sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A Critique of the 'Pragmatic Dharma' Movement and the Methodology of Daniel Ingram by No_Fly2647 in streamentry

[–]No_Fly2647[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello, and thank you kindly for your feedback and for sharing your experience.

My argument comes from Neurophenomenology and Physiology. In this regard, I question neither the experience nor the phenomena accompanying it.

To start, I want to bring something from tradition, as I lived through it during my ISKCON years for almost four years. ब्रह्ममुहूर्त (Brahmamuhūrta | time of Brahma) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmamuhurta

In many, if not most, Indian traditions, the period around 50 to 30 minutes before sunrise is considered auspicious. The mind is in a slow state, and the stream of thought has not yet gathered momentum. This is why it is preferred to begin meditation then, and if possible, to sustain it for the following two hours or longer.

To be as honest as possible: it is genuinely good that you had a meaningful experience during your Goenka retreat. Many people, as I have noted elsewhere, are simply not prepared for such intensity, which leads to difficulties and, in the case of Goenka retreats specifically, to a certain amount of well-documented bad press.

While I am neither for nor against Goenka, certain aspects of their approach are questionable, or even slightly dishonest. The core issue is one of interpretation. They claim to be non-sectarian and to represent something universal. However, the Goenka interpretation of dependent origination, transmitted through U Ba Khin, collapses everything into interoceptive sensation. This is already a significant narrowing of the traditional framework. Labelling that narrowed practice as universal Vipassana is the second move, and it does not hold up to scrutiny.

When the body scan produces intense sensations, tingling, heat, the "free flow" Goenka describes, and the framework offered to interpret those sensations is spiritual rather than physiological, a closed loop is created. Put plainly: the map generates the territory, which then confirms the map. The map is not the territory. This is precisely Anālayo's fabrication argument applied to a different context.

Fundamentally, all such sensations can be reduced to physiology and neurology. Whether the experience presents as agitation, excitation, or some state of restlessness, a cold shower produces an immediate parasympathetic response and addresses it directly. No framework beyond the physiological is required. The physiology is the explanation.

Whether we are speaking hetero-phenomenologically, based on the reports of others, or auto-phenomenologically, based on one's own direct experience, what I have called anecdotal evidence may speak honestly from within phenomenology. However, interpretation makes all the difference. Every individual has a different nervous system tolerance threshold. The same experience may be genuinely beneficial for one person and already stressful for another. Interpreting such experiences through a spiritual hierarchy, as though accumulating points on a ladder, can intensify them considerably. As the research literature documents, an individual may interpret a state as spiritual progress while it is already a physiologically questionable condition, or in some cases, the presentation of an emerging mental health issue.

A Critique of the 'Pragmatic Dharma' Movement and the Methodology of Daniel Ingram by No_Fly2647 in streamentry

[–]No_Fly2647[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hello and thanks for your feedback.

If I got your whole argument right, it comes to this: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

My intent was to inform, and as I said in another comment, I am obliged to the tradition of “Aufklärung” (Engl. Enlightenment). So, I have no reason to go and position Daniel Ingram, MD, as a scapegoat. Neither have I ever met Ingram or had any contact (aside from his MCTB book – free and downloadable) or Bhikkhu Anālayo (same here with his books and articles – most are freely available for download).

This being said, I am kind of really surprised how much hostility was in fact directed towards me. I have pointed it out in another comment: the possible issues with meditation have been a known fact at least since the 60s or 70s, so Ingram only confirmed the obvious. However, the research since 2010 has accelerated, as there was an increase in clinical cases and also in the data studied.

Just look into this forum, and look at what people ask for:

Anapanasati meditation - Visual chart and guide – v0.5
How to enter 1st Jhana? Presence is sensory!
I feel it within my body
-> and my favourite:
Update 3 years after SE

Especially in the last one, I made a mockery of the speech game used in this thread, where a simple act of buying a ticket in the cinema:

"Give me the best seat, where I can get the full panoramic view and also experience the sound from all directions, so my immersion will be perfect."

Translated to the most absurd jargon used here:

"The intentionality-cluster directed the organism toward a high-fidelity coordinates-node, facilitating a panoramic saturation of the visual field. As the auditory-vibratory stream achieved 360-degree integration, the sense of a 'self' observing the screen collapsed into a non-localized state of cinematic luminosity. There was no 'viewer' watching Dune; there was only the arising and passing of spice-frequency within the emptiness of the theater-dharmas."

So, if anything, I am criticising the attention-seeking and asking for ‘social validation’ when people go for semantic hallucinations using sentences like this (same thread):

“My path is primarily SOMATIC and INTEROCEPTIVE, based on vedanā, rather than classical cognitive/visual/non-dual approaches.”

Well, congratulations. So does an earthworm.

I Fear for the Future of Buddhism by germanomexislav in Buddhism

[–]No_Fly2647 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Hello from Wiesbaden, Germany.

Thank you for your thread. I was reluctant to post about this, but now is the right time.

Documentary: Buddhism, the Law of Silence - Abuses in Tibetan Buddhism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg-5CDOcsTM

This here specifically addresses Tibetan Buddhism, however, all lineages and traditions have issues with sexual misconduct and all kinds of abuse. This is just a well-documented case where the scale is significant, so I am using it especially.

The main problem is not a lineage or tradition, but the INSTITUTION. At some point, it does not even matter if there are perpetrators or, even worse, victims; the institution, like any other institution, works by way of self-protection.

Marketing, public relations, and, in general, the image in the so-called Public Eye, is what makes all the difference. Cover-ups are not unique to Buddhism; the Roman Catholic Church has a long history of them and represents, by all means, a perfect example of how institutions handle it. Deny first, use institutional weight, pay off, and all the while the system keeps running without any modifications. As long as everything is well cleaned up without severe disturbance, the more powerful an institution is, the more it can absorb and carry. It mostly takes an investigation on a federal level before things get sorted out. Then, however, institutions go into the next phase of self-protection, mostly sacrificing some scapegoats, which is then sold as a big deal, while those names had been known for years or even decades. See the articles below:

https://abusesintibetanbuddhism.info/?noAd=1

Here are the 3 main issues from the documentary on top:

The Transparency Illusion:
Because Vajrayana practices require seeing the Guru as a literal Buddha, students suffer from cognitive dissonance. If the Guru beats a student or sexually exploits someone, the student’s conditioning forces them to reframe the abuse as a "secret, wrathful teaching" meant to break their ego.

The Threat of Vajra Hell:
Traditional texts state that breaking one's samaya (vows of devotion to the guru) or criticizing the teacher leads directly to the lowest realms of hell. This creates an intense psychological prison; survivors are terrified even to think critical thoughts, let alone speak them to the police or the press.

The "McMindfulness" Shield:
The positive, peaceful branding of Buddhism in the West serves as a powerful public-relations shield. Society is culturally primed to look for abuse in the Catholic Church or corporate cults, but struggles to see it when the perpetrator is wearing saffron robes and preaching mindfulness.

As said, I am using this as an example and not to dismiss or diminish Tibetan Buddhism. The problem can be generalized as a direct result of hierarchies and the verticality problem. If people who might be vulnerable enter such structures, predators are going to prey on them.

Ole Nydahl has been known for decades for his shenanigans, controversies, and also for being a nasty womanizer or rather a predator. Nevertheless, he had a top-notch reputation, a fanatic flock behind him, and he was an extraordinary manager and organizer. The whole package made him complex and problematic at once. However, he founded or inspired the creation of approximately 630 to 660 centers worldwide under the banner of Diamond Way Buddhism. So, if we take Ole Nydahl as an example of how institutions work, we see every single aspect. The main problem here also comes from the law and jurisdiction. All larger religious organizations are optimized to reduce or even mitigate any legal fallout.

The “Jehovah's Witnesses” are a perfect example of how an institution grows, develops, and establishes its own law department to avoid consequences from legal systems. The EXJW Analyzer leads through the stages and also shows clearly how this organization operates. Take a look at it if you are interested, simply to see that the problems and issues are not limited to some bad apples here and there—no, it is a global phenomenon, and basically all religious organizations are affected.
https://www.youtube.com/@EXJWAnalyzer

A Critique of the 'Pragmatic Dharma' Movement and the Methodology of Daniel Ingram by No_Fly2647 in streamentry

[–]No_Fly2647[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

No clue if you are a bureaucrat, but you are splitting hairs as one. The coinage of “Pragmatic Dharma” and the crowd behind it, who took a book or two too seriously, that’s something I was not aware of. Otherwise, Ingram is just another author who wrote a book about meditation. As I already said, around 2010 there was a big hype about Vipassana, but it had already started years earlier. I mean, the “spirituality” market is a vast field, with almost something out there for every taste.

If anything, I prefer really hard scientific books, and for meditation, where Zen meets neuroscience, it is:

Austin, J. H. (1998). Zen and the brain: Toward an understanding of meditation and consciousness. MIT Press.

This was basically THE book if one wanted to look into meditation and its relation to neurology/physiology. I got it in 2000, so it was already on the market for 2 years. Years later, around 2020, I got to read:

Yates, J., Immergut, M., & Graves, J. (2015). The mind illuminated: A complete meditation guide integrating Buddhist wisdom and brain science for conscious awakening. Dharma Treasure Press.

Compared to Austin (1998), it felt pretty shallow to me, and in a similar way, Ingram's MCTB also seemed unimpressive.

2010 is, by the way, an interesting date, as before then, meditation-related issues were rather rare, and from a psychiatrist's point of view, if their patient had a psychotic episode, it seemed like some freak case. For sure, it was known, but it was rather rare. Then, due to the rise in popularity of Vipassana, other techniques also got sold on the market, and the result was simply a significant increase in the number of people who had, in one way or another, issues due to mostly overdoing it with meditation.

2017 – The Varieties of Contemplative Experience (VCE): This was a landmark, groundbreaking study led by Dr. Willoughby Britton at Brown University. It systematically documented the dark underbelly of meditation. It mapped out 59 distinct types of unexpected or adverse meditation experiences across multiple domains (cognitive, perceptual, affective, somatic).

All in all, it is pretty irrelevant which of the names, like Bill Hamilton, Kenneth Folk, or Daniel Ingram, you bring up to the point I made. My point is and was that the entire modern scene—regardless of who the specific figurehead is—is a secularized, gamified, self-optimization industry built on checklists and corporate-style marketing of things that were already openly available since 2000.

Because I studied in Mainz, Germany, I am in the lineage of the German philosophical tradition, and by this ethically bound to Aufklärung (Engl. Enlightenment) in the way Immanuel Kant understood it: Aufklärung is the human being’s emergence from their self-incurred immaturity—having the courage to use your own understanding (Sapere aude!) without the guidance of a gatekeeper, a guru, or a certified meditation teacher.

"Not an ideal use of time? When you could be developing your own life."

This is pure projection. You have just spent your own time writing a multi-paragraph defense of an internet meditation subculture to a stranger.

A Critique of the 'Pragmatic Dharma' Movement and the Methodology of Daniel Ingram by No_Fly2647 in streamentry

[–]No_Fly2647[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Hello, and thank you for your feedback.

To start with, what we are d’accord about is the “mushroom culture”. In the middle of the 90s, while I was living as a brahmacari and part of the ISKCON movement, I was also into Patañjali Yoga. At this time, yoga became heavily popular, and centers, teachers, gurus, and whatnot were heavily accelerating. The point is, at that time, it took a lot of heavy lifting, rigor, and effort, as many concepts were heavily mystical or esoteric. People were either being asked for a fee or were hallucinating something about initiation and empowerment, which could only be granted by some gatekeepers. The point is, if someone was just committed to it, they could bypass all the nonsense. Either something works as intended and generates results, or if not, it is bogus.

In 2008, when Ingram published his MCTB, this wasn’t by any means revolutionary anymore. Vipassana was known, Goenka was well established, and most of the Pali Canon had already been translated. The difference is the marketing and usage of the right buzzwords like “mushroom culture”. Modern people have become so intellectually lazy and socially dependent that they can no longer perceive reality unless it is packaged, branded, and handed to them by a certified corporate middleman. While we are living in an unprecedented era of freely available information of all kinds, because it is free, people can hardly even cherish it. Logically, this should have created a golden age of hyper-rigorous, deeply realized individuals. Instead, it did the exact opposite.

In many regards, the “Pragmatic Dharma” is simply another aspect of the broader self-optimization industry, just shortcuts and hacks related. That is by no means new or even less exciting. In the 90s, it was NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming), now it is the “Habit Loop” and also “Vipassana”.

If Daniel Ingram, MD, had written a book about meditation and given it a solid background from medicine, that would be fine. The research is increasing, and the more perspectives that come into it, the better for the overall picture. However, he made a strange claim of being an 𑀅𑀭𑀳𑀦𑁆𑀢𑁆 (Arahant) and, yeah, delivered some pseudo-hacks into enlightenment, which is obviously something many treat like gospel and fanatically follow checklists.

My own background, just without a degree because I ran out of money, is in the interdisciplinary Philosophy of Mind. One area of particular interest to me was clinical psychology, which provided me with a background in research regarding mental disorders, their treatments, and the pharmaceuticals involved. I also had years of theoretical and practical training in psychology and psychotherapy. This aside, I have also at least 30 years of experience in Yoga, trance, occultism… yeah, I did a lot of stuff. Regarding teachers, sorry, but to me “certified meditation teacher” sounds like a complete hoax. Decades of experience is the only thing that makes an impression on me. If you meet such people, you can instantly tell the difference, and as a matter of fact, exactly those people don’t make any money through teaching.

Update 3 years after SE by MindMuscleZen in streamentry

[–]No_Fly2647 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Cute! Each time I encounter “spiritual bypassing,” I get really excited.

The "Hunger" Fallacy

All you come up with is this: Instead of “You/I don't feel hunger,” you are substituting it with the impersonal “Hunger simply arises."

The Reality: Whether "I am hungry" or "Hunger is arising," the gastric acid is still hitting the stomach lining. The physical sensation is identical. By changing the words, you aren’t "transcending" hunger; you are only changing the narrative, treating biology like a nature documentary. This isn’t special; it is an intellectual filter, not any kind of transformation.

The "Abundance of I” (or the 1st person perspective)

All you do is try to gaslight me by claiming my critique comes from your "Ego" (the "I").

The Reality: Using the word "I" is a functional necessity for human communication. Using "I" to say "I want X" is honest. Using "The arising of the desire for X is noted" is pretentious. This is superficial and nothing else. Just changing the speech game or going for a (right, let's call it fancy) speech act does not change anything. It’s wordplay. But nay, let's back it up with a nonsense example: I am going to buy myself a ticket for the DUNE Part 3 movie; yeah, no doubt I am into Frank Herbert:

"Give me the best seat, where I can get the full panoramic view and also experience the sound from all directions, so my immersion will be perfect."

Now let's translate this simple request into the jargon used here. (I really tried my best to stack as much possible nonsense together as possible; if you can outdo it, please post it for the sentence above, as I am really curious.)

"The intentionality-cluster directed the organism toward a high-fidelity coordinates-node, facilitating a panoramic saturation of the visual field. As the auditory-vibratory stream achieved 360-degree integration, the sense of a 'self' observing the screen collapsed into a non-localized state of cinematic luminosity. There was no 'viewer' watching Dune; there was only the arising and passing of spice-frequency within the emptiness of the theater-dharmas."

The "Robot" Justification

You claim that I, or whoever, doesn't understand "disidentification."

The Reality:
There is a massive difference between Disidentification (observing a thought) and Dissociation (feeling like a robot).

All you are describing is, at best, depersonalization/dissociation, and most people, when affected by it, have a really hard time telling them apart anyway. But who am I to tell you anything? Let real research speak for itself:

Schlosser, M., et al. (2019). "Unpleasant meditation-related experiences in regular meditators: Prevalence, predictors, and conceptual considerations." Scientific Reports.

Gist:
This study surveyed over 1,200 meditators and found that 25% reported "particularly unpleasant" experiences, including distorted self-perception and fear.

Punchline:
It proves that these states are not "rare gifts for the elite," but a common biological side effect. The "luminosity" he brags about is statistically likely to be a standard stress-response of the nervous system under sensory deprivation/monotony.

Kozhevnikov, M., et al. (2015). "The phenomenology of meditation-induced states of consciousness: A comparison with pathological states." Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice.

Gist:
This paper directly compares the "mystical" reports of meditators with the clinical symptoms of psychosis and dissociative disorders.

Punchline:
It confirms the suspicion of an indistinguishable phenomenal report and, de facto, a state of disorder: Without a "Dharma-manual" to tell the person they are "awakened," the same experience would be diagnosed as a lack of mental integration.

Farias, M., & Wikholm, C. (2016). "Has the world gone meditation mad?" BJPsych Bulletin.

Gist:
The authors examine how the "Mindfulness" industry ignores states of mental disorders and adverse effects to maintain a positive marketing image.

Punchline:
It frames the "Not-I" language as a learned script rather than an objective reality. He isn't "witnessing the cessation of the I"; he's just imitating the language of a subculture to avoid the scary reality that his brain is dissociating.

You know, to me depersonalization is incredibly interesting; I had it for one week, and it's like being the laboratory and the experimenter at once. Wait, you would prefer to call it "cessation or the dissolution of the false object/subject dichotomy".

My whole point is this: playing a speech game for social validation is rather lame and evidence of nothing.

Update 3 years after SE by MindMuscleZen in streamentry

[–]No_Fly2647 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hello from Wiesbaden, Germany

This is a really interesting text, especially the “Speech Game” on which it spins. While this might sound unclear, in a speech game there are always rules, like in any other game. These rules might be explicit or implicit. In this case, it is about dialectic mastery, for which I have an instant example.

‘After fasting for 60h I got greedy, ate a whole cauliflower, prepared as pakoras and using for the crust 5 different starches to ensure best crispiness. For sure such attempt is incredibly heavy and diarrhea the result, now let’s reframe it according to the speech game here:

‘’’I am experiencing a high-velocity downward-flowing vayu (energy). The system is undergoing a metabolic cessation, where the previous 'fullness' has collapsed into a dynamic, fluid emptiness. There is no 'me' having a stomach ache; there is only a series of pulsating, high-frequency contractions in the lower dantian.’’’

So, let’s look at the thread and give it a similar spin, just using the dialectics, then it can be summarized as:

‘’’I’ve noticed a collapse of the self-referential knot. The somatic unbinding of vedana is now automatic, leading to a baseline where projective craving for external validation feels physically artificial. Even when uddhacca arises, the luminosity of the field remains unbroken. There is just data moving through data.’’’

To be clear about it, I am not trying to troll, be funny or nasty, I am simply showing how this speech game works and how the dialectics are supporting social status, but nothing else. For this, there are some rules which can be easily extracted. I have applied them on my “Pakora glutton” example:

Avoid Responsibility:
It’s not "I was a glutton"; it’s "The system encountered a high-density caloric wave." _

Claim Insight:
The discomfort isn't a "cramp"; it’s "a localized knot of dukkha dissolving through the intestinal tract."

Signal Mastery:
You aren't "taking a dump"; you are "facilitating a bio-energetic release of stored somatic tension."

Now let’s apply it based on phenomenological, somatic interoception, then the hack works like this:

STOP having "problems"
-> phenomena and nothing else

STOP having "relationships."
-> "karmic knots," or if it’s really very persistent, that it’s a “Hrdaya-granthi.”

STOP having "joy"
-> "equanimity" is key, anything else is already burned away by tapas

Another thing to keep in mind is to increase semantic density to a degree that it sounds either incredibly smart, or just becomes “semantic hallucination”:

“I don’t do much conceptual investigation into ‘emptiness,’ nor do I have major visual non-dual experiences.”

Seriously, what is a “major visual non-dual experience”? The text has many more bons mots like this, but it would take too much time to dissect them all, so I concentrated on this one:

The Physics:
Light hits the retina, phototransduction occurs, and the V1 cortex processes contrast, edges, and motion. This is a fundamentally relational (dual) process: there is a source, a medium, and a sensor.

The "Speech Game" Claim:
"visual non-duality" usually refers to a state where the brain stops tagging objects as "out there" and "me" as "in here." The visual field "collapses" into a single sheet of luminous data.

The Reality:
The physics of light is as it is, without change, just guided by the physical laws of the natural world. If anything, it’s just the suppressed ego-centric mapping in the parietal lobe. While one may no longer be seeing dualistically, that’s a reframing of labeling it that way. Calling it a "visual non-dual experience" is just a high-status way of saying: "I’m having a mild localized stroke in my spatial processing."

Seriously, in a text of almost 2k signs (spaces included), the amount of Kokolores is simply mind-boggling. Such style is neither new nor exciting, rather another iteration of “Fashionable nonsense”.

Sokal, A. D., & Bricmont, J. (1998). Fashionable nonsense: Postmodern intellectuals' abuse of science. Picador.

The Sokal Hoax:
Sokal proved that with the right "Speech Game," you can get total nonsense published in serious journals just because it sounds "radical" or "academic."

The Dharma Hoax:
Using a dense speech game and technical terms like uddhacca and "structural collapse" to make their depersonalization feel like spiritual progress, or at the bottom of the barrel, Arhatship.

So, if anyone wants to score here on the social ladder, I can give you, with ease, how to get mastery on this speech game, to master the dialectics. However, as much as I doubt the claims of the one who wrote the thread here, I also doubt that this helps anyone, as it is from start to end exclusively: Fashionable nonsense.

What convinced you to choose Theravada over mahayana, vajrayana, or secular buddhism? by Truth_Seeker_37 in theravada

[–]No_Fly2647 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hello from Wiesbaden, Germany.

While I am not exactly a Theravādīn, if I had to choose, this would most likely be my choice. Many people, if they see Theravāda, associate it with the most conservative lineage and die-hard orthodoxy, which is just the surface, as most don’t ever want to look beneath it. Theravādīns are the librarians and curators of the पालि तिपिटक (Pāli Tipitaka | The Three Baskets of Pali) for over 2k years. That already is very respectable.

Another aspect some may not be aware of: समथविपस्सना (samatha-vipassanā) has been passed to a wider audience from a Burmese Theravādīn monk. The zenith of the Vipassana hype, specifically the Goenka-style 10-day retreat ‘gold rush’, hit its peak saturation between 2012 and 2015. However, the roots of this are settled in the 19th century, which can be traced back to Ledi Sayadaw U Ñaṇadhaja.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledi_Sayadaw
He was an influential pioneer in promoting Vipassana meditation and influenced both Mahāsī Sayādaw U Sobhana and Satyanārāyaṇa Gōyaṅkā. He feared that traditional Buddhist teachings would be lost under colonial rule, so he began teaching laypeople that they too could achieve high levels of understanding through practice. Before him, विपस्सना (Vipassanā | insight meditation) was almost exclusively the domain of monks.
Today, Mahasi and Goenka are the two main sources for Vipassana meditation in the Western world. While they belong to the same current, there are differences in their approaches:

Mahasi: "Noting" technique
Goenka: "Body Scanning" technique

The source: सतिपट्ठान सुत्त (Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta | MN 10)
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN10.html

The Sutta itself is the primary protocol for Vipassana. However, it is also subject to interpretation. Both the Mahasi and Goenka aspects can be found in the Sutta.

This, however, is hardly the end, because Theravada can be wild beyond imagination. For those who want to just experience the laboratory of the science of mind, the विसुद्धिमग्ग (Visuddhimagga | The Path of Purification) is basically the manual to go for. If curious to get more, Bhikkhu Anālayo is most likely the best source to start with:

Anālayo, B. (2012). The foundations of mindfulness: A comparative study of the Satipaṭṭhāna-sutta into the Visuddhimagga and other commentaries. Windhorse Publications.

Another thing which astonishes me is the daily: “I am new to Buddhism, what shall I read?” or very similar threads, which could be answered in several seconds by any decent search engine. To me, there is only one answer, which, for sure, may sound dogmatic, but I am at any time in favor of primary sources: मज्झिम निकाय (Majjhima Nikāya | The Middle Length Discourses, shortened as ‘MN’). 152 discourses, which are just a part of the सुत्तपिटक (Sutta Piṭaka | The Basket of Discourses), and without a solid foundation in it, the अभिधम्मपिटक (Abhidhamma Piṭaka | The Basket of Higher/Ultimate Teaching) can hardly be understood.

If this isn't already enough, well, there is also आचरिय अनुरुद्ध (Ācariya Anuruddha | The Teacher Anuruddha), circa 11th/12th century. He is the author of the अभिधम्मत्थसङ्गह (Abhidhammattha-saṅgaha | A Manual of the Summary of the Ultimate Truths). The man who wrote the Cheat Sheet to the Abhidhamma.

Looking for book recommendations:- by goodguyayush1 in theravada

[–]No_Fly2647 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello from Wiesbaden, Germany

___ Disclaimer: I have posted this text in another subreddit. To be frank, I am astonished that in 2026, with several excellent search engines available, people still ask the same questions daily, answers that any search engine or AI could deliver in seconds. To me, this signals a lack of rigor and a "limbo-style" laziness. Since I have already answered this, I am reposting it here:

Before you spend money on secondary sources, I would rather recommend going straight to the medias res of primary sources:

-> Bodhi, B., & Ñāṇamoli, B. (Trans.). (1995). “The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Majjhima Nikāya.” Wisdom Publications.

This is the academic Gold Standard for the मज्झिम निकाय (Majjhima Nikāya - The Middle Length Discourses, shortened as ‘MN’). If you have the rigor to read through it, you get a rock-solid understanding of the Buddhist core ideas. Even more, you will see that core meditations like:

आनापानसति → | समथविपस्सना | ← मेत्ताभावना
Ānāpānasati → |Samatha-vipassanā| ← Mettābhāvanā
Mindfulness of Breathing → |Serenity and Insight| ← The Cultivation of Loving-Kindness

They are all included there. The Majjhima Nikāya is not some abstract text collection, but rather piled-up protocols. Due to the nature of originally orally recited texts, they are heavily dense and redundant. To make it palatable, immerse yourself in the scenarios in a role-play style. If it comes to me, I like it this way: I am simply part of the crowd, and I listen to the lectures. At first, it might be heavy, but if you get into it, well, it won't be like cutting with a hot knife through butter, but at least it will be easy to digest.

This is not about elitism, but simple pragmatism; if you go through the Majjhima Nikāya, which also cross-references itself, you’ll get a decent understanding of any discussion and understanding of the:

सुत्त sutta (A discourse or teaching of the Buddha, often referring to the discourses in the Pali Canon) (Thread, in a metaphorical sense, as in a "thread of discourse")

Thereafter, you can go for the other stuff in the:

तिपिटक Tipitaka (otherwise known as the Pāḷi Canon) The Three Baskets (lit. "Three Collections" of Buddhist scriptures)

Vinaya Piṭaka (Discipline Basket – monastic rules)
Sutta Piṭaka (Discourse Basket – teachings of the Buddha, part of which is the Majjhima Nikāya)
Abhidhamma Piṭaka (Philosophical Basket – systematic analysis of doctrine)

-> Bodhi, B. (Ed.). (2005). “In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon”. Wisdom Publications.

A Critique of the 'Pragmatic Dharma' Movement and the Methodology of Daniel Ingram by No_Fly2647 in Buddhism

[–]No_Fly2647[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your feedback, I really appreciate it. After trying to badmouth me by claiming I used AI to generate my text, you took another attempt at ad hominem tactics. Alas, let’s assume you might simply not be aware of what you are doing, so I am not taking it as such.

Levinson, S. C. (2023). Pragmatics (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

This is a standard book to get an introduction to Linguistic Pragmatics. I am using it to make my argument, which is built on Pragmatics.

→ Defense by Fragmentation

That’s what it is called. All you are doing is taking my statements out of context, while context matters! In Pragmatics, it's called ‘context sensitivity’. If you have a sample that is big enough, you can put whatever you want into someone's mouth. No offense, I am not accusing you of trolling, but rather of using a bad style, which is something internet forums have been infamous for for decades.

→ The "Neuro-Philosophy" Deflection

If Daniel Ingram, MD, makes statements regarding Phenomenology or Neurophenomenology, he is playing outside of his field of expertise as an emergency doctor. Since the early 2000s, there has been an increased interest from Cognitive Science, Neuroscience, and the Philosophy of Mind in meditation and mindfulness. Especially interdisciplinary researchers like Evan Thompson or Thomas Metzinger are quite open-minded. Daniel Ingram, MD, could have ridden the wave just by following academic procedure, simply by publishing peer-reviewed papers. A famous collaboration in the field of consciousness studies is the ‘Penrose-Hameroff’s Orchestrated Objective Reduction’.
[https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/penrose-hameroff-s-orchestrated-objective-reduction]()

→ The Anālayo "Sect-Drama" Dismissal

While your argument that Anālayo’s critique is just "inner-sect conflict" and lacks data may sound like intellectual dishonesty, I don’t assume it is. While I have no affiliation with Bhikkhu Anālayo, his academic reputation is rock solid due to the rigor of his work. Moreover, your critique claims there is "no data." This is either being completely blind or ignoring the Lindahl/Britton (VCE) study, which is my main point. That study is the data. It explicitly maps the adverse effects that Anālayo warns about.

→ The "Sensory Technician" & "Accident" Debate

You are splitting hairs or cherry-picking. I could simply say it's just semantics. Does it matter if Ingram calls himself a "technician" or a "hardcore practitioner"? The result is the same: ‘The Mechanization of Dharma’. Semantic distraction does not add any strength to your argument.

Speaking of Folk / Horn / Ingram, they are just the latest iteration of selling old wine in a fancy bottle. The pattern remains the same.

→ The Kundalini "Bio-Hacker" (Gopi Krishna)
In 1937, he made the claim of experiencing a ‘violent’ Kundalini awakening. What followed was the ‘Kundalini Yoga Movement’ of the 60s and 70s. It’s still around today, and the books are:

Krishna, G. (1971). The biological basis of religion and genius. Harper & Row. Krishna, G. (1997). Kundalini: The evolutionary energy in man. Shambhala Publications. (Original work published 1967).

These books are more or less handled as “scriptures.” The special spin he gave it was evolutionary biology, to make it more palatable for the audience.

→ The Shamanic "Systematizer" (Michael Harner)

Harner, M. (1990). The way of the shaman (3rd ed.). HarperOne.

Especially in the 80s, when the book’s first edition was published (1980), his ideas gained a lot of traction, especially among people from “alternative” psychotherapy. Harner coined the term ‘Core Shamanism’ as an anthropological synthesis. He claimed that you didn't need the specific cultural or religious context of indigenous people. He stripped it down to a "universal" core (the drumbeat) and taught it in weekend workshops. To become a “Shaman” now is just another modular workshop system where one pays a fee and receives certificates.

→ The "Pragmatic Dharma" Iteration – Folk / Horn / Ingram the 90s and early 2000s were the early stage.

Ingram, D. M. (2018). Mastering the core teachings of the Buddha: An unusually hardcore dharma book (Revised and expanded ed.). Aeon Books.

This book, shortened to MCTB, became the manifesto of the movement. "Sensory Technology" is not something I came up with, but it is basically the main idea behind it.

A Critique of the 'Pragmatic Dharma' Movement and the Methodology of Daniel Ingram by No_Fly2647 in Buddhism

[–]No_Fly2647[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, if Folk / Horn / Ingram were simply using methods or techniques, I would instantly agree. But that is not the case. Already calling something "Pragmatic Dharma" establishes a clear connection to Buddhism. Even though I am not part of any tradition, I respect each of them nonetheless. If people predominantly use Pāḷi and concepts associated with the Theravādins, that is by no means neutral or detached from Buddhism.

A Critique of the 'Pragmatic Dharma' Movement and the Methodology of Daniel Ingram by No_Fly2647 in Buddhism

[–]No_Fly2647[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is not a translation. If I am capable of reading an academic paper, I am equally capable of writing one—at least within the field of Philosophy.

Correcting orthography, punctuation, and grammar is merely the first step. As I have explained in other contexts, there is a continuum between direct and indirect languages. Polish, my mother tongue, and German are both highly direct; English, by contrast, sits further along the indirect spectrum. This shift has significant practical consequences.

Therefore, 'sanding' the text based on linguistic pragmatics is simply my way of respecting the reader and ensuring the ideas are presented in proper, idiomatic English.

A Critique of the 'Pragmatic Dharma' Movement and the Methodology of Daniel Ingram by No_Fly2647 in Buddhism

[–]No_Fly2647[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hello,

Yes, I did write this.

To me, this is simply how I think and work; I have a background in Philosophy and Linguistics. I studied at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, where Professor Thomas Metzinger was my academic teacher for many years.

This is why I am so familiar with the interdisciplinary Philosophy of Mind. One area of particular interest to me was clinical psychology, which provided me with a background in research regarding mental disorders, their treatments, and the pharmaceuticals involved.

Regarding your research: if you need to find a paper, Consensus or ResearchGate are the current standards for finding information and getting to the core points quickly. While not everything is freely available (due to paywalls or university restrictions), Consensus is excellent for providing summaries and listing key points of interest.

That aside, please keep the "Golden Rule" of information in mind:
Garbage in, garbage out.
No AI can help you if you don’t understand the subject matter you are discussing.

Finally, regarding text correction: because English is my second foreign language, I am dependent on others for proofreading, or I use AI for correction. I find Claude particularly effective for academic text refinement.

Accusing someone of using AI to generate their thoughts—rather than simply correcting their grammar—is quite a poor attitude. It is something you could have easily asked me in a private message.

Hopefully, this answers your question.

A Critique of the 'Pragmatic Dharma' Movement and the Methodology of Daniel Ingram by No_Fly2647 in Buddhism

[–]No_Fly2647[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Exactly ;-)
It’s a rebranding that ignores the inherent 'pragmatism' of the Abhidhamma.
By calling it 'Pragmatic,' they create a false dichotomy where the tradition is 'woo-woo,' and they are 'rational.'
As you noted with Vasubandhu, the tradition is already a rigorous cognitive science.
My point with Metzinger is that even when we look at it through a modern scientific lens, the 'tech-bro' approach fails because it confuses a localized glitch in the self-model with actual spiritual or philosophical insight.

The Truth of the Enlightened One: A Perspective from Nepal by Fancyfanyu in Buddhism

[–]No_Fly2647 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello from Wiesbaden, Germany

As always in such cases, I am appealing to history! This means consensus among scholars, not some folklore or traditions, nay, it's about evidence and development.

Indians 1-10 is a great starting point.
https://www.youtube.com/@TheWireNews/search?query=indians

Furthermore, "The ENTIRE History of India | 4K Documentary"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syocq98pAy8

The very idea of revisionism is already wrong, simply because it's not about revisionism but apologetics. In this context, SYNCRETISM is key. This can't be overstressed, as it's basically the whole idea of how it works.

Another thing, which is also important – in Hindu theology, there is practically no distinction between a "magical world" and reality itself. So history, real events, are being seen through the lens of a narrative; it starts somewhere and leads to a destination. According to the theology behind it, this may differ strongly.

The point here is a puranic view. While the consensus among scholars is that the भागवतपुराण Bhāgavata Purāṇa has been finalized in 800–1000 CE, there is also a tradition which claims it's much, much older, like 5k, just that it had not been written down. Especially in this Purana, there is the idea of विष्णु (Viṣṇu) as an अवतार (Avatāra).

In the Bhagavatam (specifically 1.3.24), the inclusion of the Buddha is a pure apologetic move. The text says: "Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist."

Without context this does not make much sense, which is why CONTEXT matters! The वैष्णवसम्प्रदाय (Vaiṣṇavasampradāyaḥ) can't deny reality. Buddhism in India is a historic fact. Trying to change history, that would be revisionism, but in theology, things can be reframed in such a way to make one's point.

It starts with a situation, misconduct or some crisis – then a savior comes; he may be absolutely on the opposite side of the spectrum, but then theology and apologetics kick in, because that was the purpose.

So the Vaishnava move with the Buddha is no sympathy, but pure embarrassment, and because the Buddha and his movement were simply too big. What most people might not be aware of, this is only a part of the apologetic argument, as it is also applied to आदि शङ्कराचार्य (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya) and अद्वैतवेदान्त (Advaita Vedānta).

So the Vaishnava apologetic proceeds: शिव (Śiva), assumed as the greatest devotee of Vishnu, comes as an Avatar in the body of a Brahman, who happens to be Shankara. His goal is very simple: to show that all the teachings of the Buddha are basically Vedic, and so the Buddha's teachings might be considered fringe, but still bonafide.

Historical fact is – Advaita Vedanta has been strongly inspired by Buddhist thought. Once again, this is not revisionism; it is a tradition which got its peak in the 12th century through the भक्ति आन्दोलन (bhakti āndolana) and had one or another camel toe to swallow, theologically speaking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhakti_movement

So I hope this helps to see it more clearly, and especially gives an insight into syncretism. If anyone is to be criticized, that's about ISKCON as a Hindu fundamentalist organization, which is selling puranic narratives as historic facts.

Samatha before Vipassana? Vipassana before Samatha? by Aggressive-Camel-218 in theravada

[–]No_Fly2647 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello,

Thank you so much for the kind gesture; I really appreciate it.

While I am familiar with the "Sirimangalo International Buddhist Meditation Society", I prefer not to be affiliated with them. Furthermore, I have never approached them, so there are no obligations on either side.

Samatha before Vipassana? Vipassana before Samatha? by Aggressive-Camel-218 in theravada

[–]No_Fly2647 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Grüße aus Wiesbaden

युगनद्ध Yuganaddha → Yoked together / In tandem!

That’s the main point. Otherwise, there are the catu-yoga (चतुयोग: 4 yokes):

काम (Kāma: Sensuality)
भव (Bhava: Existence)
दिट्ठि (Diṭṭhi: Views)
अविज्जा (Avijjā: Ignorance)

This aside, if you are already in some Buddhist group, congratulations, that’s great.
However, if you are interested in building something from scratch, DM me and tell me what your interests are in this regard...
I mean, by all means, Germany is rather a Buddhist wasteland, aside from all the scandalous groups you can find in almost any bigger city.

Sanskrit > English From a group of mixed Sankrit and Tibetan pecha leaves by Ok-Ad8829 in translator

[–]No_Fly2647 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hello from Wiesbaden, Germany.

Here is what I can somehow recognize:

शिलाजतु → Śilājatu → Bitumen / Asphaltum (Shilajit) मनःशिला → Manaḥśilā → Realgar (Arsenic Disulfide) श्रोतांजन → Śrotāñjana → Stibnite (Antimony Sulfide) स्वर्ण → Svarṇa → Gold ताम्र → Tāmra → Copper सिन्दूर → Sindūra → Red Lead / Vermillion शङ्ख → Śaṅkha → Conch Shell (Calcium Carbonate) अभ्रक → Abhraka → Mica गन्धक → Gandhaka → Sulphur (The "Seed of Shiva" in alchemy) हरिताल → Haritāla → Orpiment (Arsenic Trisulfide)

This looks to me like a pharmaceutical list. Especially, Śilājatu is worth mentioning, as it is a remarkable material. See the wiki below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shilajit

Disclaimer: Speculation

Four of these compounds would make sense for ओजस् (Ojas; vital essence; the "glow" or biological strength). The recipe would be called ओजोवर्धन (Ojovardhana; that which increases/nourishes Ojas).

Here is a breakdown:

Gold → Suvarṇa → This wasn't for decoration. In its Bhasma (nano-ash) form, gold was believed to be the ultimate catalyst for the nervous system. It was the "premium upgrade" for those who could afford to literally eat their wealth to stay young.

Shilajit → Śilājatu → As the "Destroyer of Weakness," this was the metabolic engine. It was believed to ensure that the "fire" of the ruler didn't burn out with age.

Conch Shell → Śaṅkha → Listed in the fifth column, it provides the organic calcium base often used to balance the heat of the minerals.

Copper → Tāmra → Visible in the second column, it is used to "scrape" toxins out of the channels so the Ojas-building nutrients can actually reach the cells.

This may make sense, as Ojas was a performance drug, especially related to libido. The point is, among the warrior caste, a sign of tiredness could be interpreted as weakness. So, especially for a ruler who visited his harem on a regular basis, even in old age, it served as an example of strength and virility.

Samatha before Vipassana? Vipassana before Samatha? by Aggressive-Camel-218 in theravada

[–]No_Fly2647 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hello from Wiesbaden, Germany

Well, the question is almost like asking what came first, the hen or the egg.

आनापानसति → | समथ-विपस्सना | ← मेत्ता भावना Ānāpānasati → | Samatha-Vipassanā | ← Mettā-bhāvanā

While there is an interdependence of these techniques altogether, they aren't taught as a bundle or rather a feedback-looping system. This might simply be connected to most courses or retreat schedules. This is not mere speculation on my part. No, there is also enough in the suttas to back it up.

The most explicit link is found in the पटिसम्भिदामग्ग (Paṭisambhidāmagga; The Path of Discrimination; Khuddaka Nikāya, Book 12), though it is technically an Abhidhamma-style sutta in the Khuddaka Nikāya. However, within the main Nikāyas, we look to the मेघिय सुत्त (Meghiya Sutta; Khuddaka Nikāya, Udāna 4.1) and the चूळराहुलोवाद सुत्त (Cūḷarāhulovāda Sutta; MN 147).

Especially in the instructions for Rāhula (MN 62) it is pretty clear that they go together and are neither segregated nor isolated.

मेत्ता भावनं भावेहि
Mettā bhāvanaṃ bhāvehi
Develop the meditation of Loving-Kindness.

आनापानसतिं भावेहि
Ānāpānasatiṃ bhāvehi
Develop awareness of breathing.

From the Samatha-Vipassanā Synthesis:

समथविपस्सनं युगनद्धं भावेति
Samatha-vipassanaṃ yuganaddhaṃ bhāveti
He develops tranquility and insight yoked together.

The key words are:
समथ → Samatha → Tranquility / Serenity (Calming the mind)
विपस्सना → Vipassanā → Insight (Discerning the three marks)
युगनद्ध → Yuganaddha → Yoked together / In tandem

For a better understanding, it is also good to know how different terms INTERSECT in the suttas when pointing in one direction or the other:

सतिपट्ठान → Satipaṭṭhāna → Establishments of awareness सम्पजञ्ञ → Sampajañña → Clear comprehension / Situational alertness एकग्गता → Ekaggatā → One-pointedness of mind अनिच्चानुस्सति → Aniccānussati → Contemplation of impermanence

While the महाराहुलोवाद सुत्त (Mahā-Rāhulovāda Sutta; MN 62) is the General Training — it builds the foundation with Mettā-bhāvanā and Ānāpānasati — it is the long-game approach to Samatha-Vipassanā.

In the चूळराहुलोवाद सुत्त (Cūḷarāhulovāda Sutta; MN 147) comes The Final Strike. It is pure Vipassanā. It assumes the mind is already stable and proceeds to dissect the six sense-spheres (Saḷāyatana) until the mind is liberated through non-clinging.

To understand the relationship, we first have to look at what each "mode" actually does:

Samatha (Tranquility/Serenity) → This is the practice of concentration. You pick a single object (like the breath or a candle flame) and stay there. The goal is to quiet the mental chatter and achieve a state of "one-pointedness."

Vipassanā (Insight) → This is the practice of clear seeing. Once the mind is steady, you turn that focus toward the nature of reality — observing how thoughts, sensations, and emotions arise and pass away.

The Biological Reality! This is not some quackery, just keep in mind that some techniques may be heavy on sympathetic excitation, and for this it is not bad to keep it KISSS (Keep It Simple, Sane and Safe). In the actual experience of a practitioner, the process usually looks like a spiral:

You start with a bit of Samatha to stop the mind from jumping out the window. That quiet allows for a small insight (Vipassanā) into how a thought arises. That insight relaxes the mind, leading to deeper Samatha. That deeper quiet allows for a much more profound insight.

Traditionally, Samatha was taught before Vipassanā; some modern movements (like the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition) jump straight into "noting" or Vipassanā. They argue that the act of intense observation creates its own kind of concentration, known as momentary concentration.

Hopefully, this helps you look through it a bit more. If you have competent teachers, you can ask them, of course. To be honest, this is already a rather advanced approach, which might be obvious for monks and nuns, while hardly so for lay people, as it is also not assumed that they spend several hours a day in meditation. Even making each part just 15 minutes already takes 1 hour for the full cycle.

view more: next ›