Interesting thoughts and thanks for your response. A few follow-up points:

1. On the arahat issue – I will now re-define an arahat as someone who has had the undeniable experience of eating a breakfast shake on April 15th. I have eaten a breakfast shake this morning. Hence, I am now an arahat. There is now nothing you can say to refute that I am an arahat. This is a bit tongue in cheek here, but I’m trying to demonstrate a point. Daniel redefines what an arahat “really is” and then vociferously defends this definition against any criticism to the contrary. The first line on his website proudly proclaims “I am an arahat”. To anyone who’s not an Ingram disciple the natural question would be – is Daniel attached to his concept & self-definition of an arahat? Why is it so important to declare to the world that he is Daniel the Arahat? That said, I agree with your point that it’s not only old dead dudes from India who “get enlightened”. I don’t doubt for a second that this stuff is real & achievable by many in the past, present & future. Contrary to what Daniel says in his book my sense is that most good teachers out there would agree. Personally I could care less how we define the term arahat, but something in Daniel’s need to loudly proclaim his accomplishments strikes me as odd. It’s still a great book, but Daniel’s strong voice just makes me a bit more cautious. My observation of teachers I respect the most is that they are generally able to go beyond any attachment to definitions.

2. On the doors & his descriptions of the experiences of the doors – When I read through the above quote from his book it sounds to me like he is giving visual descriptions for all sort of “combinations” with talks of a taurus, images staring back at you, images going side-side, etc. I can’t help feeling that something here just feels off and my spidey-sense perks up at these descriptions. Maybe this is what his subjective meditation experience of “fruition” is like. I can’t help but be reminded of Zen descriptions of makyo, but maybe I’m wrong. Regardless, the implication in both his book and your post is that if you’re not having this exact experience then you’re not paying attention, your concentration isn’t strong enough, you haven’t experienced fruition, etc. Maybe this is true, maybe it’s not. I suppose only time will tell. It does seem odd that no other teacher (that I’m aware of, but please correct me) out there has the same criteria for “fruition”, whatever that means. Maybe I’m missing something?

Why do I take the time to write all this down? Again, I come back to my earlier comments that I found much of Daniel’s book helpful and that I think he is genuinely trying to help. I also think he has a lot of insight. However, I learned a long time ago to be a little bit cautious when dealing with anyone who does any of the following:

1. Tries to tell you that X is your true self, that X is who you really are.
2. Claims to know Ultimate Reality, the True Nature of Things, Absolute Truth, the Nature of God, etc. (note the caps)
3. Claims that they have the answer & everyone else is deluded
4. Stresses the importance of experiences/insights/truths that are not correlated with data from other wise teachers/people, etc
5. Holds their opinions tightly and can’t openly accept criticism that runs contrary to their views.

In my observation Daniel’s book violates one or more of the above, thus I am naturally more cautious when considering it’s conclusions. Again, Daniel’s work is great, just consider it in light of all of the other differing views that are out there, which it seems you do.

What is this ultimate nature of reality that keeps being hinted at? Outside of being impermanent, lacking in permanent satisfaction, and not-self what is this something extremely vital about the way reality really is? I think I know the answer Daniel would give…well you just have to wait until your an anagami, arahat, etc. (as he defines it) to find out. Sounds suspicious to me, but maybe I’m just paranoid.

What I’m not uncertain about is that compared to many other mature spiritual teachers I’ve listened to Daniel seems more defensive, bossy, certain and maybe even a bit angry. Perhaps his answer to why this is would be because he’s the one who’s right. Maybe. However, if “getting it done” means that’s where you end up, I’ll pass on getting it done. At least some the “new-age fluffsters” teaching at IMS are closer (or at least seem to be) to peace.

My intent is not to bash Daniel, but I do think criticism is helpful to learning as we travel our path. Thanks to Daniel & Vince for the topic, dialog & learning. I genuinely enjoyed the book & this site.

Thanks for your comments. I think there are definitely pros and cons to using the traditional names for the different stages of awakening from the Theravada tradition. The cons, as you mention, include all the old baggage that comes with these titles. The pros, or I guess you could say the reasons for sticking with these terms, have to do with the resonance and power that they have. Re-defining something has the distinct advantage of not throwing the old away, and maintain a strong connection to the history roots of something. Also, a big part of Daniel’s whole message is that what those dudes were achieving in India, way back in the day, is the same thing that he achieved. He doesn’t buy all of the baggage laid down in the sutras, and is calling for us to re-define what an arhant is. I’m sorta repeating myself here, but I think there’s something very important in what he’s doing here, and I think it’s worth considering deeply. Then again, maybe he (and we) should just look to jettison the old terms in favor or something more fresh and useful. I don’t know…

As far as his descriptions of the three doors go, unless you’ve “experienced” fruition, both with a good amount of concentration present and being on the lookout for the moments directly preceding entrance into the deathless, they aren’t always very obvious. Daniel never claims that if one doesn’t notice these different doors that they aren’t progressing, and only the no-self door actually has a visual component (the other two do not). If fruition happens, and one completes a path, then the changes will take place regardless of whether one recognized the entrance to nirvana. The reason they are important is that each of these doors, as he recently told me in an interview, are hints at the ultimate nature of reality, and hence point to something extremely vital about the way reality really is.

A couple of thoughts on Daniel’s book.

1. While I find Daniel’s revised Theravada model helpful I think it would be more helpful dispense with the traditional stream-enterer, anagami, non-returner, arhat terminology. The problem is that like it or not these terms do have existing, albeit some what variable, meanings in the suttas & traditional teachings tied to the elimination of certain hindrances. I don’t have any problem with Daniel creating a revised map, but when he does so it’s not really fair to turn around and say “what an arhat really is is xxxx, or what an anagami really is is xxx” These terms already have definitions in the suttas. Rather than trying to “prove” that he is enlightened by redefining the 4 terms I think it would be more helpful for him just to create a new map. Still, I suppose the fresh viewpoint is helpful.

2. Below a short excerpt from his book (section on the three doors) I think it should be ok to post this since the whole book is available online….

“I will now try to describe six possible combinations of these three aspects that create the actual experiences of the three doors. While there can be quite a lot of variation in the specifics of how these doors present, they will always fall into one of these basic patterns. As I stated earlier, these events are so brief and sometimes so unclear that persons who have been through them many times may not understand that they present in the way I describe them here.
When the impermanence aspect predominates and is combined with the emptiness aspect, then the whole universe strobes three times quickly with something staring back at us as a minor aspect of that universe, and then it seems that awareness collapses into the space after the third gap, perhaps turning slightly towards the thing that was staring back. When the impermanence aspect predominates and is combined with the suffering aspect, then the three strobing moments feel wrenching, and the plunge into the gap feels fundamentally violating, like exactly the wrong thing to do.
When the emptiness aspect predominates and is combined with the impermanence door, there are three clear and discrete moments of moving towards or sideways to (or perhaps focusing on) an intelligent seeing image staring back at us, except that there is nothing on this side. After the third moment, the illusion collapses in a very natural and pleasant way. When the emptiness door predominates with suffering as its second aspect, then a very strange thing happens. There is an image on one side staring back, and then the universe becomes a toroid (doughnut), and the image and this side of the toroid change places as the toroid universe spins. The spinning includes the whole background of space in all directions. Fruition occurs when the two have changed places and the whole thing vanishes.
When the suffering aspect predominates and is combined with the emptiness aspect, again, the toroid thing happens, except that it can be a quite distorted or cone-like. The universe can rotate up or down and away from us, so that the primary experience is of an image falling from this side, though with the hint that it might be coming back around to this side. When the suffering door aspect predominates with impermanence present, then the three moments in which the universe is ripped away from us are distinct. When the suffering door predominates, the experience is always a bit creepy.”

Am I the only one who finds this weird? Is Daniel implying that unless you have these visual experiences that you aren’t progressing? His implication is that if you haven’t experienced this you just aren’t paying attention close enough. Different strokes for different folks, but I have to admit this whole description seems a little odd to me. Perhaps different brains do go through the process in different ways and some have more visual experiences than others. Still, something about these descriptions feels a bit off.

With that out of the way I will now agree with other reviewers in stating that I have found Daniel’s book tremendously helpful. His voice, while at times a bit caustic, is incredibly fresh and much appreciated. I think this book is a helpful addition to any collection of Dharma books…as long as one keeps the above caveats in mind.

Thanks and feel free to shoot down my critiques as I’m very interested in others viewpoints.

My favorite thing Daniel’s point of view is he teaches that enlightenment is possible, but that it isn’t something you just sit around and wait for. It seems like Buddhist popular culture either believes that enlightenment in this lifetime is impossible, or that everyone is already enlightened and there’s nothing that has to be done. Daniel’s approach is (to use a Buddhist cliche) a good middle-path between the two pop-culture extremes.

Sorry so many words. I’m just excited that the book is finally in print.

thanks again for turning me to Ingram. i’m learning a lot from this book. it kicked off my practice too. i think i’m quickly becoming a Theravadin geek!

~C

It’s pretty close to the same content. The difference is probably more stylistic, in terms of the extra time and energy the publishers put into typesetting, editing, etc. Essentially, it’s a much more polished and professional version of the original eBook.

If he’s revised it at all, it might be worth getting.

I must say, he’s going to get a lot of crap for “the Arhat” on the cover.