Like a moth to a flame, I can't seem to resist getting interested in this discussion. Controversy is appealing to unenlightened minds, because it strengthens the sense of self to believe that 'we' are right, and 'they' are wrong. This too is something to be ultimately overcome. I am quite sure that a truly enlightened being (ariyan) would not bother too long in this arena, but would prefer a forum where they could just assist others in actually doing the practice. But as I am not as yet entered into an ariyan path, here I am, finding this discussion hard to resist.
So here is something that sticks in my mind, regarding Ingram's claim to having 'laid down the burden' of conceit. I'm not having a go at him, I will just contrast two (sets of) statements:
...Anyone who thinks these highly qualified statements are anything like a vision of emotional perfection or the elimination of all negative emotions is not paying attention! That is the last thing I wish to imply. I merely wish to say that there is some increased clarity about our basic human experience and it can help, but that is all. That said, you would be amazed how angry, lustful or ignorant enlightened beings can be, and they can still do all sorts of stupid things based on these emotions, just like everyone else. The ability to moderate responses to emotions can sometimes give the impression that those emotions have been attenuated, but that is not the same thing, and there is my nice transition to the Action Models...
90. The fever of passion exists not for him who has completed the journey, who is sorrowless and wholly set free, and has broken all ties.
93. He whose cankers are destroyed and who is not attached to food, whose object is the Void, the Unconditioned Freedom — his path cannot be traced, like that of birds in the air.
94. Even the gods hold dear the wise one, whose senses are subdued like horses well trained by a charioteer, whose pride is destroyed and who is free from the cankers.
95. There is no more worldly existence for the wise one who, like the earth, resents nothing, who is firm as a high pillar and as pure as a deep pool free from mud.
96. Calm is his thought, calm his speech, and calm his deed, who, truly knowing, is wholly freed, perfectly tranquil and wise.
97. The man who is without blind faith, who knows the Uncreated, who has severed all links, destroyed all causes (for karma, good and evil), and thrown out all desires — he, truly, is the most excellent of men. 
Personally I find the Buddha's descriptions MUCH more appealing, and inspiring of effort. The Buddha seems to suggest that an arahant is a beautiful, humble and peaceful human being in whom no negativity whatsoever can be found. Ingram, by contrast, seems to be describing a very skilful state of being and relating with the world, but it does not seem to match up to the statemements either above (from the Dhammapada) or from elsewhere in the Pali Tipitaka, about what an arahant is like. So as I said, it sounds quite good (Ingrams non-clinging to mind-states as they arise, etc), but since he quite openly disagrees with the Buddha's own definitions of the enlightened state, why go under the banner of Buddhism anymore? Why call it arahantship?
Last edited by manas
on Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...
perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity."