3 ms·

Scott Alexander had reviews of Dan Ingram and related 'modern day enlightened'. I seem to recall a suggestion that these people could be considered to have deve

Scott Alexander had reviews of Dan Ingram and related 'modern day enlightened'. I seem to recall a suggestion that these people could be considered to have developed something like a self induced, positive version of dissociative personality disorder. They would get angry or hungry or grumpy, but 'they' were a step away from this person that was hungry or angry or whatever. It's like they had zoomed in and drawn some separations between the various layers of consciousness that we consider all one and the same. Fascinating, but not something I'm interested in doing.

zozbot234 4y ago
> these people could be considered to have developed something like a self induced, positive version of dissociative personality disorder. Yes, the self disorders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-disorders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-disorders of schizophrenics (such as feeling like thoughts are being radioed into your head) read like what might be expected to happen if one reaches sudden, involuntary awareness of the three marks of existence without having done any sort of meditative or even devotional practice, let alone reached any enlightenment. This only underscores that awareness of the three characteristics is part of what frees us from dukkha but is not in itself sufficient; after all, people who undergo these psychotic breaks are obviously very deeply mired in craving and dukkha.
cracoucax 4y ago
Daniel Ingram is a deluded fool, and imo being this deluded probably means a sort of mental disorder. His book and system just show how far away from any real form of enlightenment he is. Sadly because he sounds modern & a little scientific people keep taking him seriously. No, the Vipassana nanas are not what he describes. Anyone wondering about him should just forget this stuff, burn this book and go to a retreat with a well known teacher.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  Are you basing this purely on reading about supposedly enlightened people getting angry or grumpy? That's a surprisingly common thing, actually. I know that Ingram's claims of arahatship are controversial and quite possibly mistaken (i.e. it's quite possible that there are levels to enlightenment well beyond what he discusses, especially wrt. the grounding of sīla and renouncing one's cravings), but that's not to say one should dismiss his whole teaching.
  - cracoucax 4y ago
    Basically what he did what read about the "insight knownledges", (which are initially described in the Visuddhimagga, in a very loose way), and interpret them in whatever ways he sees fit, then proceed to see his, and everyone's life through the lens of that. He even diagnose everyone like an MD on his forums. (And incidentally, he /is/ a MD.) You hear a dog bark and feel afraid ? Do you do meditation ? yes ? Surely you must be in a Bhaya ñana phase, and are on your way to enlightenment. Because bhaya = fear. Did you already experience that a few years ago ? did you go through this and that extremely loosely defined stages ? Then surely you are already a Sotāpanna and are headed to the attainment of once-returner. Based on this he is an Arahant (because he says he cycled the insight knownledges 4 times). But being an Arahat basically means being free of ill will, desire of the senses, and of a sense of self-existent self (and other things). It does not mean "just go though those phases, and that's it, that's his own reduction of the path to a few pages in the Visuddhimagga, which i would not even consider canonical personally. > Are you basing this purely on reading about supposedly enlightened people getting angry or grumpy? That's a surprisingly common thing, actually. People believing they are enlightened are common in some circles, yes, and it's always a red flag imo. Yes, an Arhat does not get angry, that's in the very definition of the term: ill will has been totally eliminated. You cannot say you are an Arahat but you get angry, it would just mean you are something else than an Arhat, by definition.

zozbot234 4y ago

> these people could be considered to have developed something like a self induced, positive version of dissociative personality disorder. Yes, the self disorders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-disorders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-disorders of schizophrenics (such as feeling like thoughts are being radioed into your head) read like what might be expected to happen if one reaches sudden, involuntary awareness of the three marks of existence without having done any sort of meditative or even devotional practice, let alone reached any enlightenment. This only underscores that awareness of the three characteristics is part of what frees us from dukkha but is not in itself sufficient; after all, people who undergo these psychotic breaks are obviously very deeply mired in craving and dukkha.

cracoucax 4y ago

Daniel Ingram is a deluded fool, and imo being this deluded probably means a sort of mental disorder. His book and system just show how far away from any real form of enlightenment he is. Sadly because he sounds modern & a little scientific people keep taking him seriously. No, the Vipassana nanas are not what he describes. Anyone wondering about him should just forget this stuff, burn this book and go to a retreat with a well known teacher.

zozbot234 4y ago
Are you basing this purely on reading about supposedly enlightened people getting angry or grumpy? That's a surprisingly common thing, actually. I know that Ingram's claims of arahatship are controversial and quite possibly mistaken (i.e. it's quite possible that there are levels to enlightenment well beyond what he discusses, especially wrt. the grounding of sīla and renouncing one's cravings), but that's not to say one should dismiss his whole teaching.
- cracoucax 4y ago
  Basically what he did what read about the "insight knownledges", (which are initially described in the Visuddhimagga, in a very loose way), and interpret them in whatever ways he sees fit, then proceed to see his, and everyone's life through the lens of that. He even diagnose everyone like an MD on his forums. (And incidentally, he /is/ a MD.) You hear a dog bark and feel afraid ? Do you do meditation ? yes ? Surely you must be in a Bhaya ñana phase, and are on your way to enlightenment. Because bhaya = fear. Did you already experience that a few years ago ? did you go through this and that extremely loosely defined stages ? Then surely you are already a Sotāpanna and are headed to the attainment of once-returner. Based on this he is an Arahant (because he says he cycled the insight knownledges 4 times). But being an Arahat basically means being free of ill will, desire of the senses, and of a sense of self-existent self (and other things). It does not mean "just go though those phases, and that's it, that's his own reduction of the path to a few pages in the Visuddhimagga, which i would not even consider canonical personally. > Are you basing this purely on reading about supposedly enlightened people getting angry or grumpy? That's a surprisingly common thing, actually. People believing they are enlightened are common in some circles, yes, and it's always a red flag imo. Yes, an Arhat does not get angry, that's in the very definition of the term: ill will has been totally eliminated. You cannot say you are an Arahat but you get angry, it would just mean you are something else than an Arhat, by definition.