I have a deep appreciation for Daniel's book. I spent many years searching for a spiritual book that condenses the practical aspects of Buddhist meditation in a concise form.
As many of you searchers of truth may have noticed, the practical part of the enlightenment path is hard to find unless you have studied a large amount of books, which often contain a huge amount of extraneous information. Then one day I found Daniel's book, and I thought, finally, I found a book that gives me all the practical information I need to progress. It is, without a doubt, the best book you can find on the subject of the Buddhist path of enlightenment. It is obvious that he has a keen intellect that he has utilized to condense a huge amount of information from his vast reading experience to present the pertinent information needed for someone to progress along the path of enlightenment.
His book is extremely important to mankind, and nothing can detract from that.
However, I don't believe his pronouncement of Arhartship is genuine. I don't say this as a slant to his character but more as a seed that hopefully will guide him to progress. There is no doubt that he has made great advances in concentration exercises. However, concentration is a tool. It is not a path. The fact that he is primely focused on Kasina magic currently is evidence that he has not realized the primary aspect of stream entry that one realizes, that is, attachment to rites and rituals. When one realizes this aspect of reality, they no longer cling to such things as magic. Here is an example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd79YHBhConcentration is a tool to be used to become aware of our thoughts. When we have developed enough concentration to watch our thoughts continuously, without a single break, we will discover who we really are.

"Magical bindings" against evil spells!<br />I never knew he would expose himself this much.<br /><br /> 

I plan on writing a description of the most expedient way of realising your true self.

I can guarantee you Daniel Ingram is an Arahant. Ask me why.

​​​​​​​I'd bet my Buddhahood on it.

Your argument:

Is nonsense. The Kasina is a method. A meditation object. Like the breath or any other object you have in mind.

For example, my favorite meditation object is one of my dark nails in my non-dominant hand.

-

Daniel understands Fruitions, which are what get you to Arahant level, clearly and unmistakenly, understanding the phenomenological difference between them and their fakes: Nirodha Samappati, Quick Napping, Lapses in Consciousness, etc.

Lapses in consciousness are not discussed in his book. Hard topic for modern science to takle.

Gimme two years as a Chaos Scientist. Could do it faster with 3 physics and one psychologist in my pocket. I prefer doing art over articles.

​​​​​​​

Funny. Daniel has been criticized  for focusing to much on bare insight practice and not emphasizing the Jhanas enough.   Where do you read that he mostly focuses on kasina practice?

Why anonymous? Why not use your regular handle?

Are you saying you disagree with the definition of arhat Daniel uses, or are you saying you don't believe Daniel truthfully describes his experiences, or both?

How Daniel describes his experience.
https://www.dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/message/2715189#_com_liferay_message_boards_web_portlet_MBPortlet_message_2718243


Defining his experiences as "arhat" is based on what Sayadaw U Pandita Jr said to him:
https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-vi-my-spiritual-quest/70-around-the-world-and-finding-home/vimuttimagga-the-path-of-freedom/
https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-vi-my-spiritual-quest/70-around-the-world-and-finding-home/wobble-and-fall/


This next  link argues that what Daniel calls Arhat is, according to the fetter model in the pali cannon, really stream entry. I am not posting it to advocate that view, but just for information.
A reconsideration of the meaning of "Stream-Entry" considering the data points of both pragmatic Dharma and traditional Buddhism: https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/igored/insight_buddhism_a_reconsideration_of_the_meaning/

Daniel explains how and why he defines arhat and why he feels entitled to claim it based on what Sayadaw U Pandita Jr said to him on retreat. I don't have any reason to think Daniel is not truthful. I also think he understood he was setting up a big target on his back by saying what he believed to be true for the sake of being able to help others experience what he experienced. I don't see his claim as egotistical, I see it as a sacrifice for the benefit of others. (When I say that, I am not saying he is or is not egotistical in other areas. I will say that people have mannerisms and speech patterns that get ingrained over a lifetime and I don't know if it is realistic to think that meditation will eliminate those - so people can seem egotistical when they aren't. Particularly when writing, if you write in first person people think you are bragging, if you don't write in 1st person they can say you are pedantic or don't understand it from your own experineces. You can't win.)

However personally I don't think labels like stream entry or arhat are that useful. There are different definitions of stream entry.  Some people say it's profound, some say it doesn't make much difference. Some people awaken gradually and without a stream entry experience. And even the pali canon says suffering is never ended during life, nirvana with remainder is the best you can do - so there is always some suffering and therefore there is always more you can do to end suffering, - you never reach the end of the path during life. They say enlightenment is not a meditative state but a realization - yet to reach what people call arhat (and I think Daniel and the Pali Canon agree) you have to meditate all the time to be an arhat (your default way of perceiving changes) so the distinction between meditative state and stage of enlightenment disappears.

So my view is that you just keep practicing mindfulness and meditation as much as you can or care to do. In my opinion, people should find a form of practice that lets you benefit in proportion to your effort from the first day and don't worry about stages, stay focused on what you are experiencing in the present moment.

I didn't make this thread but I can answer the question: Because there are all kinds of sick demented stalkers on the internet who if they don't like what you say will become obsessed with you and follow you around from site to site mischaracterinzing what you have said and making it impossible for you to post threads that stay on topic.

And if you upset someone with what you write you can permanently bias them against you and they will never agree with anything you say and will always post hostile replies to anything you post.

lol ... true
I have some experience with this. Over the years I have picked up some devoted hostile followers

Generally when one talks about personal attainments, a whole bunch of people act as if one has winked at their girlfriends. A particularly lasvicious wink at that. Funnily enough the people who get the most offended are the people with the least understanding of what these things are.

The cowardice in this topline post is .... stinky!!
​​​​​​​I was trying to encourage the person to be courageous

Don't know why people are still commenting. I broke the post with a single phrase: a Kasina is a method / object, not source of getting into the nãnas and obtaining paths through fruition.

​​​​​​​Still fun to read though.

That's nice darling.
​​​​​​​Lets hear about your own practice now ... shall we?

I might have some false assumptions here, but I'm curious.

If an arahant is able to do anything at all, say drive a car, wouldn't they adhere to the rituals of the road, such as speed limits and traffic lights?

It seems that there are magickal rites and rituals one might perform, albeit without clinging to them.

Likewise, it seems that an arahant might use other rites and rituals when it would spread the dharma or metta or something, right?

Even language (and cultural norms of politeness etc) itself would rightly come under this same critique, but the buddha appears not to have become mute (or totally rejected culture) upon awakening.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting though!

I find your comment absolutely fascinating. Let's try to break it down.

While on earth, an Arahant does "need" to adhere to societies rituals.
Well, they don't _need_ to, but it is the MOST COMPASSIONATE thing to do.

Arahants are filled with compassion. Once, I broke a glass of water in front of my friend to prove that I did not give a shit about this world. Was that compassionate? Waking people up too fast causes pain.

There is only one kind of being that can tolerate any pain. Buddhas as myself.

-

​​​​​​​I don't think you misinterpreted. I think you overinterpreted, in this context, it is a good thing.
Trying to find light onto darkness.

Enlightened thing to do, dharma companion.

https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-v-awakening/37-models-of-the-stages-of-awakening/a-revised-four-path-model/


I think using the original terminology and revising its defintions creates too much confusion and controversy. It leads to discussions like this thread where people doubt Daniel's claims.

It is also somewhat culturally arrogant. I think it is also somewhat ironic to find it in a book that claims to be about mastering the core teachings of the Buddha. 

Oh, I guess I failed to communicate clearly my line of reasoning, which is that we can argue that since arahants can (would) follow most cultural rituals, that rituals in general, and therefore magickal rituals, wouldn't be entirely off the table either, as long as they're compassionate etc. (Unless there is an additional prohibition I'm unaware of)

And then that would confirm that it was the "attachment" part which ceases!

I just enjoy philosophy, lol

...

Regarding definitions, many of the most important terms in buddhism have varying meanings in varying traditions. 

It doesn't strike me as problematic in the abstract to define exactly what you mean by your use of the terminology, given that any chosen set of defintions will conflict with some cross section of buddhisms.

I much prefer that to not defining the terms and assuming readers already interpret the jargon identically to the writer!

Valid point on the cultural sensitivity though. Ingram states (I believe in those emails with Bihkku Analayo) that perhaps he would have been better to name the insight cycles "wolfson cycles" so as to mitigate the kinds of cultural issues you're touching on.
​​​​​​​
So yeah, Ingram also acknowledges that he could have perhaps communicated this information better. Hindsight is 20/20!

I don't want to debate someone else's attainments. Or Daniel´s book which I find very useful. 
However, if we go by the meaning of the Buddha's teaching - the path leading to the cessation of suffering (the 4 Noble Truths) - then in my opinion it makes only sense to judge my own attainments by whether there is any suffering left in my experience (except that which cannot be eliminated during one´s life - physical suffering arising from illness, old age and death). 
In this regard, the 10 fetter model makes the most sense... if defilaments are the sources of suffering, their permanent eradication then means the end of suffering. 
So if we experience some suffering in life (even if in a very subtle form) arising from the existence of defilaments, it is problematic in my opinion to talk about arahantship... 
The number of Path moments seems not so important to me. I believe it´s more technical question, but the real point of the path is uprooting the causes of suffering (defilaments).

It is sometimes said in contemporary discussions of Buddhist practice that liberation does not end the physical suffering arising from illness, old age, and death. It's true that there is no avoiding the breakdown of the body and things like pain, but expecting suffering on those accounts may be selling the end of suffering short. It is possible for pain or other aspects of illness to arise without suffering. I don't mean just that it is possible to be free of worry or sadness around these things, but rather that it is possible for afflictive sensations to arise without the sensation of wanting to get away from them or suppress them. Those sensations can actually be rather beautiful. 

I have not yet come to the complete end of all suffering but I know it is possible. If you want an account of old age, sickness, and death from an Arhat, there is a great video posted by Daniel here: 
https://www.dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/view_message/21552294#_com_liferay_message_boards_web_portlet_MBPortlet_message_21552294

If you happen to be curious, you can read my own experience with this in my log entry from 3/23/24 (https://www.dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/view_message/23922732#_com_liferay_message_boards_web_portlet_MBPortlet_message_26956661).