Hey everyone, this is my first post after my introduction.

Let me preface my question by saying that I hope it doesn't cause any contention, as I suspect it might be a "hot topic." (though I could be wrong). I truly just want to know what your thoughts are.

For the last month I have been reading "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" by Daniel Ingram, who claims to be an arhat. I won't speculate one way or the other, it sounds like he is way more realized than I am, and his book has indeed inspired me to practice, so all is good.

Last night, I read a part in the book which I felt was almost slanderous about the "nothing to attain" schools of Buddhism. I don't have enough experience to judge these statements with any sort of clarity, so I thought I'd ask! Apparently the author worked his butt off at insight meditation and became an arhat through this hard work and discipline. According to him, there absolutely *IS* something to attain, and teaching the "nothing to attain" philosophy is confusing and damaging to students' practice (though it wasn't presented in such a nice and friendly way as I've written here).

I am confused here. I really have enjoyed and benefitted from my sitting zazen (though I am of course no arhat!!), as much as I've benefitted from insight meditation. This book has been a good inspiration for me to practice, but so has treeleaf and the work that Jundo and Taigu have done here.

Can anyone help me understand this? Why is there such contention, at least one-sided? Ultimately, is there something to attain, or isn't there? I don't imagine that one practice is better than another, are they simply approaching the goal from different directions as I suspect?

Much appreciated everyone.