Just about done reading Daniel's book "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha". Amazing book!!!! For me, along with Jun Po Roshi, he is one of the first truly Modern & Rational Esoteric Teachers adjusting tradition structure I've seen. He is thoroughly debunking mythological Enlightenment which is the proper adjustment from all the scandals and reflections on the preceding decades since the reintroduction of esoteric paths in the mid 1900's. He is beyond traditions, which any awakened person should be, while still honoring and debunking them too. One of my favorite interviews, Thanks Daniel and Rick!!
Doubt and ill will is a hindrance. Instead of arguing the is/isn't we should meditate more and continue on with our flexibility. This man has quite a bit to say and has inspired many to come and stay amongst the dhamma. Gratitude. Metta.
"Dark Night of the Soul" basically means depression. So read the Dhammapada, and having found the true Dhamma, you won't be depressed any more. Just make sure to ignore all the nihilists telling you that there is no soul to go to Nibbana after death, or you might get depressed again if you buy into that nonsense.
Happy to see dharma being discussed. Sorry if I'm seeing this out of context as I just randomly fast forwarded to observe Dan's mind but around 21:00, "very advanced realized practitioners" will not have "dogmatic fortresses", this is a fallacy. Also, in regards to the question itself, there is no "brain wiring" in realized beings! :)
***** Right, if they "get out" then they can all get along, my point is that there won't be any dogmatic fortress if they are highly realized. I don't think he was talking terminology but maybe you're right.
*Roughly a 3.0 on the -4 to +4 scale* _(for explanation and disclaimers please see the end of the comment)_ Listening to and reading Daniel has always been fun to me. He seems to have softened and lightened up a bit compared to years ago when on email he _seemed_ to sometimes try hard to be a bit of a jerk. Regardless, he is genuine and an original. I just wonder why he still keeps the traditional delineators such as "arahant" if he doesn't agree with their traditional definitions and characteristics. Why then is he using the terms at all if they do not carry their traditional meaning ? But basically, I cannot help but agreeing with his mostly pragmatic and undogmatic attitude towards "dharma" matters. This is fundamentally the future of that which was traditionally called "dharma" - if it has any. I would have wished to hear more about how he experiences things now, and had also hoped to witness him demolish more of Rick's wishful thinking idealism, but I guess he wanted to be kind enough to possibly get another chance to give an interview, hehe. _About the rating: anything below and including +1 means by and large a waste of time, and anything below 0 is not only worthless but damaging to the world. For comparison, on that scale, Francis Bennett would be a +3 or more and Harri Aalto would be roughly a tentative +3-3.5. Not coming up with original, independent cosmological insights bans any interviewee from > 3.0 ratings as a matter of principle._ *General Disclaimer:* the rating _pertains to an interview, not to the interviewee_. If the rating is high it means merely and exclusively that I consider the interview to be of high value relative to the stated purpose of the channel, and that it is therefore no waste of time to listen to the interview. It would _not_ imply that whatever the interviewee speaks is the truth (as if I was the arbiter over that) or that you should follow him/her or accept whatever that person offers. _That is particularly in need of emphasis if that would be an expensive enterprise_ !
He seems high in this video. He keeps looking up like there's something there. And he admits to questioning himself "Daniel, are you totally high?" a little after 2:07:37 ... so maybe he just simply is totally high. No, there is no maybe about it, the dude is high.
Oh no...around 35:00 minutes, I just caught the interviewer saying some variant of, "Ahh, the spiritually experienced East vs. the spiritually precocious West." Is there ever going to be a point when people are gonna stop making goofy comparisons like that? Put it this way: Religious representatives have been conning people A-Z for as long as there have been priests and religions, and probably before that, on every corner of the globe. There is substantively little or no difference between Vedic gurus-swami-j-wuvme-wuvme guys coming over here and spouting their garbage, and the Roman Catholic priest hushing little Johnny up after he's just buggered him. So, everyone is more or less equally full of shit..just so we have that straight.
If only you could interview Tutteji and the dark sayings of "Kenneth R. Lingam, DVM, Arhat: Mastering the Core Teachings of Pharmacological Meditation" Of course I agree an Arhat can have erections however taking delight in such is another matter which is just a part of my interpretation of this.
The interviewer guy for this channel must have a lot of patience to sit through some of the charlatans who come on here. It seems they get off topic a lot.
He is not an Arhant. An Arhant can also be a sweeper, Toilet cleaner or the CEO of a company They can always manage to keep a little secret But rest assured do believe me this guy over here is not enlightened.
+Saurav Bhasin The expert speaks! Perhaps you should indicate what enlightenment is, what it isn't, why you happen to know, why you would care if Daniel is or isn't, why secrecy is necessary, why we should believe you, what models you are using to make your evaluation, etc. Did you actually listen to the interview?
@Matthew O'Connell, The interview is meaningless. Arhant has a specific meaning. He's trying to change the meaning. Let him invent a new word if he wants a new meaning. He's not an arhant. Whatever he is, its something else. Let him invent that new word. Plus he's more New Age or Theosophical than Buddhist, so he should not have called his book Mastering the Core Teachings of "the Buddha" but Mastering a Mix and Match bunch of Mysticism.
Just about done reading Daniel's book "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha". Amazing book!!!! For me, along with Jun Po Roshi, he is one of the first truly Modern & Rational Esoteric Teachers adjusting tradition structure I've seen. He is thoroughly debunking mythological Enlightenment which is the proper adjustment from all the scandals and reflections on the preceding decades since the reintroduction of esoteric paths in the mid 1900's. He is beyond traditions, which any awakened person should be, while still honoring and debunking them too. One of my favorite interviews, Thanks Daniel and Rick!!
Doubt and ill will is a hindrance. Instead of arguing the is/isn't we should meditate more and continue on with our flexibility. This man has quite a bit to say and has inspired many to come and stay amongst the dhamma. Gratitude. Metta.
Please Rick! 2nd interview with Daniel Ingram xD This was a delightful interview.
Love the podcast, videos and Daniel Ingram. Excellent stuff!
If Daniel does another interview with you, please talk about the Dark Night of the Soul and how to navigate that territory skillfully.
"Dark Night of the Soul" basically means depression. So read the Dhammapada, and having found the true Dhamma, you won't be depressed any more. Just make sure to ignore all the nihilists telling you that there is no soul to go to Nibbana after death, or you might get depressed again if you buy into that nonsense.
Fascinating, guys. Thanks.
Happy to see dharma being discussed. Sorry if I'm seeing this out of context as I just randomly fast forwarded to observe Dan's mind but around 21:00, "very advanced realized practitioners" will not have "dogmatic fortresses", this is a fallacy.
Also, in regards to the question itself, there is no "brain wiring" in realized beings! :)
***** Right, if they "get out" then they can all get along, my point is that there won't be any dogmatic fortress if they are highly realized. I don't think he was talking terminology but maybe you're right.
*Roughly a 3.0 on the -4 to +4 scale* _(for explanation and disclaimers please see the end of the comment)_
Listening to and reading Daniel has always been fun to me. He seems to have softened and lightened up a bit compared to years ago when on email he _seemed_ to sometimes try hard to be a bit of a jerk.
Regardless, he is genuine and an original. I just wonder why he still keeps the traditional delineators such as "arahant" if he doesn't agree with their traditional definitions and characteristics. Why then is he using the terms at all if they do not carry their traditional meaning ?
But basically, I cannot help but agreeing with his mostly pragmatic and undogmatic attitude towards "dharma" matters. This is fundamentally the future of that which was traditionally called "dharma" - if it has any.
I would have wished to hear more about how he experiences things now, and had also hoped to witness him demolish more of Rick's wishful thinking idealism, but I guess he wanted to be kind enough to possibly get another chance to give an interview, hehe.
_About the rating: anything below and including +1 means by and large a waste of time, and anything below 0 is not only worthless but damaging to the world. For comparison, on that scale, Francis Bennett would be a +3 or more and Harri Aalto would be roughly a tentative +3-3.5. Not coming up with original, independent cosmological insights bans any interviewee from > 3.0 ratings as a matter of principle._
*General Disclaimer:* the rating _pertains to an interview, not to the interviewee_. If the rating is high it means merely and exclusively that I consider the interview to be of high value relative to the stated purpose of the channel, and that it is therefore no waste of time to listen to the interview. It would _not_ imply that whatever the interviewee speaks is the truth (as if I was the arbiter over that) or that you should follow him/her or accept whatever that person offers. _That is particularly in need of emphasis if that would be an expensive enterprise_ !
Please stop writing
Most brilliant!
He said "my wife"
That is self and attachment.
2:10:10
Rick, I love you man! You robbed me of my question here! :-)
Looks like some kind of nice tube guitar amp behind Daniel...?
The interviewer's annoying attempt to shoehorn this "we're inevitably progressing" idea into a religious context is so annoying.
1:55:31 Stream Entry
He seems high in this video. He keeps looking up like there's something there. And he admits to questioning himself "Daniel, are you totally high?" a little after 2:07:37 ... so maybe he just simply is totally high. No, there is no maybe about it, the dude is high.
...or maybe he has a monitor that he keeps looking at?
Bad Ass Dharma Cowboy! That's funny.
Wth Daniel Ingram is a song producer in MLP!!!
+Aria Blaze Different....different Daniel Ingram I'm guessing.
Oh no...around 35:00 minutes, I just caught the interviewer saying some variant of, "Ahh, the spiritually experienced East vs. the spiritually precocious West." Is there ever going to be a point when people are gonna stop making goofy comparisons like that? Put it this way: Religious representatives have been conning people A-Z for as long as there have been priests and religions, and probably before that, on every corner of the globe. There is substantively little or no difference between Vedic gurus-swami-j-wuvme-wuvme guys coming over here and spouting their garbage, and the Roman Catholic priest hushing little Johnny up after he's just buggered him. So, everyone is more or less equally full of shit..just so we have that straight.
If only you could interview Tutteji and the dark sayings of "Kenneth R. Lingam, DVM, Arhat: Mastering the Core Teachings of Pharmacological Meditation"
Of course I agree an Arhat can have erections however taking delight in such is another matter which is just a part of my interpretation of this.
The interviewer guy for this channel must have a lot of patience to sit through some of the charlatans who come on here. It seems they get off topic a lot.
He is not an Arhant.
An Arhant can also be a sweeper, Toilet cleaner or the CEO of a company
They can always manage to keep a little secret
But rest assured do believe me this guy over here is not enlightened.
+Saurav Bhasin The expert speaks! Perhaps you should indicate what enlightenment is, what it isn't, why you happen to know, why you would care if Daniel is or isn't, why secrecy is necessary, why we should believe you, what models you are using to make your evaluation, etc. Did you actually listen to the interview?
@Matthew O'Connell, The interview is meaningless. Arhant has a specific meaning. He's trying to change the meaning. Let him invent a new word if he wants a new meaning. He's not an arhant. Whatever he is, its something else. Let him invent that new word. Plus he's more New Age or Theosophical than Buddhist, so he should not have called his book Mastering the Core Teachings of "the Buddha" but Mastering a Mix and Match bunch of Mysticism.
Can't believe you guys are still talking about all this! Who cares. Go and get some non-Buddhism; it would do you the world of good.
First you Write something Down. And then you talk about the words.