It is a daisychain of clips, not the whole interview. A link to the whole conversation is in the description.

Ikr, it kinda pissed me off when he interjected😂

It is evident that you are missing the point. Daniel is just being himself, which happens to be an energetic nerdy academic. Eckhart is just being himself, which happens to be a chill old dude. The things they talk about are the same

Because he is in Bodhisattva path

@@VittoShulman firstly, that's not what he claims. second, no Bodhisattva claims that enlightenment is being in a state with passion, aversion and delusion

do you self a favor, read Daniel's "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" - book available both for free in PDF form or you can buy a hardcover copy to support the author. You jumping to these conclusions is sooo far off the mark, i wouldn't know where to start to pull you from this willful self-delusion and hatered. Read that book (at least few first chapters), get a some proper clue about this person, make an inform conclusions, practice hard.

@@Alejandro388 you know what, sure. firstly, i'm going to stop my rant and focus on my own practice. secondly, I'm not going to criticise based on reading a few excerpts and thank you for telling me to read, and now I have. Let me just say this, sure, Ingram is a swift writer and has knowledge of the fundamental teachings. Having read chapters of his book, I find it disagreeable how he often glosses over concepts and at times provide an alternative meaning to particular terms, which are much intuitive to the general population but are hugely misleading.Thirdly, I do question about the specific details of his meditative experiences that sound like fantasy but regardless, the bigger problem lies in his definition of Arahantship (highest stage of enlightenment). If you were to refer to the early Pali suttas which are the heart of the Buddha's teachings regardless of any traditional commentaries and interpretations, some concepts and stages of enlightenment are clearly defined. The original definition of an Arahant is someone who is permanently free from the shackles of passion, aversion and delusion, abandonment of sense pleasures and conceit through understanding the nature of reality and seeing them clearly. Ingram's practice led him to perhaps profound experiences (taking his words) but doesn't find himself in that position of the original definition of an arahant, and so he deems it to be unattainable and a myth, and that an Arahant is someone who has realised some profound meaning but yet still has many to learn, which is not only lowering the bar of the original definition but also alters it. My question is what benefit does it bring to oneself through altering definition and only then claiming to be one, while at the same time ignoring the fact that there are others who are higher along the path who do not claim the attainment. I understand that people these days really want to believe that enlightenment is available for the masses, which it is said to be attainable by anyone but difficult in the early suttas, but not through the means of altering definitions and only then placing oneself amongst the enlightened. Traditionally, people would guess if a teacher is enlightened from his humility and the way he behaves himself at all times (fitting in the original definition and pointers yet relaxed and unpretentious), which makes perfect sense because the perfectly enlightened ones has shed his ego. Even so, the very humble teachers would say they havent reached arahantship when questioned if they know for themselves that there are tasks to be done, which they know are attainable but not achieved just yet. Personally, these are the model of enlightened beings that I can respect, and not a public claimant. Furthermore, I have a problem with Ingram's model of an Arahant who is liable to killing, lying, etc because that would mean Arahant aren't morally different to the unenlightened, which totally defeats the purpose and definition of what being a Arahant means. Take this as you will and I do suggest reading direct from the source in the early suttas. I am open to a fruitful discussion and am learning to not engage myself in harsh speech anymore. May us develop higher in our own practice. With metta

Where did you find this stuff? Not only can I not find anything that says arhats can't feel anger or have sex, but I also don't see Daniel being egotistically proud of his pdh or selling dhamma for money.

It is suspect, those things.

Dr. is in his title because he is a retired E.R. doctor with an M.D. He talks about techniques like an academic because he believes that is the most practical approach for most people to understand since we live in a society that mainly thinks in an academic way. He's a map geek and very knowledgeable in the other models of enlightenment out there and has the attitude of "If it works for you, that's great! Keep going!". Maybe send him an email if you want to get to know him better.

His book is free.

With all due respect, the kind of enlightenment, the kind of insight, experiences and powers so to speak with every individual master . How peaceful one master perhaps means something but if you see that way Echart is probably more peaceful than Jiddu Krishnamurti ever appeared to be, but Echart holds JK with very high regard. And yes this guy is an academic too, he is researching with the likes of Harvard and MIT on this whole thing , literally . Skepticism understood, but judge by the content and work they have done. His book and the forum in which he and others actively suport others are both free of cost . He even directly gets into calls with random people who need help and doesn't charge anything .

thank you sirs. yes jk is a special figure. im just responding to that which, in this individual, seems compromised. i could be wrong. much love to you my friend.