Response to Ingram #3

In this post, I will discuss Daniel Ingram’s response to my first three blog posts [1][2][3], focusing in particular on our dialogue on the agency in the third post [3]. Daniel generously responded point by point, so I will replicate some of his text below and insert my comments in a different font. I have found this dialogue to be deeply interesting and I have learned a great deal from it. Thanks to the effort of all who have participated. As usual, I’d very much welcome your thoughts in the comments below.

Response to Ingram #2

I’m not making it through Daniel Ingram’s response very quickly, for each paragraph requires significant time for reflection. Here are my thoughts about a significant mechanism of change implicit in vipassana meditation which, I will argue, is not given the attention it merits. I’d appreciate hearing thoughts from readers in the comments section.

Response to Ingram #1

I have given some thought about how to best reply to Daniel Ingram’s response to my first three blog posts [1] [2] [3]. Given that his reply is quite extensive, I have decided to respond to the points that, in my view, have the most philosophical relevance. Before I do that, let me make a couple of comments.

Daniel Ingram’s Response

Daniel Ingram has generously written an extensive response to the first three posts on this blog. As I write these words, I haven’t yet read his response in its entirety. (It is 33 pages of single-spaced text, so no doubt contains much to be digested.) Over the next few days, I will give some thought about how to respond in a way that most constructively facilitates dialogue. In the meantime, please do share your thoughts in the comments section. It is my hope that we can continue to have an interesting conversation.

Critique of Pragmatic Dharma #3

I feel the need to begin this post with a brief remark about my intentions. To my mind, critique is a high form of respect; it is a sincere dialog with a person and his or her ideas. Pragmatic Dharma (PD) has provoked a great deal of personal thought and exploration for me, which has been quite valuable. It is in this spirit that I write these posts.

Critique of Pragmatic Dharma #2

In my last post, I wrote about the ways that I see Pragmatic Dharma (PD) as based upon an impoverished view of the mind. I argued that it specifically neglects the role of meaning in mental life. I suggested that this explains, in part, the plethora of spiritual bypassing and boundary violations in meditation communities. I also suggested that it undermines our capacity to recognize and work through psychological problems. I’d like to say a bit more about the philosophical ideas that support these points here.

Critique of Pragmatic Dharma #1

I recently listened to a two-part conversation on the engaging Imperfect Buddha podcast with Daniel Ingram. The conversation, which was at times interesting and at others disappointing, provoked me to write a few reflections on the Pragmatic Dharma movement, a loosely knit collection of meditation teachers and practitioners that has emerged in recent years, perhaps beginning with Ingram’s book, Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha. My engagement with the movement has been twofold: (1) I read the book a number of years ago and have engaged with its practices and (2) as a practicing psychoanalyst, I have worked with several patients who are deeply engaged in meditation practice and have been able to observe the benefits they have derived from that engagement as well as the ways in which it has been problematic for them.