i've only ever heard Duncan Barford's voice on his podcasts; seeing a video of him for the first time, i was shocked to find that he looked absolutely nothing like Richmond from The IT Crowd.
His view of what is popularly called "demonic possession" as "kundalini awakening" is really interesting. I found it very eye opening and useful, from a therapeutic perspective. I read his books with his chap Alan (pun intended...) many years ago. It's nice to hear the man.
Spirits and Demons have a tendency to churn the human consciousness in a way that *can* result in the growth of internal energies. I'd say some people get freaked out by their own energy pretty easily. Put ethereal beings in there and you got a recipe for a situation many people would find confusing. I find people conflate being growing aware of their internal energy system with "kundaini awakening". I don't think they're really the same thing.
Very interesting! For the sequel, an important question would be whether Duncan sees a contradiction between (Theravada) Buddhism, where existence is seen as suffering and the goal is to permanently end existence, and the Western tradition, where existence is described as "pure joy" (Crowley). How can these two views coexist in a single persons development? Crowley (in Magic Without Tears) mentions that he was a Buddhist in the beginning of his career, but then changed his mind after receiving the Liber AL. Maybe the friction between these two views is a reason why it turns out difficult to claim full enlightenment.
An arhat's attainment of Bodhi is supposed to be identical to the Buddha's, so Duncan's doubt about his realisation being equivalent to others' seems to suggest it's not quite what the Buddha was talking about. Also, his description of fruition moments sounds very different from my own experience. The attainment of arhatship is said to be the completion of the holy life, putting down the burden of becoming, so the description of wanting to attain more and wondering if it ever ends is another contrast. Nonetheless, this was a lovely conversation and I enjoyed listening to you both this evening, Duncan has a wonderful quality of gentleness and humour.
They are identical in the sense that both are arahants (craving, suffering, and rebirth are destroyed). But a Buddha has a greater understanding of reality and various gifts that are not commonly found in arahants. This is not to say I think the interviewee is an Arahant. Just saying that there are various degrees of understanding even among arahants.
I've been reading/contemplating the Avatamsaka Sutra these last few days. What kind of being wrote that?! For anyone wondering, am I there yet? Do you think you could write something like that? Check the avatamsaka sutra and most likely your answer is no. Absolutely mind melting text that also if i am not mistaken first posited these levels of Bodhisattvic enlightenment starting with stream enterer. But its a question we all ask when engaging in dharmic or western occult practice, am I getting there, I'm really on a roll these days and then it fades, but it does become integrated and you progress or transform. Another point of reference would be modern day masters like Kunzang Dorje as was mentioned in a recent Guru Viking interview, are you so impervious to samsara that you dont need to eat normal food anymore and instead drink 3 quarts of 160 proof rice alcohol and probably live in a cave? And then go downtown to meet your students and walk through walls to get there? I'm not sure even then you are there yet.
Usually the story goes that enlightenment comes from a clear mind, bare sensate experience, but Mr Barford seems to be one who encounters the divine on a more visionary mental plane. Interesting because I can think of maybe a couple others for whom that's the case. This is good news because there's a tendency in spiritual circles to get rid of mental content - monkey mind - but here's a counterfactual to that so maybe don't throw the dreaming and thinking bath water out with the contemplative baby.
So wait what are the implications here? Dan Ingram says he went through the A&P in a dream. If you can't find what you're looking for in waking life, then how about in sleep life ?
Only listened to 20 mins but all of the spontaneous movements and sounds even the mudras is just bod standard Zi Fa Gong. Don’t understand how so much importance has been placed on it
The Theravada is very limited material but the higher stages of vajrayana/dzogchen under real masters can really transform the body mind matrix subdue this the n real training begins. I realize saying anything more can be dangerous 😮
Don’t think you have achieved nibbana nor has ego mind desolved or don’t think the cord of rebirth. Definitely some profound experience.. not doubting the stream entry and perhaps some stabilization but it gets really hard after that maybe do a dark retreat for 3 years 😂
Anyone who claims to be an arahant is probably not an arahant. From a Tibetan Buddhist perspective, it's not uncommon to see very advanced masters calling themselves ignorant fools. "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kɪʟʟ ʜɪɱ." Even Jesus Christ himself was reluctant to proclaim his own divine status publicly... In response to being asked if he was the Son of God, he says very bluntly, "You say that I am." Edit: I'm also noticing that he's using the term "paradigm" in order to describe an experience that he feels that he and Mattias Daly both had, without considering the fact that the two experiences could just be different experiences... A "kundalini awakening" is more of a new age concept that doesn't appear in traditional sources. Shaktipat is the closest thing that could be compared to the concept of a kundalini awakening, but this is something different that goes directly from teacher to student. So, I think Mr. Barford is a bit ɗeʟʊʂɪoŋɑʟ, quite frankly. Mattias approached his experience with a skeptical eye, while Mr. Barford is happy to stroke his ego by claiming that he's an arahant being possessed by Kali. Give me a break. Edit 2: Oh okay, so this guy started in the FWBO. Things are starting to make sense.
The buddha declares in the palicanon that one dies latest 10 days after attaining Arahatship, if one doesn’t join the monastic sangha… Just something to keep in mind, when talking about these sort of attainments.
That's stated in the Milindapanha, not in the Pali canon, and it's said to be Nagasena who said it - an otherwise unknown monk. Though the text is generally though to be a literary work, the Burmese canon includes it for historical reasons
No buddhist from countries where original buddhism is preserved till present days may disclose what he thinks about the degree of his enlightenment nor jhanic attainments.
@@mattmccartney5996It surprises me to watch even myself tell myself what to do??? The one who de-vines is in the one who can't see it. Only a thought of a sad grandfather ❤
@@mattmccartney5996 Monastics may not disclose what is their present opinion on their enlightenment status among themselves. As to the lay buddhists I have heard an educated guess from a Burmese monk and theravadian scholar that today there are zero lay buddhists with the third degree of enlightenment on the whole world.
I heard the Burmese monks are very dogmatic in terms of adhering to their given reading of (theravadin) textual sources. Ajahn Acalo and others have mentioned lay teachers who are considered as arahants by their disciples and followers. Personally I have some relics from a monk who is considered to have been an arahant. So the conjecture that nobody today gets the results to be strived for, seems a bit far reaching to me.
Interesting, I've heard many theravada monks say that they are able to discuss their attainments, real or imagined, with other monks but not with lay people. Another potential wrinkle with your original statement may be to contrast theravada with "original buddhism," whatever that might be.
Always very relaxing, thank you sir.
i've only ever heard Duncan Barford's voice on his podcasts; seeing a video of him for the first time, i was shocked to find that he looked absolutely nothing like Richmond from The IT Crowd.
Great interview! I would love to hear a second one soon.
Lovely interview
His view of what is popularly called "demonic possession" as "kundalini awakening" is really interesting. I found it very eye opening and useful, from a therapeutic perspective. I read his books with his chap Alan (pun intended...) many years ago. It's nice to hear the man.
Spirits and Demons have a tendency to churn the human consciousness in a way that *can* result in the growth of internal energies. I'd say some people get freaked out by their own energy pretty easily. Put ethereal beings in there and you got a recipe for a situation many people would find confusing.
I find people conflate being growing aware of their internal energy system with "kundaini awakening". I don't think they're really the same thing.
his own solo podcasts are great, also
Insights & Inspiration for the Solitary Seeker... 🙏
Very interesting! For the sequel, an important question would be whether Duncan sees a contradiction between (Theravada) Buddhism, where existence is seen as suffering and the goal is to permanently end existence, and the Western tradition, where existence is described as "pure joy" (Crowley). How can these two views coexist in a single persons development? Crowley (in Magic Without Tears) mentions that he was a Buddhist in the beginning of his career, but then changed his mind after receiving the Liber AL. Maybe the friction between these two views is a reason why it turns out difficult to claim full enlightenment.
An arhat's attainment of Bodhi is supposed to be identical to the Buddha's, so Duncan's doubt about his realisation being equivalent to others' seems to suggest it's not quite what the Buddha was talking about. Also, his description of fruition moments sounds very different from my own experience. The attainment of arhatship is said to be the completion of the holy life, putting down the burden of becoming, so the description of wanting to attain more and wondering if it ever ends is another contrast. Nonetheless, this was a lovely conversation and I enjoyed listening to you both this evening, Duncan has a wonderful quality of gentleness and humour.
They are identical in the sense that both are arahants (craving, suffering, and rebirth are destroyed). But a Buddha has a greater understanding of reality and various gifts that are not commonly found in arahants.
This is not to say I think the interviewee is an Arahant. Just saying that there are various degrees of understanding even among arahants.
The Goetia please! great episode , thank you.
Holy hell this is catnip to me, thank you!!!
I've been reading/contemplating the Avatamsaka Sutra these last few days. What kind of being wrote that?! For anyone wondering, am I there yet? Do you think you could write something like that? Check the avatamsaka sutra and most likely your answer is no. Absolutely mind melting text that also if i am not mistaken first posited these levels of Bodhisattvic enlightenment starting with stream enterer. But its a question we all ask when engaging in dharmic or western occult practice, am I getting there, I'm really on a roll these days and then it fades, but it does become integrated and you progress or transform. Another point of reference would be modern day masters like Kunzang Dorje as was mentioned in a recent Guru Viking interview, are you so impervious to samsara that you dont need to eat normal food anymore and instead drink 3 quarts of 160 proof rice alcohol and probably live in a cave? And then go downtown to meet your students and walk through walls to get there? I'm not sure even then you are there yet.
Usually the story goes that enlightenment comes from a clear mind, bare sensate experience, but Mr Barford seems to be one who encounters the divine on a more visionary mental plane. Interesting because I can think of maybe a couple others for whom that's the case. This is good news because there's a tendency in spiritual circles to get rid of mental content - monkey mind - but here's a counterfactual to that so maybe don't throw the dreaming and thinking bath water out with the contemplative baby.
So wait what are the implications here? Dan Ingram says he went through the A&P in a dream. If you can't find what you're looking for in waking life, then how about in sleep life ?
Oh yeah it's quite possible to have awakenings while asleep.
@StringVest
Se-quel! Se-quel! Se-quel!
Only listened to 20 mins but all of the spontaneous movements and sounds even the mudras is just bod standard Zi Fa Gong. Don’t understand how so much importance has been placed on it
The Theravada is very limited material but the higher stages of vajrayana/dzogchen under real masters can really transform the body mind matrix subdue this the n real training begins. I realize saying anything more can be dangerous 😮
Don’t think you have achieved nibbana nor has ego mind desolved or don’t think the cord of rebirth. Definitely some profound experience.. not doubting the stream entry and perhaps some stabilization but it gets really hard after that maybe do a dark retreat for 3 years 😂
Anyone who claims to be an arahant is probably not an arahant. From a Tibetan Buddhist perspective, it's not uncommon to see very advanced masters calling themselves ignorant fools. "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kɪʟʟ ʜɪɱ." Even Jesus Christ himself was reluctant to proclaim his own divine status publicly... In response to being asked if he was the Son of God, he says very bluntly, "You say that I am."
Edit: I'm also noticing that he's using the term "paradigm" in order to describe an experience that he feels that he and Mattias Daly both had, without considering the fact that the two experiences could just be different experiences... A "kundalini awakening" is more of a new age concept that doesn't appear in traditional sources. Shaktipat is the closest thing that could be compared to the concept of a kundalini awakening, but this is something different that goes directly from teacher to student. So, I think Mr. Barford is a bit ɗeʟʊʂɪoŋɑʟ, quite frankly. Mattias approached his experience with a skeptical eye, while Mr. Barford is happy to stroke his ego by claiming that he's an arahant being possessed by Kali. Give me a break.
Edit 2: Oh okay, so this guy started in the FWBO. Things are starting to make sense.
The buddha declares in the palicanon that one dies latest 10 days after attaining Arahatship, if one doesn’t join the monastic sangha…
Just something to keep in mind, when talking about these sort of attainments.
That's stated in the Milindapanha, not in the Pali canon, and it's said to be Nagasena who said it - an otherwise unknown monk. Though the text is generally though to be a literary work, the Burmese canon includes it for historical reasons
What you've written sounds a bit like the what a fundamentalist literalist Christian might write. I'm a magician and not a Buddhist though
No buddhist from countries where original buddhism is preserved till present days may disclose what he thinks about the degree of his enlightenment nor jhanic attainments.
Monastic cannot discuss attainments with lay people under the Vinaya. Lay Buddhists can discuss attainments, real or imagined, as they please.
@@mattmccartney5996It surprises me to watch even myself tell myself what to do???
The one who de-vines is in the one who can't see it.
Only a thought of a sad grandfather ❤
@@mattmccartney5996 Monastics may not disclose what is their present opinion on their enlightenment status among themselves. As to the lay buddhists I have heard an educated guess from a Burmese monk and theravadian scholar that today there are zero lay buddhists with the third degree of enlightenment on the whole world.
I heard the Burmese monks are very dogmatic in terms of adhering to their given reading of (theravadin) textual sources.
Ajahn Acalo and others have mentioned lay teachers who are considered as arahants by their disciples and followers. Personally I have some relics from a monk who is considered to have been an arahant. So the conjecture that nobody today gets the results to be strived for, seems a bit far reaching to me.
Interesting, I've heard many theravada monks say that they are able to discuss their attainments, real or imagined, with other monks but not with lay people. Another potential wrinkle with your original statement may be to contrast theravada with "original buddhism," whatever that might be.
??