is why nibban is seen as the unconditioned.


" For a start, are you a Buddhist scholar? If not, who are you to speak for each and every Buddhist scholar in existence?"

This actually includes the whole of your last paragraph. Maybe my diction was wrong but i should mention the buddhas teaching rather than buddhism. Well thats another thing, he seems to look at more of the mainstream buddhism than the genuine kind, though that could be because he is debunking the former. However, no not all scholars would agree and no i am not a schar but ive done research. Is he a buddhist scholar? Probably not so he is not entitled to speak about it than me. Just because much terminilogy is used doesnt mean anything. For example, hindus believe in caste, buddhist dont. Hindus believe in soul and god, buddha dont, hindus karma based solely on action, buddha no, and much more. Also the fact that it is known that hinduism wasnt even predominant in buddhas time shows that he may agree with them but his exploration is genuine, i dont need to be a scholar to see that. Also, it is know that hindus back at that time thought the jhanas were basically enlightmwnt until buddha seen that there is something further so it can be said that he was influenced but in no way was mean to accesible and totally random. And this issue doesnt call for a practical sense of expierence and yes it has to do with the persons belief more than anything. I found the book useful in a practical sense but i dont i have to go through enlightment to find out what is wrong about his perception on things. One thing that bothers me is that he offers a lot of claims yet gives no background nor evidence, and i mean this relating to the beliefs etc. not the practical stuff. At first, i was hesitant to give this rant on a forum but its a forum right? I might sound harsh and this is why i ask for replies to clear any misconceived notions i have. I dont want to debate either but sometimes a persons own view can overshadow his reason, and this includes me. But all in all, it has helped me and i will use it as a guideline.

Best wishes, mike

I suggest changing the name of your initial posting to the one I've suggested in the "subject" header of this reply. What you're posting is not a review, it's an opinion, which you're perfectly entitled to, but which should not be presented as an objective critique of a book.

Tommy, this is a very unfair way to start off an argument. You say that you aren't interested in debating, and then go on to debate. Instead of calling it debating you call it pointing out inaccurate statements and interpretations, which is basically debating but suggesting that your point is objectively and obviously correct and the person who you are "non-arguing" with is obviously wrong. Prefacing your comments with statements like that is really nothing other than giving yourself high-ground to start and has the effect of giving you more of a chance of "winning" in the eyes of others but gives the people engaged less of a chance of learning anything.



Are you a Buddhist scholar tommy? I am not one, but Thanissaro Bhikkhu who is one, would strongly reject the notion that Buddhist cosmology is just an adoption of the beliefs of the day. He often says that there was lots of debate about whether rebirth occurred or not during the time of the Buddha, and the Buddha clearly talks about how he bases his belief in rebirth on the knowledge gained in his awakening. That's an experience he had, not something he picked up in his conditioning, if we are to believe his own account, and I don't know of any source which could be said to be more accurate. Regardless of any schools of Buddhism, it is clearly stated in the Pali Canon that the Buddha's personal experiences taught him to believe in rebirth.

I agree with a lot of Michael's critiques, and of course it is his opinion, what else would it be?

edit: as I reread some of your posts I think that perhaps you wanted nothing other than for Michael to practice more and think about the theory less. I guess that your method of getting him to do that is harsh and counterintuitive as I interpret it and so as usual I can't effectively understand where you are coming from... oh well. it's funny because I do agree that practicing is way more important but unless I am very careful reading you I always just assume you are bullying people for no reason.

Once again, we are all practioners and even though by definition this is a debate, i dont want it to get heated. I dont disagree about Dan Ingrams path to enlightment and actually applaud his account erasing the mistakes of earlier traditions to give a concose and clear path. However, h i cant take a person seriously if he wants to bash on ither traditions with no proof backed up. That is all. I will continue to read more to get a clear point.

Best wishes mike

Do you still have a problem with misinterpreting my replies, particularly when they're not actually directed at you?

Once again, you've interpreted what I've said with this idea in your head that I'm trying to appear superior or taking a high-ground. I responded to Michael's post for two reasons:

1. Because there were glaring inaccuracies in what he was saying, many of which could be clarified through a more thorough understanding of the subject at hand, and with evidence based on currently available information.

2. Because no amount of speculation as to why a person thinks or acts in a certain way will lead to awakening. Well, maybe it could in a roundabout Zen sort of way, but that's another story...


At which point did I suggest or imply that I was a Buddhist scholar? I'm not even a Buddhist in the first place, although I do appreciate this particular model, especially the Dzogchen approach, far more than a lot of other available belief systems.

As for what Thanissaro Bhikku thinks, I only know the guy's work through some of his talks and his translations on the accesstoinsight website but I think you've misunderstood what I actually said. I didn't say that the "Buddhist cosmology is just an adoption of the beliefs if the day", what I actually said was:



What I'm talking about are the symbol systems, the language and the terminology used to communicate that particular cosmology. The underlying experience itself, which we're calling Enlightenment, does indeed appear to be unique to the Buddha but he would have made use of the everyday maps, models and metaphors to explain it and make his discovery more easily understood by more people. I'm not talking about cosmologies, I'm simply talking about language and the ways in which those experiences are communicated between two people. Do you get where I'm coming from now?

The definitions of those words and symbols, the information they contain and not just the plain symbolic representations (letters, words, etc.) is what the big difference is. I keep on repeating "the map is not the territory" to people when we get talking about things at this level, the words and symbols are just representations of experience, not the experience itself. Does that help in understanding where I'm coming from here?

Thanks for the clarification.

However, if your response to my review on how i was opposed to dan view of hinduism influencing buddhism was solely based on terminology then why did yu answer?

I meant to debunk what Dan said how Hinduism influenced the concepts and core beliefs of the buddha, i can care less abt terminology.

Best wishes, mike

Oh no, help me! I'm getting sucked into this whirlpool of words!



So let me get this straight:

You will continue to read a book by someone who you do not take seriously, but with whom you agree with on the topic of "the path to enlightenment", yet you believe he has bashed other traditions in a wrongful way while simultaneously exerting an applaudable effort to correct "the mistakes of earlier traditions".

My mind spins...

I hadn't noticed your edit until after I replied, but I know you've mentioned before that you seem to read my posts as confrontational or harsh. In the past, and particularly while going through Dark Night, some of my replies were admittedly quite barbed at times but I have never, ever posted with the intention of bullying anyone. I can occasionally be confrontational but I try to do so tactfully and never in a way which suggests that I'm some authority on anything, and only if it seems appropriate to the situation at hand. Unfortunately, my tendency to write too much and in a manner which could be construed as being condescending by some, which is something I've even been questioned about in work, does seem to give people a very different impression of what I'm like in real-life. I met Stian and Carolin in Glasgow a while ago and they're still talking to me, so I'm assuming I can't be that much of a bastard.

Sooo off-topic, but me and Carolin were just talking about you the other day, and we miss you, Tommy

EDIT:

You may quote this as proof of your lovableness.

My apologies, I misunderstood. I assumed that Dan was also talking about the same thing I'm describing, although I could be wrong. Also, are you really trying to "debunk" what the guy is saying or are you just disagreeing with him based on your current beliefs and understanding?

Either way, best of luck to you in whatever comes along.

T

I guess yo dont understand the difference. His path to insight is clearly and lucid, yet downplaying other traditions is another story. I know it spins your mind but tell me why isnt it perfectally accpetable?

Does it make sense that you like the plot of a movie but you dont necessarily like the message it conveys? Im pretty sure we all went through similar scenarios and your no exception. So does that make you a hypocrite? Not at all, its reasonable.

Take for example Hitler, everyone hates the guys guts yet people dont deny that the guy was brilliant orator. So, case in point, we would tear this guy limb from limb if he was still alive yet we still praise him for his delivering prowess, crazy how the world works doesnt it? Makes my head spin

Best wishes, mike

Yeah, thanks for the clarification. And yes its basd ony my current knowledge and beliefes. Srry to sound so arrogant and label it as a objective critique, just my two cents.

Anyways, practice is much more important. So best to you mike

Edit: meant to put a comma before mike.

I'll clarify my thoughts (dammit, I'm so stuck in this whirlpool):

I'm...

You know what, this will lead nowhere. I'll just quietly dissolve out of this discussion. I understand your example of Hitler, and I understand that your posts might be an instance of that. I don't see it clearly, hence my reply, but then again I don't really need to see it clearly as I won't be participating in this discussion.

No hard feelings at all These things just happen once in a while.

Hey if you feel the need to speak then go right ahead. I know your out of this discussion but from the beginning, i was seeking advice and clairifcation even if it comes from a harsh debate. Once again, interpretations are subjective, and no hard feelings aswell.

Best wishes mike

Can we all agree that the Pali cannon isn't likely to very accurate? I think a good middle ground is acknowledging Buddha to be his own thinker who based those thoughts on his own actual experience which means he experienced a level as deep as he possibly could. And then he taught what he knew using everyday language which may or may not have included Bhgavatagita hinduism*. But the editors of the Pali Cannon definitely used everyday language when they could and that definitely included bhgavatagita hinduism.


*for the record, this is a term i just made up and of course refers to hinduism at the time of the writing of this great book which i believe was concurrent to the time when buddha was walking this earth. However, they developed on opposides of the sub-continent.


there's a couple other little interesting things about this thread. for one, Micheall Kush may be a troll or he may just not have his english down. i'm on the fence there. might just be me. the hitler thing wasn't a good choice, imo. I don't know anyone who "praises him for his delivering prowess." Is there anything else about Hitler that you'd like to praise. Was he good cook? a master chef maybe. Say what you want about hitler but boy did that guy make a magnifencet Schlachtschüssel.

What did this sentence mean, Tommy?

edit: this thread was hard to figue out.... i see kush has softenened. i doubt his trollness now.

If you read carefully, it wasnt meant to be trolling or wasnt meant to deliberately attack the guy. However, some things i noitced in the book just seemed far fetched for me acknowledge. And second of all, I dont hesitate to agree that the Pali Canon was perhaps influenced by Hinduism. What i was saying is that i agree with the above posts that i meant to acknowledge that cosmological models such as rebirth and karma werent necessarily brought out by hinduism.

However, how am i wrong about the Hitler scenario? Yes people hated the guys motive and actions but believe it or not, scholars do acknowledge that the guy was a fine speaker. I mean Bobby Fischer hated Jews possibly almost as much as Hitler yet the guy was an outstanding chess player. Perhaps that is more of a better choice to correlate with my opinion. Doesnt that male sense? That any right minded person can neglect his anti-semitism yet still be influenced by his chess playing. Sursely, if i was an aspiring chess player, why wouldnt i learn anything from one of the greatest chess players?

And this what i can learn from Daniel Ingram. Yes i may have trouble accepting his critique of other traditions but atleast he orovides a good sense of using them. And another thing, how am i the hypocrite for bashing his critique of traditions yet he basically does the same thing? Hear me out.

He uses models that served as an influence and provided him to his awakenening, yet he stills labels a lot of its teachings as " mythical crap ". So please how is that different? What he is doing is, indicating whats wrong about some of it and taking what is neccesary. This relates to my whole point and the bobby fischer example. Abd maybe you are correct, sometimes i need to elucidate myself more to get to the point as i leave out somethings. And sorry for the misconception, this is not an objective critique, you shouldve known that when i was scattering my thoughts around the post but it was my fault that i left as a review. But you guys should know, if a movie critic reviews a movie, is it objective? Yes* he maybe very skilled in examining the aestherics but are you going to entirely take his perception on the movie? No because movies are subjective just like reviews and interpretations. And yet you might still see that some parts of his review are right and some of it wrong.

Best wishes, mike

Edit: Yes, he maybe very skilled in the examing the aesthetics but are you going to entirely take his perception on the movie?

Note: and oh another thing. You claimed what if hitler was a master chef. What if he was? Would it be wrong that you would totally label his political decisions as tyrannical and destructive and you would probably tell me you would kill the guy if you met him, yet if the greatest pizza was sent to ur house made by Hitler the master chef, would it be wrong for you to praise his skill or even enjoy his pizza? No, i certiantly would eat it but if someone told me to pick a side i would oppose Hitler all the way on his politics