I can't believe how naive about Buddhism AronRa was before taking upon this endeavor to learn about Buddhism. I mean, that's the basic misconception made by westerners, that "Buddha" refers to that fat smiling guy who's sitting cross-legged with a sort of glazed acceptance. "Buddha" is actually a title given to anyone who "awakens." I wonder how informed AronRa is now about eastern philosophies and religions, and if he's into any Alan Watts or Terence McKenna which I'd recommend for any atheist.
I found the quote from the hindu scripture interesting
Does anyone know if it was written before or after the life of Buddha ?
The interesting part is where it says to "delude the atheists" ? I am an atheist and I completely abhor the boring mindless Abrahamic idealogies. But i have always seen something attractive about Buddhism. I think it is just my fascination with its exotic nature, but if I converted to Buddhism due to this fascination, that would be a delusion as per the Hindu scripture
Buddism has way more claim to being "supernatural" than christianity yet more ppl believe those grusome teachings xD I mean, theres that video with the monk effortlessly burning himself to death. Christianity seems to have no modern day happenings as close to supernatural as buddism. Though the whole re-incarnation part is false and could be dangerously interpreted as having "infinate chances" to get life right... in which case, you could do what you want. : / misinformation is dangerous
@Yahweigh What's overly supernatural about buddhism vs the religion of the talking snake, the virgin mother and her zombie undead god-child? Regarding the monk, there's a huge difference between harming yourself vs harming others yet you stretched that into something about 'doing what you want' as if the two need be the same. I agree misinformation is dangerous, especially when the person making the flawed claims is unaware it's themselves disseminating that misinfo.
@Yahweigh I believe you still miss the point. the suicide of self-immolation is not the same as teen-angst depression suicide. Their decision to do such a thing was likely reached at the end of a long, deep examination and contemplation of their feelings, thoughts and the purposes for it.
As for the committing crimes thing, you really miss the mark on that one. Once again, these aren't bubble gum dunderheads telling themselves, hey i can steal stuff or kill someone then come back later...cmon
I have to bring you to task about your comments. You assume that most Americans know nothing about The Buddha. Well I am a Vietnam Vet and all Vietnam vets learned about The Buddha and we have seen many monks in their robes. So please do not make broad general statements that are not supported by actual facts. Also any college student who has studied comparative religion knows Siddhartha and his becoming The Buddha.
@chairde Thank you for pointing out that every college student who has ever studied comparative religion understands Buddhism -even though most of the students in my comparative religion class still did not. But while you're busy challenging MY 'broad sweeping generalizations', are you seriously suggesting that most Americans have studied comparative religion? Or that most Americans could distinguish Siddhartha from Hotei?
@AronRa "Also any college student who has studied comparative religion... ", that statement that I wrote is not the same as "most college students have studied comparative religion...". The two have very different meanings. In my statement I only include those students who have had the chance to study comparative religion. Also I used the past tense, have studied, in that the student has finished the course. Perhaps the students in your class are still in the process of learning.
Well,around 15 years ago I would have called myself a Buddhist,I wholeheartedly denied Christianity since I was about 12 or 13 and I had not tried to replace it.Than I saw a old friend of mine and he was telling me about Buddhism and how peaceful it was,he was a self taught in Chinese,read the news paper's from China etc. was really into the Eastern mind set.He also thought that the Dalai Lama was a cruel man in real life,he would always say that you should not trust religions,they are all bull.
You sound like a creationist ( I know that you're not ) but facts are facts,anything and I do mean anything that man creates is fallable. Now, I do think that Southern Buddhism like Zen, is a lot better than Northern Buddhism,but, the way that things really are,thing's do not need any esoteric teaching's,from some religious minded person.Any ! I'll have to check -out "Zen at War".
@k9a2g6 I consider Buddhism to be a very down to earth kind of practice. Again, you have to specify a claim that you find esoteric to prove your point. As a Buddhist, I don't approve of abstract, poetic, or romantic language to explain the truth. I don't believe in the supernatural. I wouldn't consider Buddha to be a "religious minded" person.
With that being said, I can see how some of the terminology can be confused with Hinduism and New Age garbage. Still, Buddhism encourages skepticism.
Excuse me...! but where in the world did you come up with that - "Atheism gets a free pass" All that I have stated is that in the west,buddhism get's a free pass,and of course there is not a claim that all buddhist adhere to,I have no problem with Southern Buddhism (zen buddhism) just the Northern Buddhist,who are into gods and demons.
@k9a2g6 - These gods & demons aren't viewed in a literal western, religious sense . Tibetans are quite aware these things aren't going to pop up ... They're viewed & used as focus aides, metaphor, devotional aides, & story guides today . They aren't Buddhist in orgin. The D Lama perfoms Shiva prayers/ devotion
als. Are you going to find hillbillies who believe in them ?, Of course.
@k9a2g6 I said it would be wrong for me to say that, read the comment again!
In the west, not enough people know exactly what Buddhism is. The group of people who consider themselves Buddhist, no matter the sect, are a very small minority.
Its not that it gets a free pass its just that it's not known well enough to be thoroughly criticized.
And sure you as an individual can deny the existence of god's and demons and denounce certain forms of Buddhism but not Buddhism itself.
Did you bother to read "Friendly Feudalism" by Michael Parenti,or "A Great Deception:the ruling Lamas Policies" a new book exposing the "true" Dalai Lama"-Kublai Khan in 1253 made Pagpa his spiritual teacher,then made him the ruler of Tibet,then went on to become the Mongol emperor of China,declared Buddhism the state religion,or read "The Shadow of the Dalai Lama"by Victor & Victoria Trimondi at loveforlife.
@k9a2g6 No but I've I read "Zen at War" and I'm aware of what the books you've mentioned and what their talking about. But you've missed my point entirely.
As a Buddhist I must say that I don't believe in the Dali Lama. In fact most forms of Buddhism do not, he's not a central figure like Jesus is. I have many problems with certain forms of Buddhism including Tibetan Buddhism. You cannot make a case against Buddhism by criticizing something that most people of that group don't uphold.
@k9a2g6 And again, ANYONE can be dogmatic no matter what they identify themselves as. I don't say that Stalin's atheism, for example, was contingent upon his morality. Being an atheist doesn't make one incapable of doing bad things. But I shouldn't say the equivalent of what you've said which is that "Atheism gets a free pass. I mean look at Stalin!"
If you have a problem with Buddhism, please specify a specific claim of that is believed by all Buddhist that I can take issue with.
People in the west,tend to give Buddhism a real break,but if you do a honest check you'll find out that it was pretty gruesome - see Michael Parenti /Tibet, Friendly Fuedalism,update-2007
@k9a2g6 But you must understand, dogmatism can exist in ANY school of thought and the problem with religion is that it is fundamentally based on authority. However, that doesn't mean there aren't any dogmatic scientist or Buddhist, people identified with a school of thought that isn't. What should be examined is the relationship between the core teachings of Buddhism and violence.
In the Bible and in the Qur'an thats easy but there are no central texts that all buddhist abide by.
@Jiryu02 - Central texts ??? No ... But, that's kind of deceptive . There are central tenents. One could well formulate a central text . If there wasn't a central thesis then it would be ridiculous to call yourself a Buddhist. Nevertheless; one would be hard pressed to justify or attribute any violence to anything ALL Buddhist's view as Buddhist ideals.
@k9a2g6 Consider this example: I devise a world view and I'll call it "Me-ism". I advocate reason, skepticism, human rights, etc. Centuries later, after many disputes on what exactly I meant and different variations of my philosophy forms, we may get a school that embodies some of what I believe but also many ideas that I wouldn't have approved.
I'm not accusing you but I think it's a shame that many atheist don't examine Buddhism more carefully.
hehehe. hindus must drive christians and buddhis mad with their "your god is just one part of my god" aditude. its a great way to win when there is no rules. i like to read eastern religion and philosophy, but i dont belive that they are true. thou i have to say they are much more intresting then bible or koran. compared the bible and koran look like booring stories in comparison to eastern religions. i love mythology but i am atheist.
Huh, that's interesting. I just gave Mi Lo Fo another look; apparently, it's true that it's Hotei (Budai) in the sculptures, but he's used as a representation of Mi Lo Fo.
Hm? That's Buddha Matrieya, known as Mi Lo Fo in China. Not Hotei.
Also, the 'spoon of rice a day' image is as wrong as the 'jolly fat man' image. Buddha WAS an ascetic, at one time, but realised this was not the way to enlightenment and instead lived the Middle Way.
I'm an atheist but I admire Buddhist philosophies (not spiritually- I don't believe in rebirth (NOT REINCARNATION IN BUDDHISM) or many other teachings)
Just look at the beautiful places, the wonders our world has. Nature is awesome. People make great art. It's a shame that humanity has to argue & hold so vigorously to it's stupidity, when they could be doing better things with their time. Christians say Jesus was all about peace, yet his followers seem to be all about denying other's rights. You want a peaceful prohphet? Try Buddha. His teachings don't go against anything or anyone's beliefs, only against attachment, strife & suffering
Buddha was born in India and he preached in India.
His teachings when started spreading , it threatened the powers of Brahmans, the upper ruling castes of hindus.
There was a time when a huge prize was offered for those who bring a head of Buddhist .So Buddhists flew away from India.
later on Buddha was declared as an Avatar for Buddhism to get merged in Hinduism so as not to have a separate identity. AVATARS described in Hinduism are the saints or Prophets of God .Angels are Devatas .
The Sutta Lakkhan, describes the Shakya, whom the Gautma Buddha was born into as "those yellow-skinned, soft and delicate as the bronze, his dark hair and slanted eyes and black" (dialogues of the Buddha, Part III p.138). It is no wonder chinese, tibetan, japanese, korean, thai, vietnamese whom are all Mongoloid race are predominantly Buddhist nation.
Still today Shakya ethnic group live in Nepal.
The Hindu Aryan assimilated Buddha as part of Hindu culture to protect their religion.
@Upul123angelo I'm surprised how many people comment on these videos before they've even seen them. If you had waited another moment, you would have seen that I already knew what you just said.
@Jiryu02 - It seems to lie in the fact that Buddhism is atheist in its worldview ... The Buddha taught that the question of a god is irrelevent to reaching enlightenment ...
@MaitreyaRocket There seems to be a problem with the label atheist though. You can say a person is an atheist if he denies or lacks a belief in God but you can't make that claim about a world view unless it explicitly denies such a claim.
Just because God is irrelevant to Buddhism doesn't mean he didn't believe there were Gods. In fact its very likely that he did considering the society, science, and philosophy at the time. The difference is the role God plays in Buddhism.
@Jiryu02 - Its very likely that he didn't considering the society, science, and philosophy at the time. He was raised under Hindu beliefs . The mass of Hindus , like Greeks, held their myths to be just that, myths. Also, given his level of logic , there's no doubt he came to the correct conclusion . He deemed it irrelevant so his discovery wouldn't be clouded. What logic could possibly conclude that an all-powerful diety is irrelevant .
@MaitreyaRocket Well thats just not true, there are many Hindus, past and present, who certainly did believe in the super natural. Same with the Greeks. Both of them practice(d) animal sacrifice animal sacrifice for example.
Plus, no one can really say what Buddha's level of logic actually was, just that which is attributed to him. For example, it is obvious that the Kalama sutra was not written or spoken by Buddha (because it came centuries after) but may be influenced by him. (cont.)
@Jiryu02 - You're clutching at straws in the process of straw manning me .Educated Hindu's & ecspecially Greeks , were quite aware their myths were just that ... Anyway, I think it's a safe bet to speculate on the founder of Buddhism's , a supremely logic form of thinking, level of logic . I'd say it was pretty high . To speculate the contrary is absurd. So, indeed, one can say what his level of logic was ...
@MaitreyaRocket I'm not straw manning anything I'm just pointing out something that you said was false and directly addressed it. What do you mean educated Hindus? Even amongst so-called educated Hindus there were polytheists, monotheists, and atheist. And just because some schools of Hinduism deny God (which Buddhism does not) does not mean they did not appeal to the supernatural. A good example of this is the existence of the spirit in which many atheist Hindus did beleive.
@Jiryu02 -The same logic used to arrive at the notion there is no god today was just as applicable then ... Again, I ask you ,What logic could possibly conclude that an all-powerful diety is irrelevant ??? I'll answer for you... None ... It was deemed irrelevent because it didn't exist ...
@MaitreyaRocket Your wrong, there is no logic that can absolutely disprove the existence of deities. You should know better.
The the existence of God is not irrelevant to Buddhism because it doesn't exist, it's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the practice of Buddhism (which is redundant). Irrelevance is not non-existence. Why would someone say that God doesn't matter when he could prove it doesn't exist?
@Jiryu02 - If someone fully defines a diety, I can disprove it. If you think I'm wrong, demonstate it . Offer up a definition."""Why would someone say that God doesn't matter when he could prove it doesn't exist? "" One would say it doesn't matter , because one could prove it doesn't exist. Again, I ask you ,What logic could possibly conclude that an all-powerful diety is irrelevant, to ANYTHING? An all-powerful creator diety would have something to do with everything, including Buddhism.
@MaitreyaRocket Sure an all powerful deity would have to do with everything, if you want to go that far, however, the point is that Buddhism can be practiced whether deities exist or not. Also, considering it a possibility is not at all contradictory to Buddhism, that is what is meant by irrelevant.
Second, not all conceptions of God imply all powerfulness. I can give you a simple definition: A potent being that has control over a force of nature or a specific human characteristic. Go ahead.
@Jiryu02 - I'm a potent being who has control over a force of nature & very many human characteristics . I'm not a god . Anything, with the characteristics you mentioned does not constitute a god. You may as well worship me .
@MaitreyaRocket Perhaps that was a bad example. But let's say Thor. Is Thor at least a possible god?
Plus, just as many Gods are not omnipotent, it is also true that they do not have to be worthy of worship. Are you saying any conception of god is 100% impossible?
@Jiryu02 - iF SOMEONE DEfines it, sticks to that definition, & doesn't keep moving the goal post, I can disprove it . I think the heart of what you're trying to say by one not being able to disprove a god is equivelant to stating one can't disprove there's a giant intangible, uber intelligent , hobby horse circling Saturn. One can always equivicate but, why be so willing to call it god ? There's a reason to be unwilling .
@MaitreyaRocket Because people have called what you described God, believe it or not. In most forms of polytheism, few gods are responsible for the creation of the universe. So you'd have to say Greek "gods", for example, are very much possible.
So are Hindu Gods because there is not a creation made ex nihilo. You're talking about a very modern form of God but an atheist should deny ANY form of god for the same reason that they've combated the judo-Christian one.
@MaitreyaRocket Plus, I'm not the one who set these standards for God, the "goal post" is a matter of history and the development of diverse cultures.
I think that the Judeo-Christian God is certainly impossible but that Gods characteristics shouldn't limit the Gods across the world. The God's of Buddha's time and place were certainly possible and I'm saying that he likely didn't explicitly deny their existence, my original point.
@MaitreyaRocket With that being said, the Kalama sutra is not true because it was said by someone, it's true because it makes a lot of sense.
When it comes to god, he may have deemed it irrelevant but it does not mean his views were atheistic. Again, to be that it has to explicitly deny the existence of god. A view is not atheistic because it lacks such a belief.
@Jiryu02 - It's also clear that the Buddha rejected the society, beliefs ,& philosophy of the time . Otherwise, there wouldn't be Buddhism . "god(s)" plays no role in Buddhism,outside of characters in myth . Gods are explictly denied in the Dharma. There is no place or role for a god in the Dharma. Such beliefs render the Dharma pointless .
@MaitreyaRocket Its true Buddha rejected certain things about society and philosophy at the time but he did not deny all of them. You must realize that Buddha, living in his time, probably couldn't understand the whether, electricity, the properties of matter, etc.
What I meant was that when it came to the existence of deities, in which many people at his place and time DID believe, he probably couldn't deny the common wisdom. Whether he could or could not had nothing to do with Buddhism.
I very much enjoy your videos responding to creationists and that's why I subscribed. However, I really enjoy your other videos that are of educational nature that branch into other topics. This is very interesting. I have often been fascinated with the legend of the Budha or siddartha gautama and have read bits here and there about the story of his life. if we had the tardiscam we would know for sure. (another video i really enjoyed)
yeah its common to say that "you are just misinterpeting god and only god is my god. or that "your god was made by my god" its the kind of achent "my cock is bigger then yours" play. of corse its compleatly moronic. why whuld god want to trick people? its just does not make sence. so what i can say about this is just atempt to rub your balls on others face. its like soap-opera without logic. it does not make sence.
hmmmm i dont belive in buddha or krishna but very intresting. it helps me to clean my mind from the westersn monotheism and its absolutism. i dont belive, but so i dont belive in harry potter.
I am a 'newly de-converted christian -- now athiest (about 2 yrs) Out of all the worlds religions I respect Buddhism the most--Siddartha said himself--he was not a diety or a god..and said NOT to believe on blind faith but to test and re-test his theories (VERY scientific of him) continuously and live a simple good life, as there are no gods...you must find your own path to happiness.
I am a 'newly de-converted christian -- now athiest (about 2 yrs) Out of all the worlds religions I respect Buddhism the most--Siddartha said himself--he was not a diety or a god..and said NOT to believe on blind faith but to test and re-test his theories (VERY scientific of him) continuously and live a simple good life, as there are no gods...you must find your own path to happiness.
One thing wrong in this vid. At the 6:30 mark you show image from Vietnam. I lived in Nam for 5 months for college. MANY of the buddha statues look like the ones pictured in Japan and other countries. The 1,000 armed diety is known as Avalokiteshivara, buddha of compassion (there are MANY buddhas-people who have reached enlightenment.) THIS buddha is seen in MANY eastern countries (Japan; known as Kwannon and is FEMALE. TIBET---avalokiteshivara has a HUMAN incarnation known as the Dalai Lama)
yea when you read the bible and look in depth at buddhism and its teachings they along with jesus go hand in hand with oneanother very similar im very open minded now
@devaloki true. they're still magical, supernatural beings with specific powers who intervene in human affairs, attend his teachings, etc. i'm trying to counter the idea the buddha was some kind of atheist skeptic, he wasn't, according to the records we have.
I think it is a great presentation. Some things to point out.
1. The fat Buddha is one of a reincarnated form of the next buddha, Maitreya. As a buddhist, what he represents is more important than whether he is actually real.
2, @6.30, is a picture of "Avalokiteśvara", which is a bodhisattva;
3. @6.51, that is a picture of either budai, or a monk;
4. @7.51, that is a statue of the "Goddess of Mercy"
Astoundingly, buddha does not address/acknowledge the existence of a god, but encourages goodness from other religions if it brings benefits to that person who professes it.
He was once ask about the existence of god and he remain silent to that question.
@mykegoh no, he knew of god's existence (brahma) but asserted him as an impermanent being. if you read the nikayas you can even read when he went to brahma's realm ...
One of your Buddha pictures from Malaysia - the feminine looking one standing against an overcast sky - that's not Buddha. That's Guan Yin, the Goddess of Mercy.
PANG wrote: @PeopleAintNoGood Thing is, if someone says theyre a Buddhist AND an atheist, there is an inherent contradiction. Im interested in reasonable peoples opinions of this, but not if you are as challenged as Mechelle68.
Like everything else you claim to be certain about you're wrong. LOL. I live with four other people. This gets better and better with each comment where you make an idiot of yourself.LOL.
I thought atheism is just having no belief in a god. You have to believe in a god to be a buddist? I only know three buddists and none of them believe in a god.
@You2Anna Oh for fucks sake! Buddhists strive towards an afterlife in a caring universe. Atheism does not accept belief without evidence. Know what youre talking about before you post.
PANG said: Atheism does not accept belief without evidence.
Is this coming from the same dude( or dudette) who implied someone else believed something they didn't without evidence to support it? LMAO!!!!!!!!! THAT'S RICH!! LOLOL!
Have you even read the posts you make? You've been making claims that another poster believed something when you had no evidence to back up what you were claiming. You sound like a creationist. LOL!
@You2Anna - If someone says theyre a Buddhist, I understand the term, like any normal sane human being. Youre strange in your outlook, and your clami has no basis in reality.
@PeopleAintNoGood Thing is, if someone says theyre a Buddhist AND an atheist, there is an inherent contradiction. Im interested in reasonable peoples opinions of this, but not if you are as challenged as Mechelle68.
Anyway, before all that bollocks, I was talking about the Buddhist acceptance of suffering. The idea of suffering sue to attachment, or trishna, craving, thristing, whatever. It is taught that these things are impermanent, and one should realise their impermanence. Its this aspect, as I was saying, that is ripe for exploitation in an Earthly sense. I dont say that Buddhism itself exploits.
Mechelle68 and PeopleAintNoGood: Wow. I've read through this whole conversation. I didn't see the point in Buddhism before but Mechelle has demonstrated the usefullness of it. PANG lost it and stooped to name calling where as Mechelle maintained composure and responded in a more mature way. It's plain as day as to who the real buddist is. I guess not everyone can follow a buhddist discipline as PANG clearly demonstrated. This whole exchange should be on Reality TV. LOLOLOL.
I don't know how much more research you did on Buddhism in general, but you'd probably be interested to know that (at least in Japan) the Buddha lying on his side is the image of him at his death (he accepted and ate bad meat to help someone gain good karma). Another common image is a set of foot prints. They represent his ascension (like the empty cross).
Personally, I've always enjoyed the art and sculptures based on Buddhist tradition.
Hindus and Hinduism are not necessarily tolerant at all. I'm not trying to flame anybody here, just disagreeing. I hear a lot of other westerners say that, but I read a lot of international news and in some places in India many Hindus are violently intolerant of anyone not of their particular ethnicity (even other Hindus). I'm sure most Hindus are as you say, but being Hindu does not mean you have to be tolerant, they have their a-holes just like everybody else
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y im not talking about christians at all, my comment has to be taken in the context of the one it is a response to. I was referring to the very common western misconceptions that 1. Hinduism is a monolithic religion and 2. tolerance and pacifism are practiced by all Hindus.
The fact that i left a comment about religion on youtube at all shows me to have been in a very poor decision making state at the time anyway.
@UncleChevitz I said that could be a reason for the hostileness of Hindus. A lot of the Indians that lived through colonialism are still alive and faced a danger of losing their culture.
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y you dont get it, im talking about their attitudes towards other indians like jains, indigenous people and other castes, not foreigners in any way.
@UncleChevitz I said that could be a reason, not the only reason or the main cause. I'm well aware of the caste system and how it's stressed in Hinduism. Religious will always discriminate if they're the majority. You aren't telling me any thing new.
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y you are making this a different conversation, my main point in my original comment was that tolerance of other religions is not a central tenet of Hinduism. thats it. im starting to get the feeling that you dont know what you or i am talking about
I use to practice a kind of Buddhism after I lost faith in Christianity. I find it interesting that most Americans are just as ignorant about Buddhism as they are about atheist and where completely confused when I told them I was both.
but Buddhism has the same Achilles heel that JudeoChristian religions have. it is still steeped in spirituality and mysticism. thats why I no longer follow it
I guess you could say that Gautama was a bit melancholy before he became the Buddha (since he was very keenly aware of impermanence and suffering). I'm not sure you can apply that to him afterward though. He attained liberation, so I don't see why he would be melancholy.
Melancholy that the rest of the world had not attained enlightenment perhaps? That despite what he had discovered, suffering continued? I think it' entirely possible he was still unhappy in that sense.
Yup, the 'laughing buddha' has little to do with true Buddhism. Siddhartha, Im sure, is personified as the embodiment of perfect spiritual and physical beauty. I have a problem with both Theravadan and Mahayana Buddhism, in that both encourage the complete abandonment of earthly concerns. Poverty, hardship, etc., are just illusions. You can see the possibilities for manipulation in these concepts. Its another way of satiating an unfulfilled populous.
Zen Buddhism, is the version most seen in the West, but this a version of Mahayana. Simliarities between Buddhism and Hinduism are the products of appropriation.
I've been reading the 'Tao of Physics' by Fritjof Capra, and is interesting to see that many of the concepts in Buddhism are supported more and more by modern physics and a changing understanding of the nature of reality.
What does it manipulate people to do? I mean, I don't see it cherishing stupidity and ignorance like religions. It seems to be only a philosophical movement and how-to-be-happy-guide rather than what many religions are trying to promote; waging fear to control masses and keeping you from living your life.
abs3ent - I suppose it encourages an acceptance of deprivation. It doesnt seem to actively do this, thats why its halfway appealing, but, still, the potential is there for exploitation of the masses. Maybe Im just paranoid, but the Far East does seem to have its fair share of fatalism.
Indeed it actually sometimes can encourage to accept deprivation (well deprivation is relative to a degree). I see Buddhism as only a mindset, no need necessarily for changing your habits or lifestyle or what ever. But of course everyone sees it differently. The possibility of exploitating the masses comes sadly with any group, even with some "Happy Mother's Organisation" or what ever. People are likely to believe the opinion of the people one can relate oneself to.
In your opinion, do you think that the fatalism of the Far East seems to be any more fatalistic than that of American Christianity? If someone dies slowly and painfully of cancer, then inevitably Christians claim it's part of god's plan (else they'd allow humane euthanasia and dignfied deaths like we allow our pets). Far beyond simple acceptance of deprivation, dooming someone to squeeze every last bit of suffering out of their lives seems to stretch fatalism to its extreme.
@PeopleAintNoGood ..as an atheist and a lay buddhist, I can only give you my opinion. For the most part, there is no desire to convert others (just as sure as I say there isn't, some anonymous person will make a post to "prove" me wrong). It centers around the eightfold path to help diminish suffering in yourself and others. The eightfold path is pretty much common sense. It can be called a religion, depending on how you look at it, but then....so could weight lifting.
@Mechelle68 - I dont remember calling it a religion. Organised mysticism, perhaps, a religion without a godhead. The eightfold path is only a shopping list of desirable qualities to improve the lives of others. I dislike any organised school of thought which encourages acceptance of poverty and injustice. We could go on with a debate, but not in these short meassages.
@PeopleAintNoGood.....*just laughs*....well if that's what you see in it, then that's probably all you'll find in it and so you probably shouldn't make any attempt to practice it. It's obviously not a discipline that everyone can follow.
@Mechelle68 - Ah, so you are possessed of special mystical occultish knowledge then? Sounds dangerously like something a Christian evangelist might say. To be honest, and with respect, I find little difference. Ive read and practiced too, so its not for the want of understanding, There are no special mysteries here, you may as well join the Freemasons, draw pentacles and attempt to turn lead into gold. The most dangerous mumbo-jumbo seems, at first, pretty reasonable.
@PeopleAintNoGood.....there's little reason to answer your question because it has nothing to do with anything I've said and the rest that follows is speculation surrounding the fallacy of your opening question. If you find anything "mystical or occultish" about it, then that's what you find. Not everyone does. And since you've made it clear that it's not to your liking........then don't practice it. It's that simple.
@Mechelle68 - Your statement, 'Its obviously not a discipline that everyone can follow', seems designed to raise some sort of response. One could accuse you of wanting to take the intellectual highground. You cant dismiss a response in this fashion. I dont speak from ignorance here.
Designed to raise some sort of response? Why manufacture something that is not there? Yoga is not a discipline that everyone can follow. Working out at the gym is a discipline that not everyone can follow. Walking 30 minutes a day is a discipline not everyone can follow. Do you see any mysticism or occult-like message in those statements? They are no different than the statement I made about the eightfold path obviously being a discipline that not everyone can follow.
@Mechelle68 The physical disciplines are a method, they are not a means to an end in themselves. It is this I have a problem with. There is no evidence to support the existence of actual 'spiritual enlightenment'. You seem to reject the idea that Buddhism is a mystical belief system, which is absurd. Your idea of it seems to be a kind of aesthetic health farm in the sky. Buddhism is organised mysticism, which encourages devotees to accept poverty, hardship and injustice.
Perhaps you should stick 2 what you ACTUALLY know and give up on the attempt to ASSUME you know what others see in Buddhism. So far, you've missed your target on every post you addressed to me.
But here's the rub.......if you don't find Buddhism to be to your liking, or if you don't feel it would be beneficial to you, then........don't.......practice......it.
It's that simple. And since you insist on manufacturing one thing after another, there's no reason for you and I to continue this.
@Mechelle68 - Hmm. I am astounded by your version of Buddhism. Perhaps you could form a new pragmatic sect of your own, as you seem to have failed to grasp any of the metaphysical aspects of traditional teaching. I would guess you also think War & Peace to be a good adventure novel.
@Mechelle68 - Well, what I actually know about is Buddhism. I can only assume what others see in it, unless, of course, they clarify what it is that THEY understand by it. But you are either a Buddhist, or you have concocted some strange personal hybrid, becuase you also said that you are an atheist, which I find to be contradictory. So, you accept Karma, an afterlife AND the non-existence of an afterlife? I think you must be mildly confused, at the very least. Or agnostic, perhaps?
And try not to fall back on the other strawman fallacies you created in your previous posts by assuming you know what I believe because so far....you've been wrong.
Tell me....what is MY version, as you call it, of Buddhism?
@Mechelle68 - Ive no idea what you believe, you have displayed an immature coyness about it. You have also dodged questions about your inconsistent position, as well as a question about the Buddhist position on injustice. You are pretty good at telling me what Buddhism is NOT, but, so far, you refuse to clarify what you think it is. This makes me suspicious about your credentials as an authority on the subject. If you want to address the question, do so, but Im tired of playing 20 questions.
"Ive no idea what you believe"......that's right, you don't, yet you've assumed to in 4 individual posts to me, that you do.
"you have dodged questions"...............You've asked me two questions. One I answered, the other you followed with your summary of what you believe my answer would be. Another fallacy on your part.
"You're pretty good at telling me what Buddhism is not."..........what have I said Buddhism is not, other than a discipline that not everyone can follow?
@Mechelle68 - You thrill me with your intellectual mind games...Keep on dodging, that way, you wont be confronted with having to answer any difficult questions at all, throughout any part of your life. Its a method, I suppose, but not one I appreciate. Silence is the refuge of fools.
Just because you got called on your bullshit, and the strawman fallacies that you created, you want to turn it around and make out like it was someone else wasn't being honest, here.
The posts are there. And frankly, what you believe as far as whether or not I know what I'm talking about, is of no significance, what so ever.
I can't believe how naive about Buddhism AronRa was before taking upon this endeavor to learn about Buddhism. I mean, that's the basic misconception made by westerners, that "Buddha" refers to that fat smiling guy who's sitting cross-legged with a sort of glazed acceptance. "Buddha" is actually a title given to anyone who "awakens." I wonder how informed AronRa is now about eastern philosophies and religions, and if he's into any Alan Watts or Terence McKenna which I'd recommend for any atheist.
Hanahleia 3 months ago
I found the quote from the hindu scripture interesting
Does anyone know if it was written before or after the life of Buddha ?
The interesting part is where it says to "delude the atheists" ? I am an atheist and I completely abhor the boring mindless Abrahamic idealogies. But i have always seen something attractive about Buddhism. I think it is just my fascination with its exotic nature, but if I converted to Buddhism due to this fascination, that would be a delusion as per the Hindu scripture
captaindisguise 3 months ago
Sorry if the question was already asked, but, what music is it you are playing in this video and can it be downloaded legally?
TwentythreeFortyTwo 5 months ago
This is a very informative video, and I love it! However, there are statues of fat Buddhas in Asia.
RiverMpls 7 months ago
I couldn't enen pronounce most of the title before watching the video. And yes... I'm an American
anzwertree 9 months ago
@anzwertree Thats not a surprise most Americans are stupid nowadays.
Kocaz69 8 months ago
Awesome video, loved it! You been all over the world! o_O~!
Kocaz69 9 months ago
Buddism has way more claim to being "supernatural" than christianity yet more ppl believe those grusome teachings xD I mean, theres that video with the monk effortlessly burning himself to death. Christianity seems to have no modern day happenings as close to supernatural as buddism. Though the whole re-incarnation part is false and could be dangerously interpreted as having "infinate chances" to get life right... in which case, you could do what you want. : / misinformation is dangerous
Yahweigh 10 months ago
@Yahweigh What's overly supernatural about buddhism vs the religion of the talking snake, the virgin mother and her zombie undead god-child? Regarding the monk, there's a huge difference between harming yourself vs harming others yet you stretched that into something about 'doing what you want' as if the two need be the same. I agree misinformation is dangerous, especially when the person making the flawed claims is unaware it's themselves disseminating that misinfo.
dubbleplusgood 9 months ago
@dubbleplusgood They were 2 seperate points,
1# is the monk dying by suicide through burning to death but still dying while happy, calm, relaxed and not scared.
2# the other is about how a believer of re-incarnation could attempt to abuse the system by commiting rapes ect... Then being good in the next lives.
Yahweigh 9 months ago 2
@Yahweigh I believe you still miss the point. the suicide of self-immolation is not the same as teen-angst depression suicide. Their decision to do such a thing was likely reached at the end of a long, deep examination and contemplation of their feelings, thoughts and the purposes for it.
As for the committing crimes thing, you really miss the mark on that one. Once again, these aren't bubble gum dunderheads telling themselves, hey i can steal stuff or kill someone then come back later...cmon
dubbleplusgood 9 months ago
GREAT REPORT. FANTASTIC. THAT IS THE TRUE BUDDHA, THE AMERICANS.... WE TENDS TO BE REALLY STUPID JAJAJAJA
MERCIA125 10 months ago
"So as you can see, the American vision of the Buddha was wrong. The buddha wasn't fat but must've been really REALLY tall" LOL XD That was cute!
Quocviet1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this page is about siddhartha gautama. please like it if you have the time! it's for our logic project :) thank you :)
facebook.com/pages/Siddharta-Gautama/186384244731975
kxishi 10 months ago
so many people here taking this too seriously. Im doing a powerpoint for buddhism too and this helped alot. thank you homie
sexyryan25 11 months ago
buddism teaches the external world is an illusion or dream, and if you are a follower of the teaching, debates are rather pointless.
Jeffgothro 11 months ago
I have to bring you to task about your comments. You assume that most Americans know nothing about The Buddha. Well I am a Vietnam Vet and all Vietnam vets learned about The Buddha and we have seen many monks in their robes. So please do not make broad general statements that are not supported by actual facts. Also any college student who has studied comparative religion knows Siddhartha and his becoming The Buddha.
chairde 11 months ago
@chairde Thank you for pointing out that every college student who has ever studied comparative religion understands Buddhism -even though most of the students in my comparative religion class still did not. But while you're busy challenging MY 'broad sweeping generalizations', are you seriously suggesting that most Americans have studied comparative religion? Or that most Americans could distinguish Siddhartha from Hotei?
AronRa 11 months ago 9
@AronRa "Also any college student who has studied comparative religion... ", that statement that I wrote is not the same as "most college students have studied comparative religion...". The two have very different meanings. In my statement I only include those students who have had the chance to study comparative religion. Also I used the past tense, have studied, in that the student has finished the course. Perhaps the students in your class are still in the process of learning.
chairde 11 months ago
8:20-I also hear Buddha was one hell of a basketball player!
June28July 1 year ago
Well,around 15 years ago I would have called myself a Buddhist,I wholeheartedly denied Christianity since I was about 12 or 13 and I had not tried to replace it.Than I saw a old friend of mine and he was telling me about Buddhism and how peaceful it was,he was a self taught in Chinese,read the news paper's from China etc. was really into the Eastern mind set.He also thought that the Dalai Lama was a cruel man in real life,he would always say that you should not trust religions,they are all bull.
k9a2g6 1 year ago
You sound like a creationist ( I know that you're not ) but facts are facts,anything and I do mean anything that man creates is fallable. Now, I do think that Southern Buddhism like Zen, is a lot better than Northern Buddhism,but, the way that things really are,thing's do not need any esoteric teaching's,from some religious minded person.Any ! I'll have to check -out "Zen at War".
k9a2g6 1 year ago
@k9a2g6 I consider Buddhism to be a very down to earth kind of practice. Again, you have to specify a claim that you find esoteric to prove your point. As a Buddhist, I don't approve of abstract, poetic, or romantic language to explain the truth. I don't believe in the supernatural. I wouldn't consider Buddha to be a "religious minded" person.
With that being said, I can see how some of the terminology can be confused with Hinduism and New Age garbage. Still, Buddhism encourages skepticism.
Jiryu02 1 year ago
Excuse me...! but where in the world did you come up with that - "Atheism gets a free pass" All that I have stated is that in the west,buddhism get's a free pass,and of course there is not a claim that all buddhist adhere to,I have no problem with Southern Buddhism (zen buddhism) just the Northern Buddhist,who are into gods and demons.
k9a2g6 1 year ago
@k9a2g6 - These gods & demons aren't viewed in a literal western, religious sense . Tibetans are quite aware these things aren't going to pop up ... They're viewed & used as focus aides, metaphor, devotional aides, & story guides today . They aren't Buddhist in orgin. The D Lama perfoms Shiva prayers/ devotion
als. Are you going to find hillbillies who believe in them ?, Of course.
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@k9a2g6 I said it would be wrong for me to say that, read the comment again!
In the west, not enough people know exactly what Buddhism is. The group of people who consider themselves Buddhist, no matter the sect, are a very small minority.
Its not that it gets a free pass its just that it's not known well enough to be thoroughly criticized.
And sure you as an individual can deny the existence of god's and demons and denounce certain forms of Buddhism but not Buddhism itself.
Jiryu02 1 year ago
Did you bother to read "Friendly Feudalism" by Michael Parenti,or "A Great Deception:the ruling Lamas Policies" a new book exposing the "true" Dalai Lama"-Kublai Khan in 1253 made Pagpa his spiritual teacher,then made him the ruler of Tibet,then went on to become the Mongol emperor of China,declared Buddhism the state religion,or read "The Shadow of the Dalai Lama"by Victor & Victoria Trimondi at loveforlife.
k9a2g6 1 year ago
@k9a2g6 No but I've I read "Zen at War" and I'm aware of what the books you've mentioned and what their talking about. But you've missed my point entirely.
As a Buddhist I must say that I don't believe in the Dali Lama. In fact most forms of Buddhism do not, he's not a central figure like Jesus is. I have many problems with certain forms of Buddhism including Tibetan Buddhism. You cannot make a case against Buddhism by criticizing something that most people of that group don't uphold.
Jiryu02 1 year ago
@k9a2g6 And again, ANYONE can be dogmatic no matter what they identify themselves as. I don't say that Stalin's atheism, for example, was contingent upon his morality. Being an atheist doesn't make one incapable of doing bad things. But I shouldn't say the equivalent of what you've said which is that "Atheism gets a free pass. I mean look at Stalin!"
If you have a problem with Buddhism, please specify a specific claim of that is believed by all Buddhist that I can take issue with.
Jiryu02 1 year ago
People in the west,tend to give Buddhism a real break,but if you do a honest check you'll find out that it was pretty gruesome - see Michael Parenti /Tibet, Friendly Fuedalism,update-2007
k9a2g6 1 year ago
@k9a2g6 But you must understand, dogmatism can exist in ANY school of thought and the problem with religion is that it is fundamentally based on authority. However, that doesn't mean there aren't any dogmatic scientist or Buddhist, people identified with a school of thought that isn't. What should be examined is the relationship between the core teachings of Buddhism and violence.
In the Bible and in the Qur'an thats easy but there are no central texts that all buddhist abide by.
Jiryu02 1 year ago
@Jiryu02 - Central texts ??? No ... But, that's kind of deceptive . There are central tenents. One could well formulate a central text . If there wasn't a central thesis then it would be ridiculous to call yourself a Buddhist. Nevertheless; one would be hard pressed to justify or attribute any violence to anything ALL Buddhist's view as Buddhist ideals.
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@k9a2g6 Consider this example: I devise a world view and I'll call it "Me-ism". I advocate reason, skepticism, human rights, etc. Centuries later, after many disputes on what exactly I meant and different variations of my philosophy forms, we may get a school that embodies some of what I believe but also many ideas that I wouldn't have approved.
I'm not accusing you but I think it's a shame that many atheist don't examine Buddhism more carefully.
Jiryu02 1 year ago
hehehe. hindus must drive christians and buddhis mad with their "your god is just one part of my god" aditude. its a great way to win when there is no rules. i like to read eastern religion and philosophy, but i dont belive that they are true. thou i have to say they are much more intresting then bible or koran. compared the bible and koran look like booring stories in comparison to eastern religions. i love mythology but i am atheist.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
Huh, that's interesting. I just gave Mi Lo Fo another look; apparently, it's true that it's Hotei (Budai) in the sculptures, but he's used as a representation of Mi Lo Fo.
Learn something new....
RedSoxForObama 1 year ago
Hm? That's Buddha Matrieya, known as Mi Lo Fo in China. Not Hotei.
Also, the 'spoon of rice a day' image is as wrong as the 'jolly fat man' image. Buddha WAS an ascetic, at one time, but realised this was not the way to enlightenment and instead lived the Middle Way.
I'm an atheist but I admire Buddhist philosophies (not spiritually- I don't believe in rebirth (NOT REINCARNATION IN BUDDHISM) or many other teachings)
RedSoxForObama 1 year ago
Zen Garden by Tangerine Dream?
Chairmaneoin 1 year ago
Ah good ol sid, a smart fellow for his time for sure.
ToothpickMcBrainy 1 year ago
Just look at the beautiful places, the wonders our world has. Nature is awesome. People make great art. It's a shame that humanity has to argue & hold so vigorously to it's stupidity, when they could be doing better things with their time. Christians say Jesus was all about peace, yet his followers seem to be all about denying other's rights. You want a peaceful prohphet? Try Buddha. His teachings don't go against anything or anyone's beliefs, only against attachment, strife & suffering
CrossTheGrigori 1 year ago
The important thing are his teachings.
WESSYS 1 year ago
Buddha was born in India and he preached in India.
His teachings when started spreading , it threatened the powers of Brahmans, the upper ruling castes of hindus.
There was a time when a huge prize was offered for those who bring a head of Buddhist .So Buddhists flew away from India.
later on Buddha was declared as an Avatar for Buddhism to get merged in Hinduism so as not to have a separate identity. AVATARS described in Hinduism are the saints or Prophets of God .Angels are Devatas .
farzanatasneem 1 year ago
@farzanatasneem Gautama Buddha was born in Kiratdesh(now Nepal).
He was born into Shakya ethnic group, Mongoloid race.
Still today we have Shakya ethnic group in Nepal.
diliprai 1 year ago
@diliprai
But the other places that you referred in your PM belong to India.
Bodh gaya is still in India and Sarnath is also in India.
What is the problem where he was born??
India was including of current Pakistan and Nepal too.
And it was divided into small kingdoms each with its separate king.
farzanatasneem 1 year ago
@diliprai
I am a muslim who believes that every nation was sent with a reformer guide as a Prophet .
Some are known to the world and some are unknown.
Read Qur'an 4:163-5
farzanatasneem 1 year ago
The Sutta Lakkhan, describes the Shakya, whom the Gautma Buddha was born into as "those yellow-skinned, soft and delicate as the bronze, his dark hair and slanted eyes and black" (dialogues of the Buddha, Part III p.138). It is no wonder chinese, tibetan, japanese, korean, thai, vietnamese whom are all Mongoloid race are predominantly Buddhist nation.
Still today Shakya ethnic group live in Nepal.
The Hindu Aryan assimilated Buddha as part of Hindu culture to protect their religion.
diliprai 1 year ago
What a nonsons,this is not the siddhartha gawtama shakyamuni budu piya.don't joke with great charactors.
Upul123angelo 1 year ago
@Upul123angelo I'm surprised how many people comment on these videos before they've even seen them. If you had waited another moment, you would have seen that I already knew what you just said.
AronRa 1 year ago 14
@AronRa but then you wouldn't have gotten to meet the guy who wrote hilarious instruction manuals for Sony in the 70's
chunderf00t 1 year ago
@AronRa unfortunately some people (including me) are like that
they jump to conclusion too fast. I just hope i can lessen that as much as i could
LeoNaika 1 year ago
@AronRa copyright mgm? wth
FreeeeS 1 year ago
@AronRa What's your evidence that Buddha was an atheist? You may be mistaken.
Jiryu02 1 year ago
@Jiryu02 - It seems to lie in the fact that Buddhism is atheist in its worldview ... The Buddha taught that the question of a god is irrelevent to reaching enlightenment ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@MaitreyaRocket There seems to be a problem with the label atheist though. You can say a person is an atheist if he denies or lacks a belief in God but you can't make that claim about a world view unless it explicitly denies such a claim.
Just because God is irrelevant to Buddhism doesn't mean he didn't believe there were Gods. In fact its very likely that he did considering the society, science, and philosophy at the time. The difference is the role God plays in Buddhism.
Jiryu02 1 year ago
@Jiryu02 - Its very likely that he didn't considering the society, science, and philosophy at the time. He was raised under Hindu beliefs . The mass of Hindus , like Greeks, held their myths to be just that, myths. Also, given his level of logic , there's no doubt he came to the correct conclusion . He deemed it irrelevant so his discovery wouldn't be clouded. What logic could possibly conclude that an all-powerful diety is irrelevant .
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@MaitreyaRocket Well thats just not true, there are many Hindus, past and present, who certainly did believe in the super natural. Same with the Greeks. Both of them practice(d) animal sacrifice animal sacrifice for example.
Plus, no one can really say what Buddha's level of logic actually was, just that which is attributed to him. For example, it is obvious that the Kalama sutra was not written or spoken by Buddha (because it came centuries after) but may be influenced by him. (cont.)
Jiryu02 1 year ago
@Jiryu02 - You're clutching at straws in the process of straw manning me .Educated Hindu's & ecspecially Greeks , were quite aware their myths were just that ... Anyway, I think it's a safe bet to speculate on the founder of Buddhism's , a supremely logic form of thinking, level of logic . I'd say it was pretty high . To speculate the contrary is absurd. So, indeed, one can say what his level of logic was ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@MaitreyaRocket I'm not straw manning anything I'm just pointing out something that you said was false and directly addressed it. What do you mean educated Hindus? Even amongst so-called educated Hindus there were polytheists, monotheists, and atheist. And just because some schools of Hinduism deny God (which Buddhism does not) does not mean they did not appeal to the supernatural. A good example of this is the existence of the spirit in which many atheist Hindus did beleive.
Jiryu02 1 year ago
@Jiryu02 -The same logic used to arrive at the notion there is no god today was just as applicable then ... Again, I ask you ,What logic could possibly conclude that an all-powerful diety is irrelevant ??? I'll answer for you... None ... It was deemed irrelevent because it didn't exist ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@MaitreyaRocket Your wrong, there is no logic that can absolutely disprove the existence of deities. You should know better.
The the existence of God is not irrelevant to Buddhism because it doesn't exist, it's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the practice of Buddhism (which is redundant). Irrelevance is not non-existence. Why would someone say that God doesn't matter when he could prove it doesn't exist?
Jiryu02 1 year ago
@Jiryu02 - If someone fully defines a diety, I can disprove it. If you think I'm wrong, demonstate it . Offer up a definition."""Why would someone say that God doesn't matter when he could prove it doesn't exist? "" One would say it doesn't matter , because one could prove it doesn't exist. Again, I ask you ,What logic could possibly conclude that an all-powerful diety is irrelevant, to ANYTHING? An all-powerful creator diety would have something to do with everything, including Buddhism.
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@MaitreyaRocket Sure an all powerful deity would have to do with everything, if you want to go that far, however, the point is that Buddhism can be practiced whether deities exist or not. Also, considering it a possibility is not at all contradictory to Buddhism, that is what is meant by irrelevant.
Second, not all conceptions of God imply all powerfulness. I can give you a simple definition: A potent being that has control over a force of nature or a specific human characteristic. Go ahead.
Jiryu02 1 year ago
@Jiryu02 - I'm a potent being who has control over a force of nature & very many human characteristics . I'm not a god . Anything, with the characteristics you mentioned does not constitute a god. You may as well worship me .
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@MaitreyaRocket Perhaps that was a bad example. But let's say Thor. Is Thor at least a possible god?
Plus, just as many Gods are not omnipotent, it is also true that they do not have to be worthy of worship. Are you saying any conception of god is 100% impossible?
Jiryu02 1 year ago
@MaitreyaRocket With that said, there is no logic that can totaly disprove every kind of deity, period.
Jiryu02 1 year ago
@Jiryu02 - iF SOMEONE DEfines it, sticks to that definition, & doesn't keep moving the goal post, I can disprove it . I think the heart of what you're trying to say by one not being able to disprove a god is equivelant to stating one can't disprove there's a giant intangible, uber intelligent , hobby horse circling Saturn. One can always equivicate but, why be so willing to call it god ? There's a reason to be unwilling .
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@MaitreyaRocket Because people have called what you described God, believe it or not. In most forms of polytheism, few gods are responsible for the creation of the universe. So you'd have to say Greek "gods", for example, are very much possible.
So are Hindu Gods because there is not a creation made ex nihilo. You're talking about a very modern form of God but an atheist should deny ANY form of god for the same reason that they've combated the judo-Christian one.
Jiryu02 1 year ago
@MaitreyaRocket Plus, I'm not the one who set these standards for God, the "goal post" is a matter of history and the development of diverse cultures.
I think that the Judeo-Christian God is certainly impossible but that Gods characteristics shouldn't limit the Gods across the world. The God's of Buddha's time and place were certainly possible and I'm saying that he likely didn't explicitly deny their existence, my original point.
Jiryu02 1 year ago
@MaitreyaRocket With that being said, the Kalama sutra is not true because it was said by someone, it's true because it makes a lot of sense.
When it comes to god, he may have deemed it irrelevant but it does not mean his views were atheistic. Again, to be that it has to explicitly deny the existence of god. A view is not atheistic because it lacks such a belief.
Jiryu02 1 year ago
@Jiryu02 - It's also clear that the Buddha rejected the society, beliefs ,& philosophy of the time . Otherwise, there wouldn't be Buddhism . "god(s)" plays no role in Buddhism,outside of characters in myth . Gods are explictly denied in the Dharma. There is no place or role for a god in the Dharma. Such beliefs render the Dharma pointless .
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@MaitreyaRocket Its true Buddha rejected certain things about society and philosophy at the time but he did not deny all of them. You must realize that Buddha, living in his time, probably couldn't understand the whether, electricity, the properties of matter, etc.
What I meant was that when it came to the existence of deities, in which many people at his place and time DID believe, he probably couldn't deny the common wisdom. Whether he could or could not had nothing to do with Buddhism.
Jiryu02 1 year ago
I very much enjoy your videos responding to creationists and that's why I subscribed. However, I really enjoy your other videos that are of educational nature that branch into other topics. This is very interesting. I have often been fascinated with the legend of the Budha or siddartha gautama and have read bits here and there about the story of his life. if we had the tardiscam we would know for sure. (another video i really enjoyed)
redshiftexperiment 1 year ago
yeah its common to say that "you are just misinterpeting god and only god is my god. or that "your god was made by my god" its the kind of achent "my cock is bigger then yours" play. of corse its compleatly moronic. why whuld god want to trick people? its just does not make sence. so what i can say about this is just atempt to rub your balls on others face. its like soap-opera without logic. it does not make sence.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
@gooddarkjedi
By whichever name you call upon God, it is well.
For to HIm belong the most beautiful names.
God is one but has been called with many names in different languages and every language is a sign of God.
farzanatasneem 1 year ago
hmmmm i dont belive in buddha or krishna but very intresting. it helps me to clean my mind from the westersn monotheism and its absolutism. i dont belive, but so i dont belive in harry potter.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
I am a 'newly de-converted christian -- now athiest (about 2 yrs) Out of all the worlds religions I respect Buddhism the most--Siddartha said himself--he was not a diety or a god..and said NOT to believe on blind faith but to test and re-test his theories (VERY scientific of him) continuously and live a simple good life, as there are no gods...you must find your own path to happiness.
tamichalak 1 year ago 14
@tamichalak wasnt it him that said, dont beleive anything you read even if he writes it if it goes against your own common sense and reason?
patrickledford420 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am a 'newly de-converted christian -- now athiest (about 2 yrs) Out of all the worlds religions I respect Buddhism the most--Siddartha said himself--he was not a diety or a god..and said NOT to believe on blind faith but to test and re-test his theories (VERY scientific of him) continuously and live a simple good life, as there are no gods...you must find your own path to happiness.
tamichalak 1 year ago
Comment removed
tamichalak 1 year ago
Comment removed
tamichalak 1 year ago
One thing wrong in this vid. At the 6:30 mark you show image from Vietnam. I lived in Nam for 5 months for college. MANY of the buddha statues look like the ones pictured in Japan and other countries. The 1,000 armed diety is known as Avalokiteshivara, buddha of compassion (there are MANY buddhas-people who have reached enlightenment.) THIS buddha is seen in MANY eastern countries (Japan; known as Kwannon and is FEMALE. TIBET---avalokiteshivara has a HUMAN incarnation known as the Dalai Lama)
tamichalak 1 year ago
must have been a damn big spoon of rice. otherwise id need proof to believe that an adult can live off of a normal spoon of rice a day for very long.
loturos 1 year ago
yea when you read the bible and look in depth at buddhism and its teachings they along with jesus go hand in hand with oneanother very similar im very open minded now
mossberg451 1 year ago
the fat man isn't buddha that is a different person
devaloki 1 year ago
"one who didn't necessarily believe in gods" actually if we take the texts word for it, he most certainly did believe in gods.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan he believed in their existence but say them as impermanent just as humans and all things in samsara are
devaloki 1 year ago
@devaloki true. they're still magical, supernatural beings with specific powers who intervene in human affairs, attend his teachings, etc. i'm trying to counter the idea the buddha was some kind of atheist skeptic, he wasn't, according to the records we have.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan we're on the same page then, i'm a pali buddhist
devaloki 1 year ago
Stunning video. Stunning statues.
NicolaRedwooddforest 1 year ago
I think it is a great presentation. Some things to point out.
1. The fat Buddha is one of a reincarnated form of the next buddha, Maitreya. As a buddhist, what he represents is more important than whether he is actually real.
2, @6.30, is a picture of "Avalokiteśvara", which is a bodhisattva;
3. @6.51, that is a picture of either budai, or a monk;
4. @7.51, that is a statue of the "Goddess of Mercy"
I do hope you correct those inconsistencies.
Bigprisc 1 year ago 2
aronra you should make an audio for this similar to your "archeological moment in time" video
theeyeisblind 1 year ago
that crummy little idol is HO TAI! not
the good wonderfull Buddha! He was a taoist demi god who was no good
atfatw 2 years ago
Awesome!!
mjh012363 2 years ago
I love the audacity of buddha. This little fat guy is talking to me about "self control". hehehe
shagster1970 2 years ago
Siddartha Gautama (in his hindu form) is not fat, quite the opposite.
Miryr 2 years ago 8
@Miryr
Astoundingly, buddha does not address/acknowledge the existence of a god, but encourages goodness from other religions if it brings benefits to that person who professes it.
He was once ask about the existence of god and he remain silent to that question.
mykegoh 1 year ago
@mykegoh When did I reference god in my post?
Miryr 1 year ago
@Miryr
Yup u did not, nor did i said u did..I just made an assertion to buddha's teacing. Just to let people here know a little of his teaching.
mykegoh 1 year ago
@mykegoh no, he knew of god's existence (brahma) but asserted him as an impermanent being. if you read the nikayas you can even read when he went to brahma's realm ...
devaloki 1 year ago
@shagster1970
thats a quote from a movie dude lol
Strome88 2 years ago
Idiots. All of you.
heylookatmeok 2 years ago
Lots of 'Buddhist Atheists' it seems...
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
Aron,
One of your Buddha pictures from Malaysia - the feminine looking one standing against an overcast sky - that's not Buddha. That's Guan Yin, the Goddess of Mercy.
P.S. Love your Foundational Falsehood vids!
-a Theravadin Buddhist Atheist from Malaysia-
k0ks3nw4i 2 years ago 4
PANG wrote: @PeopleAintNoGood Thing is, if someone says theyre a Buddhist AND an atheist, there is an inherent contradiction. Im interested in reasonable peoples opinions of this, but not if you are as challenged as Mechelle68.
Ha! Ha! Ha! Talk to yourself much?
You2Anna 2 years ago
@You2Anna - Ho ho ho, yes, You Tube has a new feature, ho ho ho. Im pretty certain you live alone.
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
Like everything else you claim to be certain about you're wrong. LOL. I live with four other people. This gets better and better with each comment where you make an idiot of yourself.LOL.
You2Anna 2 years ago 2
@You2Anna - Other patients dont count, Im afraid.
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
Read what Ive said about Buddhist acceptance of suffering due to attachment. Maybe then you could reasonably contribute?
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
I thought atheism is just having no belief in a god. You have to believe in a god to be a buddist? I only know three buddists and none of them believe in a god.
You2Anna 2 years ago 2
@You2Anna Oh for fucks sake! Buddhists strive towards an afterlife in a caring universe. Atheism does not accept belief without evidence. Know what youre talking about before you post.
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
PANG said: Atheism does not accept belief without evidence.
Is this coming from the same dude( or dudette) who implied someone else believed something they didn't without evidence to support it? LMAO!!!!!!!!! THAT'S RICH!! LOLOL!
You2Anna 2 years ago 2
@You2Anna - What on Earth, are you talking about?
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
Have you even read the posts you make? You've been making claims that another poster believed something when you had no evidence to back up what you were claiming. You sound like a creationist. LOL!
You2Anna 2 years ago 2
@You2Anna - If someone says theyre a Buddhist, I understand the term, like any normal sane human being. Youre strange in your outlook, and your clami has no basis in reality.
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
@PeopleAintNoGood Thing is, if someone says theyre a Buddhist AND an atheist, there is an inherent contradiction. Im interested in reasonable peoples opinions of this, but not if you are as challenged as Mechelle68.
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
LOL!
You2Anna 2 years ago
@You2Anna LOL indeed
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
It's cool you can laugh at the fact that you addressed that post (the one below my LOL) to yourself instead of someone else. LOL!
You2Anna 2 years ago 2
Anyway, before all that bollocks, I was talking about the Buddhist acceptance of suffering. The idea of suffering sue to attachment, or trishna, craving, thristing, whatever. It is taught that these things are impermanent, and one should realise their impermanence. Its this aspect, as I was saying, that is ripe for exploitation in an Earthly sense. I dont say that Buddhism itself exploits.
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
Mechelle68 and PeopleAintNoGood: Wow. I've read through this whole conversation. I didn't see the point in Buddhism before but Mechelle has demonstrated the usefullness of it. PANG lost it and stooped to name calling where as Mechelle maintained composure and responded in a more mature way. It's plain as day as to who the real buddist is. I guess not everyone can follow a buhddist discipline as PANG clearly demonstrated. This whole exchange should be on Reality TV. LOLOLOL.
You2Anna 2 years ago
@You2Anna - Shut up you stupid fuck. Im not a Buddhist, and, I suspect, neither is Mechelle68.
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
Touchy! Touchy! LOL!
You2Anna 2 years ago
@You2Anna - 'Touchy! Touchy! LOL!' Well, you obviously didnt get the irony....
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
I don't know how much more research you did on Buddhism in general, but you'd probably be interested to know that (at least in Japan) the Buddha lying on his side is the image of him at his death (he accepted and ate bad meat to help someone gain good karma). Another common image is a set of foot prints. They represent his ascension (like the empty cross).
Personally, I've always enjoyed the art and sculptures based on Buddhist tradition.
YashinNashi 2 years ago
I tend to like Buddhism and many forms of Hinduism better than the Abrahamic ones (especially Islam and Christianity).
TwilightAronXD 2 years ago 3
Hinduism has always for the most part a tolerant faith, because they believe that the divine manifests itself in many forms around the world.
To them Krishna, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, etc. are all various incarnations of the divine.
LordMalice6d9 2 years ago
Hindus and Hinduism are not necessarily tolerant at all. I'm not trying to flame anybody here, just disagreeing. I hear a lot of other westerners say that, but I read a lot of international news and in some places in India many Hindus are violently intolerant of anyone not of their particular ethnicity (even other Hindus). I'm sure most Hindus are as you say, but being Hindu does not mean you have to be tolerant, they have their a-holes just like everybody else
UncleChevitz 2 years ago 17
@UncleChevitz Well, the British did colonialize them and tried to make everyone Christian. That may explain the hostile attitude.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y im not talking about christians at all, my comment has to be taken in the context of the one it is a response to. I was referring to the very common western misconceptions that 1. Hinduism is a monolithic religion and 2. tolerance and pacifism are practiced by all Hindus.
The fact that i left a comment about religion on youtube at all shows me to have been in a very poor decision making state at the time anyway.
UncleChevitz 1 year ago
@UncleChevitz I said that could be a reason for the hostileness of Hindus. A lot of the Indians that lived through colonialism are still alive and faced a danger of losing their culture.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y you dont get it, im talking about their attitudes towards other indians like jains, indigenous people and other castes, not foreigners in any way.
UncleChevitz 1 year ago
@UncleChevitz I said that could be a reason, not the only reason or the main cause. I'm well aware of the caste system and how it's stressed in Hinduism. Religious will always discriminate if they're the majority. You aren't telling me any thing new.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y you are making this a different conversation, my main point in my original comment was that tolerance of other religions is not a central tenet of Hinduism. thats it. im starting to get the feeling that you dont know what you or i am talking about
UncleChevitz 1 year ago
@UncleChevitz It wasn't done for the purpose of conversion but when countries are colonized, the ones in power usually alter the culture.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
I read the book: "Buddha" of Deepak Chopra. I simply love it and I can undrestand now the Buddha's life. Nice video and relaxing music :).
Loa4EVER 2 years ago
I use to practice a kind of Buddhism after I lost faith in Christianity. I find it interesting that most Americans are just as ignorant about Buddhism as they are about atheist and where completely confused when I told them I was both.
but Buddhism has the same Achilles heel that JudeoChristian religions have. it is still steeped in spirituality and mysticism. thats why I no longer follow it
phoenix120000 2 years ago
its true, thanks
rubylandia 2 years ago
dont be confused with sakyamuni the historical buddha with the maiterya!!! they're 2 different person!
PwincesMichelle 2 years ago
Instant fav!
PaperSoapy 2 years ago
Very informative
CEANNASKELLS 2 years ago
Didn't the Taliban blow up the temple in Afghanistan?
ShawnDavis954 2 years ago 3
Thanks for posting.
ShawnDavis954 2 years ago
Everyone has a Santa claus.
MrBrainmold 2 years ago
Very "enlightening".
superwolf76 2 years ago
I guess you could say that Gautama was a bit melancholy before he became the Buddha (since he was very keenly aware of impermanence and suffering). I'm not sure you can apply that to him afterward though. He attained liberation, so I don't see why he would be melancholy.
WarpHedgehog 2 years ago
Melancholy that the rest of the world had not attained enlightenment perhaps? That despite what he had discovered, suffering continued? I think it' entirely possible he was still unhappy in that sense.
FordPrefect23 2 years ago
I would think he felt compassion for the rest of the world not be unhappy. But who knows it could probably be that way too.
WarpHedgehog 2 years ago
Yup, the 'laughing buddha' has little to do with true Buddhism. Siddhartha, Im sure, is personified as the embodiment of perfect spiritual and physical beauty. I have a problem with both Theravadan and Mahayana Buddhism, in that both encourage the complete abandonment of earthly concerns. Poverty, hardship, etc., are just illusions. You can see the possibilities for manipulation in these concepts. Its another way of satiating an unfulfilled populous.
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
Zen Buddhism, is the version most seen in the West, but this a version of Mahayana. Simliarities between Buddhism and Hinduism are the products of appropriation.
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
I can agree that Buddhism, on the face of it, seems appealing, but, it seems, to me, to be the same old manipulation under a different name.
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
I've been reading the 'Tao of Physics' by Fritjof Capra, and is interesting to see that many of the concepts in Buddhism are supported more and more by modern physics and a changing understanding of the nature of reality.
SimKoning 2 years ago 4
What does it manipulate people to do? I mean, I don't see it cherishing stupidity and ignorance like religions. It seems to be only a philosophical movement and how-to-be-happy-guide rather than what many religions are trying to promote; waging fear to control masses and keeping you from living your life.
abs3nt 2 years ago 3
abs3ent - I suppose it encourages an acceptance of deprivation. It doesnt seem to actively do this, thats why its halfway appealing, but, still, the potential is there for exploitation of the masses. Maybe Im just paranoid, but the Far East does seem to have its fair share of fatalism.
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
Indeed it actually sometimes can encourage to accept deprivation (well deprivation is relative to a degree). I see Buddhism as only a mindset, no need necessarily for changing your habits or lifestyle or what ever. But of course everyone sees it differently. The possibility of exploitating the masses comes sadly with any group, even with some "Happy Mother's Organisation" or what ever. People are likely to believe the opinion of the people one can relate oneself to.
abs3nt 2 years ago
In your opinion, do you think that the fatalism of the Far East seems to be any more fatalistic than that of American Christianity? If someone dies slowly and painfully of cancer, then inevitably Christians claim it's part of god's plan (else they'd allow humane euthanasia and dignfied deaths like we allow our pets). Far beyond simple acceptance of deprivation, dooming someone to squeeze every last bit of suffering out of their lives seems to stretch fatalism to its extreme.
laraesque 2 years ago
@PeopleAintNoGood ..as an atheist and a lay buddhist, I can only give you my opinion. For the most part, there is no desire to convert others (just as sure as I say there isn't, some anonymous person will make a post to "prove" me wrong). It centers around the eightfold path to help diminish suffering in yourself and others. The eightfold path is pretty much common sense. It can be called a religion, depending on how you look at it, but then....so could weight lifting.
Mechelle68 2 years ago
@Mechelle68 - I dont remember calling it a religion. Organised mysticism, perhaps, a religion without a godhead. The eightfold path is only a shopping list of desirable qualities to improve the lives of others. I dislike any organised school of thought which encourages acceptance of poverty and injustice. We could go on with a debate, but not in these short meassages.
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
@PeopleAintNoGood.....*just laughs*....well if that's what you see in it, then that's probably all you'll find in it and so you probably shouldn't make any attempt to practice it. It's obviously not a discipline that everyone can follow.
Cheers!
Mechelle68 2 years ago
@Mechelle68 - Ah, so you are possessed of special mystical occultish knowledge then? Sounds dangerously like something a Christian evangelist might say. To be honest, and with respect, I find little difference. Ive read and practiced too, so its not for the want of understanding, There are no special mysteries here, you may as well join the Freemasons, draw pentacles and attempt to turn lead into gold. The most dangerous mumbo-jumbo seems, at first, pretty reasonable.
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
@PeopleAintNoGood.....there's little reason to answer your question because it has nothing to do with anything I've said and the rest that follows is speculation surrounding the fallacy of your opening question. If you find anything "mystical or occultish" about it, then that's what you find. Not everyone does. And since you've made it clear that it's not to your liking........then don't practice it. It's that simple.
Peace!
Mechelle68 2 years ago
@Mechelle68 - Your statement, 'Its obviously not a discipline that everyone can follow', seems designed to raise some sort of response. One could accuse you of wanting to take the intellectual highground. You cant dismiss a response in this fashion. I dont speak from ignorance here.
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
Designed to raise some sort of response? Why manufacture something that is not there? Yoga is not a discipline that everyone can follow. Working out at the gym is a discipline that not everyone can follow. Walking 30 minutes a day is a discipline not everyone can follow. Do you see any mysticism or occult-like message in those statements? They are no different than the statement I made about the eightfold path obviously being a discipline that not everyone can follow.
Mechelle68 2 years ago
@Mechelle68 The physical disciplines are a method, they are not a means to an end in themselves. It is this I have a problem with. There is no evidence to support the existence of actual 'spiritual enlightenment'. You seem to reject the idea that Buddhism is a mystical belief system, which is absurd. Your idea of it seems to be a kind of aesthetic health farm in the sky. Buddhism is organised mysticism, which encourages devotees to accept poverty, hardship and injustice.
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
Perhaps you should stick 2 what you ACTUALLY know and give up on the attempt to ASSUME you know what others see in Buddhism. So far, you've missed your target on every post you addressed to me.
But here's the rub.......if you don't find Buddhism to be to your liking, or if you don't feel it would be beneficial to you, then........don't.......practice......it.
It's that simple. And since you insist on manufacturing one thing after another, there's no reason for you and I to continue this.
Mechelle68 2 years ago
@Mechelle68 - Hmm. I am astounded by your version of Buddhism. Perhaps you could form a new pragmatic sect of your own, as you seem to have failed to grasp any of the metaphysical aspects of traditional teaching. I would guess you also think War & Peace to be a good adventure novel.
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
@Mechelle68 - Well, what I actually know about is Buddhism. I can only assume what others see in it, unless, of course, they clarify what it is that THEY understand by it. But you are either a Buddhist, or you have concocted some strange personal hybrid, becuase you also said that you are an atheist, which I find to be contradictory. So, you accept Karma, an afterlife AND the non-existence of an afterlife? I think you must be mildly confused, at the very least. Or agnostic, perhaps?
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
"Hmm. I am astounded by your version of Buddhism"
What is "MY" version of Buddhism?
And try not to fall back on the other strawman fallacies you created in your previous posts by assuming you know what I believe because so far....you've been wrong.
Tell me....what is MY version, as you call it, of Buddhism?
Mechelle68 2 years ago
@Mechelle68 - Ive no idea what you believe, you have displayed an immature coyness about it. You have also dodged questions about your inconsistent position, as well as a question about the Buddhist position on injustice. You are pretty good at telling me what Buddhism is NOT, but, so far, you refuse to clarify what you think it is. This makes me suspicious about your credentials as an authority on the subject. If you want to address the question, do so, but Im tired of playing 20 questions.
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
"Ive no idea what you believe"......that's right, you don't, yet you've assumed to in 4 individual posts to me, that you do.
"you have dodged questions"...............You've asked me two questions. One I answered, the other you followed with your summary of what you believe my answer would be. Another fallacy on your part.
"You're pretty good at telling me what Buddhism is not."..........what have I said Buddhism is not, other than a discipline that not everyone can follow?
Mechelle68 2 years ago
@Mechelle68 - You thrill me with your intellectual mind games...Keep on dodging, that way, you wont be confronted with having to answer any difficult questions at all, throughout any part of your life. Its a method, I suppose, but not one I appreciate. Silence is the refuge of fools.
PeopleAintNoGood 2 years ago
I've dodged nothing.
Just because you got called on your bullshit, and the strawman fallacies that you created, you want to turn it around and make out like it was someone else wasn't being honest, here.
The posts are there. And frankly, what you believe as far as whether or not I know what I'm talking about, is of no significance, what so ever.
Mechelle68 2 years ago