Guru Viking

[Miffymog]

I currently quite like watching interviews from Guru Viking. I've just finished watching this one between Daniel Ingram and Delson Armstrong. Delson has recently renounced his previous claim that the had achieved the state of an Arhat, something  that Daniel himself claimed and then renounced while ago. It was an enjoyable interaction with some very nice moments in it, highly recommended

 

 

 

[Apech]

 I find the channel very dependent on the quality of the guest.   He has some good people on but also quite a few questionable ones.  But his interview style is good.

[Krenx]

An arahant according to early buddhism of the Pali cannon, is well defined, and posseses qualities that Daniel and Delson do not possess. 

 

Do they still have possessions? Do they still cook and purchase/prepare their own food? When they travel, what is their purpose? Is every moment of their life involved in the dhamma, discussing the dhamma, contemplating on the dhamma, absorbed in jhanas, or do that partake in idle talk outside the 8 fold path? Can Arahants live a lay life? Did any Arahants in the suttas ever live a lay life? These are some good questions to ask. Your actions and lifestyle reflect your views and quality of your mind, level of clinging/craving after all. 

 

Daniel I can get why he came to such assumsions. He has his own "personal definition" about what an arahant is, different from what the Buddha defined it was. So we can leave it at that. But I am surprised Delson made that error and assumed an attainment with his depth in understanding of the sutta and teaching others in the suttas as a living. 

 

But it is not uncommon for even monks do make similar mistakes. And we just try to correct them as we continue striving to see the dhamma. 👍🙏.

 

Guru viking I agree is good as an interviewer. He allows guest to be clear in their views. And let viewers the freedom to make their own judgement.   

[Vajra Fist]

9 hours ago, Apech said:

 I find the channel very dependent on the quality of the guest.   He has some good people on but also quite a few questionable ones.  But his interview style is good.

 

Yes, on that latter point, would like to perhaps see less of Delson Armstrong

[oak]

10 hours ago, Apech said:

 I find the channel very dependent on the quality of the guest.   He has some good people on but also quite a few questionable ones.  But his interview style is good.

 

Teenagers have the right to watch good interviews of kung fu masters with superpowers, you know?

Edited June 1 by oak

[Apech]

Having watched about a third of this vid I would like to announce that while I may have appeared to many people, to be an infinite wise and loving Buddha, I now admit that I am just a common schmuck.  I will not be returning the donations.

 

 

[Nungali]

Hey, if renouncing is in fashion, I am up for that .  I would like to renounce   .... something , but I don't know what I am ? 

 

(I already did it with Christianity  when I was about 10  )  ..... 

 

Perhaps Apech could help define what I am ? 

 

 

 

[Apech]

8 minutes ago, Nungali said:

Hey, if renouncing is in fashion, I am up for that .  I would like to renounce   .... something , but I don't know what I am ? 

 

(I already did it with Christianity  when I was about 10  )  ..... 

 

Perhaps Apech could help define what I am ? 

 

 

 

Do you have a hat?  And do you go ‘ah’ ?

 

 

[Nungali]

6 minutes ago, Apech said:

Do you have a hat?  And do you go ‘ah’ ?

 

 

 

I actually have a prejudice against hats .   Don't like 'em and never did . 

 

Anything from a baseball cap to this .... 

 

 

( and I can even tell its trying to make fun of me ... I see that 'reverse Australia ' shape  in the sploge of baked beans  !   )  

 

PHOEY  ! 

 

Also I tend to prefer  'Eh?'  over 'Ah ' . 

Edited June 2 by Nungali

[stirling]

The Guru Viking podcasts are often very good. A surprising portion of the guests are awakened, or even at the point of having completely dropped "self", but not ALL of them. 

 

Why renounce the claim of being an arhat? Claiming the title implies a belief in being a separate, but special enlightened "being". In reality there ARE no beings to enlighten. 

 

Dogen points to this in his piece "Actualizing the Fundamental Point":

 

Quote

To study the way of enlightenment is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind, as well as the bodies and minds of others, drop away. No trace of enlightenment remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly.

 

 

19 hours ago, Krenx said:

An arahant according to early buddhism of the Pali cannon, is well defined, and posseses qualities that Daniel and Delson do not possess. 

 

Do they still have possessions? Do they still cook and purchase/prepare their own food? When they travel, what is their purpose? Is every moment of their life involved in the dhamma, discussing the dhamma, contemplating on the dhamma, absorbed in jhanas, or do that partake in idle talk outside the 8 fold path? Can Arahants live a lay life? Did any Arahants in the suttas ever live a lay life? These are some good questions to ask. Your actions and lifestyle reflect your views and quality of your mind, level of clinging/craving after all.

 

The Buddha also got angry, got sick and died. He was a man like all other men, but one that realized that there WERE no men, just an enlightened, perpetual buddha-field. With this knowledge he still lived in the world like anyone else. I've never met anyone that would meet some of the criteria that might define a "Buddha" or Arhat from some of the tripitaka, but HAVE met beings, monastics, lay-people and non-Buddhists, that are and embody great realization, and no longer identify as "self" - this is "enlightenment with residue", which is what all enlightened "beings" that are still here in the world are:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arhat#In_Theravāda_Buddhism

 

In my opinion, the salient characteristic of an arhat is having completely dropped the "self". This means that they no longer identify as one, NOT that their behavior is entirely perfected. 

 

There are countless arhats and  "Buddhas" all over world, quietly just "being". They sometimes get angry, get sick and die, but with the realization that what they are isn't the "self" or world but the awareness that witnesses it. The primary way to tell the most realized is by how KIND they are. Consistently grumpy, impatient, argumentative teachers have work to do. 

 

Quote

Daniel I can get why he came to such assumsions. He has his own "personal definition" about what an arahant is, different from what the Buddha defined it was. So we can leave it at that.

 

One of the most helpful documents at my disposal as I dropped the last of the fetters was a something Daniel posted and shared, a fantastic lean, modern, phenomenological description of experience with no-self. When I first read it some time after awakening there was much of it that I didn't get, or that wasn't clear to me, but as dualities continued to drop away I would re-read it the points and they would clarify.

 

Quote

But I am surprised Delson made that error and assumed an attainment with his depth in understanding of the sutta and teaching others in the suttas as a living. 

 

I think becoming the enlightened "self", then realizing the error is simply a natural progression and realization on the path. Even after enlightenment and "arhatship"", the path, and the continued dissolving of dualities, never ends.

 

 

[Sherman Krebbs]

23 minutes ago, stirling said:

In my opinion, the salient characteristic of an arhat is having completely dropped the "self". This means that they no longer identify as one, NOT that their behavior is entirely perfected. 

 

This is super silly, but can someone drop the "self" and still have a name?

 

Arhat John goes to back to work on monday:

 

"Hey John, how was your weekend?"

"Who is John"

"John, are you alright?"

"The person you call John is an illusion of the mind, he does not exist"

"I guess that explains the illusory TPS reports that you were supposed to have on my desk by Friday."

"Peter, if only you understood, you see, all is one.  There is no differentiation between me and you, or between us and the TPS reports. It is all the same, and by our very presence here, the TPS reports are here also."

"Just get me the reports by 3:00 pm John or your fired"

"... [Deep Sigh]... Okay Peter"   

[stirling]

1 minute ago, Sherman Krebbs said:

This is super silly, but can someone drop the "self" and still have a name?

 

Arhat John goes to back to work on monday:

 

"Hey John, how was your weekend?"

"Who is John"

"John, are you alright?"

"The person you call John is an illusion of the mind, he does not exist"

"I guess that explains the illusory TPS reports that you were supposed to have on my desk by Friday."

"Peter, if only you understood, you see, all is one.  There is no differentiation between me and you, or between us and the TPS reports. It is all the same, and by our very presence here, the TPS reports are here also."

"Just get me the reports by 3:00 pm John or your fired"

"... [Deep Sigh]... Okay Peter"   

 

Most of us walking the world identify our "self" as a narrow selection of all of the the perceptions and phenomena in the world. So, this itching sensation is on my "foot", when I look in the world, what I see is from MY perspective, but it can be seen, even logically, that these are arbitrary. When you drive the car, is the CAR also "I"? What about when you are in dreamless sleep... when does the sense of "I" go? 

 

When one "awakens" they realize that they have been living in a created story about the nature of the reality they live in. For the most part this doesn't change the behavior of our experience of the world, just how it is understood. 

 

If someone says, "Hi John" you smile and greet them. If someone asks which kind of ice cream you prefer, you respond. The difference is that you now realize that it isn't the imagined separate entity that responds, it is EVERYTHING... or, to look at it another way no-thing. The cause of your response is the entire perceivable fabric of reality. For it to be anything truly separate from that would be impossible. 

 

To insist that people shift into addressing you in some arcane way is disingenuous and lacks compassion. Some do it, but eventually grow out of it. 

[Krenx]

The early suttas, from the anagami level and the arahant, it is impossible for anger to arise when the 5 lower fetters with ill will being part of that abandonment. 

 

Some Arahants in the suttas, even the Buddha, may have behaviours that are sometimes harsh, blunt, direct. But it is not out of anger. Just a lingering personality. Arahants still have signs of their own lingering unique personalities even after the 5 fetters are abandoned. It does not mean anything in their behavior is out of ill will. That is impossible. 

 

This is specific to the Pali cannon. Not all branches of Buddhism teach the same dhamma. So it is important to discern its differences. 

 

And I understand people have their own definitions on what it means to be enlightened, their own definitions of arahanthood. And it makes sense they have to adopt terms from buddhism/ religions to communicate their ideas with others. 

Edited June 2 by Krenx

[stirling]

24 minutes ago, Krenx said:

The early suttas, from the anagami level and the arahant, it is impossible for anger to arise when the 5 lower fetters with ill will being part of that abandonment. 

 

The best way to clarify this is probably to say that it is anger arising from "SELF" view that no longer arises. Most people are not going to get this distinction.

 

24 minutes ago, Krenx said:

Some Arahants in the suttas, even the Buddha, may have behaviours that are sometimes harsh, blunt, direct. But it is not out of anger. Just a lingering personality. Arahants still have signs of their own lingering unique personalities even after the 5 fetters are abandoned. It does not mean anything in their behavior is out of ill will. That is impossible.

 

Following on from my point above, if the Buddha does act out of anger, that anger is really frustration that he couldn't help others with their self-imposed suffering. Most people are not going to get this distinction either.

 

24 minutes ago, Krenx said:

This is specific to the Pali cannon. Not all branches of Buddhism teach the same dhamma. So it is important to discern its differences.

 

I only use the Pali Canon for examples because it was mentioned early and there is a popular current belief that somehow the Pali Canon teachings are somehow more pure than other Buddhism - a view I do not hold. There are many teachings in the Mahayana and Vajrayana from the enlightened perspective that must come from OTHER, albeit enlightened, teachers. There are enlightened teachers almost everywhere, even today, so no issue for me there.

 

24 minutes ago, Krenx said:

And I understand people have their own definitions on what it means to be enlightened, their own definitions of arahanthood. And it makes sense they have to adopt terms from buddhism/ religions to communicate their ideas with others. 

 

Agreed... it is just one lens amongst many, but an effective one. Enlightenment is, however, not truly definable be any set of definitions, but can only be triangulated by them.

[Sherman Krebbs]

36 minutes ago, stirling said:

For the most part this doesn't change the behavior of our experience of the world, just how it is understood. 

 

Even the selfless must keep food on the table.  I guess this raises a follow up question:  Is it a contradiction to be selfless and shrewd (i.e. self interested)?  I look out for my self-interest and my family's, not necessary for the pleasure of worldly things, but to survive and provide for them.  As much as I believe in non-duality of being, I also believe that karma holds a better place for me by virtue of the value I create in society than living in a dumpster eating cookies.  Where does the cookie monster get his, anyway?   I don't know if this is right, and it may be different for different people, but for me it is more about getting past the lust of the end result, and acting in a way that enriches myself and all around me. (lots of "I" 's in there )

 

37 minutes ago, stirling said:

If someone asks which kind of ice cream you prefer, you respond

 

Neapolitan, for sure.

[Krenx]

16 minutes ago, stirling said:

I only use the Pali Canon for examples because it was mentioned early and there is a popular current belief that somehow the Pali Canon teachings are somehow more pure than other Buddhism - a view I do not hold. There are many teachings in the Mahayana and Vajrayana from the enlightened perspective that must come from OTHER, albeit enlightened, teachers. There are enlightened teachers almost everywhere, even today, so no issue for me there.

 

 

Agreed... it is just one lens amongst many, but an effective one. Enlightenment is, however, not truly definable be any set of definitions, but can only be triangulated by them.

 

👍. Cool cool. Thanks for clarifying. As long as things are discerned, we know where these ideas belong, who holds these different views, others can consider it on their own terms while still maintaining the purity and distinctions between various doctrines. 

[Apech]

31 minutes ago, Sherman Krebbs said:

 

Even the selfless must keep food on the table.  I guess this raises a follow up question:  Is it a contradiction to be selfless and shrewd (i.e. self interested)?  I look out for my self-interest and my family's, not necessary for the pleasure of worldly things, but to survive and provide for them.  As much as I believe in non-duality of being, I also believe that karma holds a better place for me by virtue of the value I create in society than living in a dumpster eating cookies.  Where does the cookie monster get his, anyway?   I don't know if this is right, and it may be different for different people, but for me it is more about getting past the lust of the end result, and acting in a way that enriches myself and all around me. (lots of "I" 's in there )

 

 

Neapolitan, for sure.

I would say the discipline required to be in the world engaged with worldly things and yet following the dharma is the highest form of teaching.  
 

I also think being overly concerned with non- self is a big red herring.  A trap which both these guys fell into.  Better to engage and to understand what the real practice of compassion really means in the world.  
 

Slowly release self clinging by engagement but think little of it.

 

 

[stirling]

1 hour ago, Sherman Krebbs said:

Even the selfless must keep food on the table.  I guess this raises a follow up question:  Is it a contradiction to be selfless and shrewd (i.e. self interested)?

The Middle Way is not the way of the renunciate. We are not giving away all of our belongings or wealth, we are renouncing clinging and aversion to wealth and belongings. We won't solve suffering by giving people our wealth, or food, or it would already have happened. The source of all suffering is a lack of Prajna (Wisdom) which is insight into "emptiness". 

 

Our instruction as bodhisattvas is to be WITH suffering where it happens. Be kind. Be present with those that are suffering, when you encounter them. Be generous when the opportunity presents itself, but not at the expense of your personal security.

 

Taking care of your finances, as long as it is not at the expense of others is fine. 

 

Where "self" has dropped away bodhisattvas will find that what they need is taken care of. They are free to be of benefit when and where they encounter suffering.

 

Quote

...all dharmas are marked by emptiness; they neither arise nor cease,
are neither defiled nor pure, neither increase nor
decrease. - Buddha, Heart Sutra

 

-

 

1 hour ago, Sherman Krebbs said:

Neapolitan, for sure.

 

 

[stirling]

1 hour ago, Krenx said:

👍. Cool cool. Thanks for clarifying. As long as things are discerned, we know where these ideas belong, who holds these different views, others can consider it on their own terms while still maintaining the purity and distinctions between various doctrines. 

 

Ultimately, Prajna is holding NO view. The teachings are not the realization, and keeping traditions pure is nice idea from a cultural perspective, but means nothing from enlightened perspective. 

 

A good teacher will do whatever it takes to wake you up, whether it means quoting Rumi, Nisagadatta Maharaj, or Ren and Stimpy.