The Analayo and Ingram Dispute

Just more posturing, to be honest. People who want to keep Therevada pure will like it. People who like Ingram’s methods and ideas more will defend Ingram. That much should be obvious.

I think Analyo is correct to criticise Ingram over path attainments and general things to do with appropriation. However, my belief is that Ingram is paying Therevada the ultimate compliment by saying that the commentaries (namely, Vissudhimagga and Vittidhimagga) describe the universal way in which our attention develops as a response to being aware of our direct experience moment-to-moment. But I can see how Analyo wouldn’t like it, being a devout Buddhist scholar with an obvious intention to keep Therevada pure and free from outside contamination. But I also do see how Ingram, who was socialised in a heavily Therevada meditation community for so long would want to adopt those words/ideas to describe his general spiritual journey. It’s a real pickle. The beauty of the back-and-forth between Analyo and Ingram is that everyone can pick a side if they want to and be satisfied to a degree.

However, his critique of Ingram’s presentation of the Nanas is flawed, I believe. I think that due to our nervous systems being the way that they are, there is a generally universal way that attention does develop as awareness is placed in experience as it is. And this manifests as the Nanas. They may not be linear. They may not be continuous. They may not be recognisable moment-to-moment. But that’s my firm belief rooted in my lived experience. Ingram is a partial and westernised continuation of the tradition that arose more from the commentary-based parts of Therevada, which focused more on meditation paths, the nanas, which were compiled from peoples’ lived experiences of meditation, they diverge considerably from the older texts — being a little more rigorous, more focused on discrete phenomena, and less “principle” focused, more detailed in that regard to technique. Analyo is trying to stay pure from the later texts and focus on early texts exclusively.

As a critique of the critique itself. I do find it weird that Analyo basically says: “Ingram has adopted the model, imagined himself having these experiences, and basically confirmatory-biased himself into believing these words as experience” without, y’know, leaving open the fact that he himself as an old-school Therevada textual scholar may be victim of the same type of self-hypnosis. And the critique of “high-speed noting” as a technique is kind of lacklustre, he has no sources to say it can lead to problems. But, he also doesn’t employ much charity, because Ingram himself does say that high-speed noting can produce a lot of problems. So I don’t know what to make of that.

Speaking as someone who studies psychology, which is vaguely scientific, I think the most important development to this field will be neuroscientific studies to see if there is a generally universal linear/coherent/congruent way to how our brains re-wire themselves as a response to meditation over time. Along with some sort of longitudinal studies of different meditation techniques to see how they influence wellbeing at time intervals; it may be the case that rapid noting causes a lot of short-term issues, but in the long run is net-beneficial. Then maybe more relaxed/receptive approaches have the same results as rapid noting, but at a slower pace, with less difficulty. The next step will then to see how certain personality traits influence how one reacts to certain meditation techniques and meditation outcomes later on (both positive and negative) to produce very nuanced results of what/when/why meditation techniques work.

So really, the real lesson to learn is — nobody can meditate for you. You don’t meditate “from” old texts or “from” new texts, or whatever. They’re just texts. Not your experience. Nanas, Jhanas, Paths, etc., are things you experience, not read about or conceptualise. If you experience them in a way that Ingram describes, that’s good. If you experience meditation the way Dogen, Analyo, a Rinpoche, or Burbea describe, that’s great — use it to your advantage. Don’t discard useful things just because some traditionalist or maverick says that the other is wrong. If your experience starts to diverge in linearity, cohesion, or congruence away from how others present meditation, then trust your experience above all else. The most important thing is to find someone that expresses universal Dharma using words/symbols in an order that makes sense to you. And use that as a springboard to find your own way of understanding it all. Meditation is not unlike any other skill — we learn from the words/deeds of masters that precede us, and then we begin to find our own voice, our own style, how we relate to the experience, we learn what rules work for us and which rules don’t. It’s about becoming your own human.