DI is an amazing exhibitor of the dharma: technical yet down to earth, verbose yet understandable, Western and practical yet schooled in the traditional literature.
I relished this conversation and found its rough and ready free-for-all quality thrilling if a bit challenging. The content is brilliant and my takeaway is I must meet Daniel Ingram. Thank you Robert Wright for these two fascinating interviews.
57:00 - enjoying the discussion. I would say: all referents and perceptual descriptors are virtually generated. It therefore becomes impossible to discuss objective locality. This is not usually a problem, practically speaking. It's just accurate. For most practical purposes, 'inside my head' works wonderfully.
my awareness of thoughts and all these alternations and details I can do. No breaking point, yet though. No waking up or even a grain of any kind of profound experience.
Was stuck on the "brain somewhere" for a bit. the matrix comparison helped me: a person walking around in a simulation doesn't have their brain inside their simulated head - just more simulation. the real brain is outside, being simulated to.
In Goenka, first three days they focus on touch of your breath above your lip where the moustache grows. Some people are told to focus on a single point in that area.
What I found somewhat unfortunate was that it seemed that the interviewer was not always listening carefully to what Daniel had just said and his subsequent questions or commentary would miss the mark. It was also frustrating when the interviewer seemed to get so caught up on Daniel's basic explanation of solipsism and empiricism. It was strange that he seemed to know Berkeley and Descartes, but not actually understand them and their ideas. Descartes, for instance, only felt that he could prove that he was a thinking thing through his direct experience. He could not begin to prove that he had a brain or where it might be until after he had logically argued for the existence of God. At that point he could extrapolate the existence of a brain and a body, but these were extrapolations, not interpolations.
Daniel, to me, seem to like to hear himself talk and does not answer the question he is asked. Instead he goes off on tangents. A good interviewer keeps control and brings the person being interviewed back to the subject.
Just that it must be so difficult to really answer those questions in an effective way, even for those with a vast experience. A seemingly simple question might ask for a very complex answer. Complex not only in expressibility but also because you know how variously your answers might be misinterpreted.
Daniel Ingram is a formidable example of a Western Buddhist practitioner. I belief it is of relevance to note that the level of awakening that Daniel has attained is that of an Arhat which is one that has realized directly the emptiness of all phenomena and thereby liberated oneself from cyclic existence. Within the Buddhist context the attainment of Arhat is however not equivalent to the experience of the complete enlightenment of Buddhahood.
@@heruka111 thats one aspect. The Buddha claimed something of that he is an arahant but even more awakened. Plus buddhas supposedy have all the psychic powers mastered but arahants do not. If arahats did it would be strange to distinguish mahamogallana for his powers i would think.
sabbe dhamma vedana samosarana - every content of mind flows on body in form of sensation. thats why the buddha the only one talked about sense doors , not 5
Can you be on the way to enlightenment and still smoke pot? Also, how do you know when a Buddhist teacher is to be trusted to help me on the path of enlightenment?
My impression is that pot is not a problem at the beginning, but that most people find that eventually they notice that cannabis has a negative impact on the clarity of their mindfulness. I'm guessing that it takes a while for mindfulness to develop enough to notice this. You will probably have to figure out for yourself what works for you.
How enlightened can someone who is clearly overweight be? They must feel its worth it remaining at a lower level of health, which isnt enlightenment. So Daniel is not fully enlightened. Understanding what enlightened is one thing, pure practice is much harder.
This was painful. I wish with a pragmatic guy like Daniel Ingram we were pursuing more deep questions and less basic theory and models for the universe. Ugh!
so many people these days just want to believe that enlightenment is for the masses... hence why people believe in such apparent nonsense. direct contradiction to the Buddha's teachings.
it is silly of me, but I get a little frustrated with the discussion around 50:30 when the 'physical/affective dimension of thought' is being discussed as if it's perplexing. for me, 'thought' is the activity of the nervous system, end of story. kind of a radical definition, perhaps; but i've, as yet, found no compelling support for another one.
![Secular Buddhism | Robert Wright & Stephen Batchelor [The Wright Show] (full conversation)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WYXm6vAxOMI/mqdefault.jpg)
![Secular Buddhism | Robert Wright & Stephen Batchelor [The Wright Show] (full conversation)](/img/tr.png)
Very good questions asked at a time when clarification is necessary.
This podcast is loaded with wisdom.
I for one, am ready for round 3 and more of this fascinating conversation
DI is an amazing exhibitor of the dharma: technical yet down to earth, verbose yet understandable, Western and practical yet schooled in the traditional literature.
I relished this conversation and found its rough and ready free-for-all quality thrilling if a bit challenging. The content is brilliant and my takeaway is I must meet Daniel Ingram. Thank you Robert Wright for these two fascinating interviews.
Daniel Ingram ! thank you for sharing Buddha's teachings. Very good discussion.
Yeah thanks good shit bro
Thank you Daniel. Love your work.
Thank you Robert! Apologies for all the negativity lol. This was a good inerview.
57:00 - enjoying the discussion.
I would say: all referents and perceptual descriptors are virtually generated. It therefore becomes impossible to discuss objective locality. This is not usually a problem, practically speaking. It's just accurate.
For most practical purposes, 'inside my head' works wonderfully.
hilarious that when Robert wants to talk he just projects his voice louder than Daniel
my awareness of thoughts and all these alternations and details I can do. No breaking point, yet though. No waking up or even a grain of any kind of profound experience.
Thank you!!
excelente vivencia, sou aluno do Coursera, Psicologia Moderna e Budismo.estou seguindo seu trabalho.
Raphael Angelo Da Silva Veja o "de-mystifying mindfulness" no coursera também! 😉
Thank you!
Was stuck on the "brain somewhere" for a bit. the matrix comparison helped me: a person walking around in a simulation doesn't have their brain inside their simulated head - just more simulation. the real brain is outside, being simulated to.
I'd love to hear you speak to more Buddhist teachers.
In Goenka, first three days they focus on touch of your breath above your lip where the moustache grows. Some people are told to focus on a single point in that area.
You interrupted Daniel a lot. This interview could have been way better if you had just let him finish his thoughts. No offense, just an observation.
What I found somewhat unfortunate was that it seemed that the interviewer was not always listening carefully to what Daniel had just said and his subsequent questions or commentary would miss the mark.
It was also frustrating when the interviewer seemed to get so caught up on Daniel's basic explanation of solipsism and empiricism. It was strange that he seemed to know Berkeley and Descartes, but not actually understand them and their ideas. Descartes, for instance, only felt that he could prove that he was a thinking thing through his direct experience. He could not begin to prove that he had a brain or where it might be until after he had logically argued for the existence of God. At that point he could extrapolate the existence of a brain and a body, but these were extrapolations, not interpolations.
Daniel, to me, seem to like to hear himself talk and does not answer the question he is asked. Instead he goes off on tangents. A good interviewer keeps control and brings the person being interviewed back to the subject.
Just that it must be so difficult to really answer those questions in an effective way, even for those with a vast experience. A seemingly simple question might ask for a very complex answer. Complex not only in expressibility but also because you know how variously your answers might be misinterpreted.
Yes, Robert Wright is highly annoying and misleading.
Common complaint, but one I do not have. Wright has the breadth of knowledge to merit equal time. I listen to these as dialogs not interviews.
Daniel Ingram is a formidable example of a Western Buddhist practitioner.
I belief it is of relevance to note that the level of awakening that Daniel has attained is that of an Arhat which is one that has realized directly the emptiness of all phenomena and thereby liberated oneself from cyclic existence.
Within the Buddhist context the attainment of Arhat is however not equivalent to the experience of the complete enlightenment of Buddhahood.
Buddhahood is just self enlightenment while arhats have been taught
@@heruka111 nope bro
@@heruka111 thats one aspect. The Buddha claimed something of that he is an arahant but even more awakened. Plus buddhas supposedy have all the psychic powers mastered but arahants do not. If arahats did it would be strange to distinguish mahamogallana for his powers i would think.
40:00 Short circuiting the identity process, 1:05:05 Vipassana
For practice times see 31:31 of this video: ua-cam.com/video/d33_Q41pYOY/v-deo.html
The interviewer is constantly interrupting. This is a lousy interview
...really... fun.
sabbe dhamma vedana samosarana - every content of mind flows on body in form of sensation. thats why the buddha the only one talked about sense doors , not 5
Can you be on the way to enlightenment and still smoke pot? Also, how do you know when a Buddhist teacher is to be trusted to help me on the path of enlightenment?
My impression is that pot is not a problem at the beginning, but that most people find that eventually they notice that cannabis has a negative impact on the clarity of their mindfulness. I'm guessing that it takes a while for mindfulness to develop enough to notice this. You will probably have to figure out for yourself what works for you.
How enlightened can someone who is clearly overweight be? They must feel its worth it remaining at a lower level of health, which isnt enlightenment. So Daniel is not fully enlightened. Understanding what enlightened is one thing, pure practice is much harder.
Daniel weighs around 170 or so I believe. You think that's overweight? Hilarious. Your loss.
Words words words. Don't mistake your finger for the moon.
The words have been super helpful for me.
Interviewer isn’t the sharpest tool in thee shed
This was painful. I wish with a pragmatic guy like Daniel Ingram we were pursuing more deep questions and less basic theory and models for the universe. Ugh!
Then it's just helpful to no0bs
2017. I wanted to watch. But your first impression is a little harsh and you don't even have 720p. But thanks for the effort.
The speech is clearly audible which seems the only relevant aspect in such an discussion.
audible or not is subjective.
Your loss. Good job!
so many people these days just want to believe that enlightenment is for the masses... hence why people believe in such apparent nonsense. direct contradiction to the Buddha's teachings.
Hockey pucky I tell yee! Harumph
it is silly of me, but I get a little frustrated with the discussion around 50:30 when the 'physical/affective dimension of thought' is being discussed as if it's perplexing. for me, 'thought' is the activity of the nervous system, end of story. kind of a radical definition, perhaps; but i've, as yet, found no compelling support for another one.
So you are saying that you know you have a a belief that is really emotionaly charged because if you investigate it it might not hold up to scrutiny.