@gayan006 We don't believe in gods because there is no rational or empirical reason to do so. I do not see what engaging in vague wordplay has to do with anything.
I think this video misses several points. The issue is not whether there are gods or not. Even if there are gods out there, they would merely be dependently originated sentient beings. Even Buddhas are dependently originated sentient beings. So it does not matter if gods exist or not. Check my video.
@SkepticSage ok sir. if you don't believe in gods, what do you believe ? whats the final aim in ATHEISM .. what you guys want to achieve in the end.. dont get me wrong, in buddhism , we believe gods are exists but as a another life form. not like almighty , internal god. ATHEISM is not a religion or a philosophy. you guys dont believe in gods, thats is.. the answers that you are looking in lays in buddhism .. so study it. and dont try to say buddhism is a part of ATHEISM .. thank you
@gayan006 Atheism has no aim. Why do people require an aim? A better questions is: What do those who rely on science aim for? The answer is they aim for the same thing that everyone aims for, only they have a superior method to get to that aim. In order to reach goals one must understand the world. Science helps us do that, religion does not. Religion makes us happy by denying negative facts (e.g. no gods) of the actual world. This feels good at first but in the end is unhelpful.
@outlawleather do you think science actually helps to understand the world?( science means not only the astronomy)oh are they trying to make people attach to the physical world?(astronomy also does this)is this the real world u want to see?in real world nothing is permanent. lord Buddha has explain this many ways. and Buddha also said my teaching is like a Venomous snake. if you didn't catch it on the head it will bit u. and i'm asking u with kind hart,
@gayan006 learn buddhism thoroughly before u come to such conclusions .. its not like reading 1 book. Buddha lived 45 years after he achieved enlightenment. i think there are about 84000 soothra.. and I ask u an aim because as a Buddhists we believe reincarnation. our main target is to end that. as an Atheist whats ur target? ( this is purely 4 my knowledge)
@dhammmaraja atheism is the lack of belief in a deity/deities which is in buddhism since you don't have to believe that buddhism is a go but he is the teacher so a very intelligent person
@gayan006 The "real world" is whatever science shows us. What I "want" to see is irrelevant since I want to see what truly IS. You actually asked if science helps to understand the world, do realize how naive a question that is? Science is the ONLY way to understand the world. Systematically understanding the world is just another name for science. Attachment is an unhealthy relationship with something. How is truly and truthfully understanding something an act of attachment to it?
@gayan006 I never said Buddhism is part of atheism. I only said that there are atheist Buddhists. One of the sufferings of this world (first nobel truth) is that we are without a creator or god to guide us and must take responsibility for ourselves. Buddha said to never believe in anything that contradicts your common sense. To slavishly and addictively believe in a god is a form of attachment. Wanting to believe in a god is a form of desire. Of course that is only view of Buddhism.
@SkepticSage how could theravada didn't believe in gods????
many kinds of gods mentioned in pali tipitaka, like brahmas, devas, and so on
the statues of gods are spreading in Thailand, and I like to told you all Thais believe in both god and gods and dieties, except that western who did not accept Buddhism as it is
@dhammmaraja Barbara O'Brien: the historical Buddha taught that believing in gods was not useful for realizing enlightenment. In other words, God is unnecessary in Buddhism. For this reason, Buddhism is more accurately called nontheistic than atheistic.
Austin Cline: Buddhism has taught that either there are no gods or they aren’t worth bothering with.
Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains, groves, trees and shrines, but these are not a secure kind of refuge.
@SkepticSage gods are mentioned many time in pali tipitaka, you cannot ignore all these things, there is no asian buddhist didn't believe in gods at least, all buddhist temples have an images of gods, and although buddha speak clearly become brahman is nirvana
"Sitting silent, dustless, absorbed in jhana, his task done, effluents gone, ultimate goal attained: he's what I call a brahman" dhammapada
western buddhist must stop changing buddhism under the influence of hating christianity
Thanks for the video. Someone who was attempting to to convince me that Buddhism is Atheist directed me to your video. Although I agree with your assessment: Buddhism does not teach worship of God or gods, one must take the Buddhist cannon into consideration, which describes many of Buddha's experiences within a supernatural framework, including his interactions with beings known as gods. The same must be said of Jesus' teachings. Thanks, again for sharing your thoughts. Peace.
Old video, I know. But your final comment made me wonder.
What makes you say that fascism is an atheist religion? Fascism has very little to say on religion at all, if anything is it secular, with a bent towards incorporating the religious institutions into it self in order to use it to control the masses. See Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.
@KriztofferKriztenzen This is true, but this is true but a "psychological orientation" in the way meant here is a philosophical approach and is not the same as the modern scientific approach of the field of field of psychology.
[S]o Buddhism, from a quite early stage of its development, set itself to analyze and classify mental processes with remarkable insight and sagacity...." (Rhys Davids, 1900, pp. xvi-xvii.)
@KriztofferKriztenzen Your quotes still do not deal with the main problem. Many philosophers have set themselves to analyze mental states and processes and come to very different conclusions than Buddhist. Even different buddhist sects do not agree on the true nature of specific aspects of the human mind. This shows we can't linguistically describe consciousness with any precision the way we explicate the publicly observable natural world. Everyone disagrees on the nature of consciousness.
The distinguishable groups of dhammā — of states or mental psychoses — 'arise' in every case in consciousness, in obedience to certain laws of causation, physical and moral — that is, ultimately, as the outcome of antecedent states of consciousness.... It postulated other percipients as Berkeley did, together with, not a Divine cause or source of precepts, but the implicit Monism of early thought veiled by a deliberate Agnosticism....
@KriztofferKriztenzen You are stating a dogmatic opinion as a fact. What is the verified method by which you come to such grand conclusions? I notice you have not responded to anything I have said to you. That is what a conversation is. One person challenges the other who takes the challenge in a responds to it. I have referenced what you have said but you ignore what I have said and continue to pontificate. Are you using this site for a personal lecture??
[T]he Buddhists were, in a way, more advanced in the psychology of their ethics than Aristotle — in a way, that is, which would now be called scientific. Rejecting the assumption of a psyche and of its higher manifestations ..., they were content to resolve the consciousness of the Ethical Man, as they found it, into a complex continuum of subjective phenomena....
@KriztofferKriztenzen Nothing the Buddhists did or aristotle did in the field of psychology would be considered today even remotely scientific. It is obvious you have a definition of science which is unrelated to what most scientists would agree with.
@HinduismIsHeretical it depends on which psychology you are talking about. It is possible to study human behavior scientifically. This does nto mean that all psychologists do this, some would rather pursue psychology philosophically. However, there are clearly scientific studies doen in the field of psychology. Most critics of psychology are unaware and uneducated on what is and is not scientific in the field of psychology.
In the introduction to this seminal work, Rhys Davids writes: "... Buddhist philosophy is ethical first and last. This is beyond dispute. But among ethical systems there is a world of difference in the degree of importance attached to the psychological prolegomena of ethics....
In 1900, Indologist Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids published through the Pali Text Society a translation of the Theravada Abhidhamma's first book, the Dhamma Sangani, and entitled the translation, "Buddhist Manual of Psychological Ethics" (Rhys Davids, 2003).
It classifies consciousness into a variety of types, specifies the factors and functions of each type, correlates them with their objects and physiological bases, and shows how the different types of consciousness link up with each other and with material phenomena to constitute the ongoing process of experience." (Bodhi, 2000, pp. 3-4.)
@KriztofferKriztenzen It would be hard to prove that such theories are true. Also, let us assume these theories are true, what use could we possibly put them to?
For this reason the philosophical enterprise of the Abhidhamma shades off into a phenomenological psychology. To facilitate the understanding of experienced reality, the Abhidhamma embarks upon an elaborate analysis of the mind as it presents itself to introspective meditation.
@KriztofferKriztenzen The problem with relying on introspections is that different people "see" different structures. How does one verify something that is not publicly observable and thus not testable. And again, if this is theoretical, how and for what purpose is it used?
The Abhidhamma's attempt to comprehend the nature of reality, contrary to that of classical science in the West, does not proceed from the standpoint of a neutral observer looking outwards towards the external world. The primary concern of the Abhidhamma is to understand the nature of experience, and thus the reality on which it focuses is conscious reality....
@KriztofferKriztenzen Comprehending the nature of reality is done by physicists. There is no such thing as "classical" science as opposed to another kind, science has no modern version different form an older version. Science does NOT assuem a neutral observer, it assumes a biased observer, hence the need for replication by multipel scientists to verify findings. Again, is there a method to explore consciousness directly that leads to verifiable results? How about cognitive science?
The earliest Buddhist writings are preserved in the three-part Tipitaka (Pali; Skt. Tripitaka). The third part (or pitaka, literally "basket") is known as the Abhidhamma (Pali; Skt. Abhidharma). Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, president of the Buddhist Publication Society, has synopsized the Abhidhamma as follows: "The system that the Abhidhamma Pitaka articulates is simultaneously a philosophy, a psychology, and an ethics, all integrated into the framework of a program for liberation....
Buddhism and science have increasingly been discussed as compatible, and Buddhism has increasingly entered into the science and religion dialogue. The case is made that the philosophic and psychological teachings within Buddhism share commonalities with modern scientific and philosophic thought.
@KriztofferKriztenzen Yes there are similarities but they are few when compared to the differences. Buddhism has supernatural aspects in some denominations and its method is not scientific. For example, some have stated that meditation is empirical. But this cannot be so since empiricism requires that experiments be publicly observable. The boo "The Tao of physics" mentions this idea, but was soundly criticized by scientists.
Long-term efforts to juxtapose abhidhammic psychology with Western empirical sciences have been carried out by such Vajrayana leaders as Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche and the 14th Dalai Lama.
The establishment of Buddhism predates the field of psychology by over two millennia; thus, any assessment of Buddhism in terms of psychology is necessarily a modern invention. One of the first such assessments occurred when British Indologists started translating Theravada Buddhism's Abhidhamma from Pali and Sanskrit texts.
2. Psychotherapeutic meaning: Humanistic psychotherapists have found in Buddhism's non-dualistic approach and enlightenment experiences (such as in Zen kensho) the potential for transformation, healing and finding existential meaning.
3. Clinical utility: Contemporary mental-health practitioners increasingly find ancient Buddhist practices (such as the development of mindfulness) of empirically proven therapeutic value.
@KriztofferKriztenzen The third point is overstated. Meditation has been shown to create relaxation for anxiety prone individuals. But long term psychotherpeutic effects such as insight into cognitive structures or perceptions has only anecdotal evidence.
Buddhism and psychology overlap in theory and in practice. Over the last century, three strands of interplay have evolved:
Descriptive phenomenology: Western and Buddhist scholars have found in Buddhist teachings a detailed introspective phenomenological psychology (particularly in the Abhidhamma).
@KriztofferKriztenzen Which psychology are you talking about? If you mean scientific psychology the answer is that the overlap is minimal. If you mean the field of clinical psychology, then the overlap is more. But again, you are overstating the issue. Phenomenological psychology is philosophical in nature, not scientific, and the utility in psychotherapy has never been scientifically determined. How can "phenomenology" be scientifically studied and described if it can't be publicly observed?
@topbluffa1 You are misinformed. Many Buddhists believe in God(s), some of them believe in many of them. Only some Buddhists are atheists. In fact many Buddhists believe the Buddha himself to be devine. Before call people "dummy" it might make more sense to look up your data, that way you will know what your talking about.
I agree with the gist of what you say here, but I am not impressed with the Dalai Lama. His most foolish beliefs, such as reincarnation, are not testable by science - so it's not braveness on his part to offer to renounce the belief if science disproves it. It's like a Christian saying that they will cease to believe in God if science proves that there is no God.
PEACE TO YOU ALL! Did you know that Australian supermodel Miranda Kerr practices Nichiren Buddhism and believes "We have a responsibility to bring peace and harmony to our lives and the world." As part of her Nichiren beliefs, she reportedly chants every morning and night for 20 minutes, practices yoga, meditates, and reads widely on spirituality.
Oh, and the bit about the Dalai Lama reading scientific research papers or whatnot. That's clearly because it is mentioned in the Kalama Sutta that one should always discern religious teachings...
Some of the Buddhism bashers on Youtube should really watch this. That's because they don't understand the simple concepts of The Four Noble Truths for a start...
And since they 'have' effects they can be harmful or wholesome. And that very important in an emphatical, mindfull way of life - that's one of my favorit ways of viewing religions. More a way than a philosophy or religion and it goes further than a wisdom tradition because of 'intro'-spective research we call meditation. Wrong perception and self-delusion are also a root of harmful actions. So it's also important not to mistake buddhism with irrationalism, because it being "esoteric".
Thanks a lot for the refreshing video centred around the drive for truth without arrogance. That's rare flower to find on YouTube. ;-) I'd just like to add a simplistic definition of buddhist ethics. It's certainly not immoralistic in a misguiding Nietzsche sense that because the world was an empty, godless illusion nothing was true and everything was aloud. Very common nihilistic missunderstanding in the west "anything goes" is unbuddhist, because actions - karma is action - have effects.
I personally avoid the use of the term 'morals' due to exactly that problem. Morals are personal in practice. They tend to be received from outside sources, and vary between individuals and religions. But 'ethics' are by definition a set of standardized behavior that is meant to be good for both society and individuals.
So, morals can be based on about anything, and are not reliable, and are definitely not global in the sense we can standardize them. Ethics, however, are exactly that.
@joembush How are ethics any more reliable than morals? How are ethics "global" or "standardized" anymore than morals are? I beleive many people cannot deal with the idea that morals ethic are any ideas for that matter ate created by human beings and that there is not way to anchor any set of ideas in anythign objective and universal. Thus ideology, morality, religion, ethics are all subjective. If we decide to make them objective by using scientific principles, how would we do this?
@SkepticSage I was trying presenting an issue of semantics regarding the two terms. Although their meanings are virtually identical, people normally associate morals with religious lessons. Stoning fornicators and removing the hands of thieves could be considered morally acceptable. I don't like this ideology.
I'm not a Buddhist, but I would claim that Buddhism teaches ethics, a humanitarian set of guidelines. The focus is less to control the individual, and more for society to thrive.
@SkepticSage For the same reason it can be argued that evolution can be proven to have had the ability to incorporate moral behavior (social evolution), I would argue that scientific principles can be used to determine a set of behavioral guidelines (ethics) that is deemed best for the survival of society as a whole.
Also, I don't mean to insinuate that all moral values are non-beneficial. Only that they aren't necessarily ethically acceptable. (using my definitions of the terms)
Well at least what your talking makes sense since you have research to back it up. Unlike those arrogant idiots who based their criticisms on what they read or hear directly in front of them.
By the way, what's your stand on the New Age philosophy. They have this Theosophy (if I'm right) thing. It's an amalgam of today's religions but it's 75 to 80% Buddhism teaching. I have one of their magazines.
Buddha,as i have understood it,said clearly,that live is full of Dukkha(=discontentment,frustration,fear etc.)and not only in the time he lived in northern India.He said,that the root cause is desire(out of not understanding reality).
If i am totally content out of understanding interdependence of phenomena,what would it be i could desire?Nothing!
why? There is no individual,independent,lasting self in the appearance of Phenomena(Shunyata).This is to be directly experienced!
And, fascism and communism are not "atheistic". They are political ideologies that can be adopted by and blended into any religion. You can have a fascist theocracy. You can have a de facto Communist economy that still allows for religious worship. That Communist governments have tended to violently suppress religion does not mean they had to.
@2stormcloud This is true. But the head philosophers of communism preached atheism. However, there have been religious socialist societies. The Fabian society in the UK and the Kibbutz movement in Israel. However, it must be stated that atheism has been associated with communist doctrine: Marx, Engels, Lennon, the Soviet Union, China, north Korea, etc all taught atheism.
Also, institutional Buddhism is as misogynistic as Christianity. It is stated explicitly in Buddhist literature that rebirth as a male is preferable. Then there is the business of taking children away from their families because they are believed to be a reincarnated Llama. Proof??? Sexual abuse of women and young boys/men in the monasteries.
I've read about the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path etc. I don't find them useful ideas to contemplate. It isn't that I don't find a lot to agree with in Buddhist philsophy, it's that I don't find most Buddhists to be any more skeptical of some of the wilder claims of Buddhism than the Christians are of their religion. In talking with them, it isn't too long before they are talking about so-and-so who was such-and-such in a past life, or their visit to see their psychic. Continued...
@2stormcloud I agree. Reincarnation and karma seem ridiculous ideas to me. I think that when psychologists as myself are dealing with Buddhism, we cherry pick what we see as converging with the research. Acceptance, meditation, etc.
There are a least two Buddhist pyschotherapists in Halifax who wave their hands over their patients claiming they are "realigning the patients Chi". There is an excellent book called In The Shadow of the Dalai Lama that offers a thorough critique of Tibetan Buddhism. I'm no expert, but I'm of the opinion that Buddhism has been poisoned by centuries of magical thinking, a corrupt priesthood and empty rituals. Continued...
@2stormcloud These psychologists sound like idiots. This does not surprise me, the field is not policed very well. I agree with the last sentence. Magical thinking is like poison.
Most Buddhists I have spoken with describe Buddhism as being non-theistic, not atheistic. I meditate, and have indeed found it to be the most useful treatment for my anxiety disorder. However, I have had great difficulty in accepting Buddhism as a philosophy, as I find the practioners all-to-eager to accept some very wild claims made by Buddhist leaders. One teacher claimed we don't remember our past lives because the birth process is so traumatic. Continued...
@2stormcloud I agree. Also, anxiety disorders frequently are not treated well by meditation. In fact other treatments have better treatment outcomes. Mediation is good for low level chronic stress.
@zen699 My choice of words is very poor in this video. I apologize. But, You misunderstand me. The Buddha said to avoid ignorance of the 4 noble truths (etc) he believed he was imparting. However, the Buddhist tradition also discusses the futility of attempting to know everything and especially eschews claiming to knwo things without evidence. Skepticism means admitting you don't know and neither does anyone else. The Buddha even stated we should be skeptical of Buddhist principles.
Very good video, I really enjoy Buddhist philosophy. I find it to be very refreshing and could help many people with their health. I'm not sure I totally agree that there is no god though. I'm a believer that god and energy are descriptions of the same thing. So my beliefs are also based on scientific evidence. I would even argue that there is a universal consciousness, due to observer phenomenon in quantum physics, and the simple fact that we are conscious beings, and part of the universe.
@TheLakesideYogi I'm also thinking the same thing. Maybe God is the universe / cosmos itself. But I'm Christian so something tells me He's of human form. Remember He's not a physical human, but He created man in his image and likeness; but w/o any angelic powers, only virtues.
Anyway I'd rather stick to what my conscience say. Conscience is the most powerful. No human can deny this sense of right & wrong; atheists or religious. It's neither logical or emotional.
@KhinShaider How can we determine morality based on something as unreliable as intuition or some internal experience. Should not morality be based on what is logically best for everyone?
@SkepticSage I do not mean conscience as intuition. Intuition tend to be regarded by many as the 6th sense, somewhat a psychic feeling. Conscience tend to be the governing "something" inside of us that tells what is right or wrong. Conscience vary of course from culture to culture. However to upgrade one's conscience is to seek out & apply principles around us.
I know you might at odds with this, but it's OK. I accept constructive criticisms.
@SkepticSage, you might want to do a lttle more research. Although you are right the Buddha certainly did not advocate the worship of God because he didn't think it was important to the path of enlightenment; when the Buddha was asked point blank whether there are gods he answered, "It is known by me to be the case, Bharadvaja, that there are gods." (Majjhima 100)
Skeptic Sage, you might want to do a lttle more research. Although you are right the Buddha certainly did not advocate the worship of God because he didn't think it was important to the path of enlightenment; when the Buddha was asked point blank whether there are gods he answered, "It is known by me to be the case, Bharadvaja, that there are gods." (Majjhima 100)
@zen699 Is it not the case that he claimed knowledge of these supernatural ideas to be obtainable only by means of powerful meditation? While this claim is similar to Christians saying that God is knowable only through faith, did not the Buddha also say that none should believe what he says only because he says it? While Buddha may claim to know Gods, what Buddha claims to know is actually irrelevant unless it makes sense to his teachings.
@slaughtz It makes sense to his teachings because there are gods who do inhabit the 6 realms of existence. A favourable rebirth into this realm would depend on the amount of good karma accumulated within ones lifetime. The Buddha said not to believe what he says, but he also told everyone to test out what he said for themselves to see whether it was true for them or not. Theres only one way to test if you are going to be reincarnated in heavely realms and that is to follow the path and do good.
@zen699 There is much disagreement on what the Buddha actually said. It is very likely that the majority of what has been attributed to him was written by others. We just do not have adequate information to create a historical Buddha. What the real Buddha was like and what he actually said will remain forever unknown. It is better to see Buddhism as a philosophical/religious tradition of multiple denominations. Like with everything, it is best to take what works for you and leave the rest.
@slaughtz What the Buddha actually said is irrelevant. Here's what I think is relevant (for me). There are four self-evident truths that are largely denied. 1. Life is not what it is cracked up to be. It is inherently disappointing and frustrating with inevitable physical and emotional pain. 2. People attempt to deny this with greed, perfectionism, grandiosity, and hurting others. This makes their pain worse. 3. Giving up greed etc reduces pain. 4. It requires discipline. Ring true for you?
@SkepticSage I agree with #1 and #4 to alleviate suffering. #2, I see a connection, but from my perspective it is a very fragile one. It just seems to me that what you listed could be flipped around to instead be an acknowledgment of that pain and a way of dealing with it. #3, I hope yes, giving up ever present greed would reduce pain; not sure. The reason for my skepticism is that for the past couple of months I have been talking with sociopaths. That would be a tangent, though.
@zen699 An example of someone's teachings being separate from what they claim to know on a personal level is that whether a mathematics teacher believes in God, doesn't believe in God, or believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster has no effect on the accuracy and legitimacy of what they're teaching. In other words, criticize the teachings, not the man who teaches.
@SkepticSage Why some buddists want to believe in rebirth? I think Buddha was talking and studing about paranirvana.Why that superficial view is so present in ˝buddhism˝?
@ProtivLazi Humans beleive much based on conditioning, tradition, what makes them feel good, etc. Rarely do people beleive due to logic or observation. In fact, many people who use words like science and logic, do not truly know what they mean.
@WildernessTree So let me get this straight. Just saying "God is real" without evidence is intelligent but pointing out the lack of evidence is unintelligent. If atheism is not associated with intelligence, why are most scientists atheists? Why is there a correlation between higher education and skepticism/disbelief.
@lookatmepleasesir The studies I read in college had the percentage as much higher. Over 90%. The more educated the scientists the higher the percentage. Among Nobel prize winners it is over 95%
@SkepticSage great that you like buddhism..so do I and I am agnostic. But the Buddha did teach that there was a eternal soul ,but no eternal self. Buddha said anihilation and nihilism is wrongview. Also Buddha taught there is rebirth of the SOUL. Buddhism is the only religion I like and I have alot of buddhist scripture. Buddha was the teacher of gods and men. buddha walked on water. buddha was not atheist..the only way to get that from buddhist scripture is by not reading it.
@DarkBeauty1989 Just because the Buddha spoke against nihilism doesn't mean he said there is a soul. All nihilism means is that life has no objective value. As far as rebirth, again, he did not say "soul." He left that for others to experience by mere observation that our life as we know it ends (impermanence) and then we change form like compost for other life and matter. This cycle be scientifically observed- ou matter does not "go away", but rather change form. A soul or "god" is irrelevant.
@RipTheSystem33 The Buddha said annihilation was wrong view. Buddha said there is rebirth of the eternal soul. The mind is the soul btw. Why do you think buddhism has several realms of rebirth-Nirvana,hell,heaven,demon,ghost,animal? KARMA? Please read buddhist scripture cause it does not support the view that there is no life after death. The buddha said there is a eternal soul but no eternal self/ego.
@DarkBeauty1989 "Please read buddhist scripture cause it does not support the view that there is no life after death. The buddha said there is a eternal soul..."
I've read buddhist scripture at length and I would like to know where you find the Buddha's mention of a "soul," as you say. The Mahakammavibhanga Sutta, Kukkuravatika Sutta, and Sankha Sutta are the main references to rebirth, yet none of them mention a soul. Neither do the rest. They do mention a continuing consciousness.
Loved this video. I've been flirting with Buddhism for some time now and I wish I could embrace any vehicle of it. However, in all three I always run into something that is clearly absurd/mythology which drags down the more logical/philosophical parts that I enjoy.
taoists believe in all kinds of gods, shintoism is based on the foundation of worshiping local spirits (the kami) not to be rude but this video has way too many errors in it to be taken seriously at all.
@BillKiernan I was talking about philosophical Taoism. Gods were added to Taoism later as was true for Buddhism. If you listen to the video you will see that I am talking about these philosophies as they are originally described, not as they were elaborated upon later. The Tao Te Ching makes no mention of gods that I know of. The Buddha discusses gods in passing and does not encourage worship. But again, much has been attributed to the Buddha that he himself never said.
@SkepticSage good lord i need to stop working on my computer so long, instant responses...buddha didn't just talk about gods in passing, he talks directly about, them, talks about how you can be reborn into their realms, etc, huge difference. as far as what buddha did or did not say, how do you know? so, you assume anything supernatural was added, on what basis? to use the oft used example, newton was a genius, yet believed in alchemy...
@BillKiernan Original Taoists mentioned no gods, they only added gods later, much later. The Buddha mentions gods, but in passing. The creation of a Buddhist pantheon came long after the Buddhas death. You only think I am being inaccurate because you and I are relying on different sources.
@SkepticSage "You only think I am being inaccurate because you and I are relying on different sources" i'm relying on the Pali Canon, the oldest extent collection of texts we know of on the budda's teaching. in that canon, he talks about brahma(s), indra, vishnu, tree spirits (yakshas) multitudes of god realms, the deeds one can do to be reborn there, etc. as for the "buddhist pantheon" you have the mahayana pantheon of bodhisattvas/buddhas, etc, which are quite different.
@BillKiernan But there is no evidence that the pali canon is true. As late as the early 1900's Theravada Buddhists declared that there was no god. Many Buddhists are atheist to this day. Dali Lama says Buddhist gods are only representations of mental states. Again, you are taking one perspective on Buddhism and treating it like it is THE perspective on Buddhism. The truth is that we have now way to know what the Buddha said or did not say and opinions vary, especially amongst Buddhists.
"the dalai lama is an atheist" totally false. time and time again i see claims like this from atheists that are just wrong about buddhism. "The intermediate being has all five senses, but also clairvoyance, unobstructiveness and an ability to arrive immediately wherever he or she wants. He or she sees other intermediate beings of his or her own type— hell-being, hungry ghost, animal, human, demigod or god—and can be seen by clairvoyants" dalai lama: Death, Intermediate State and Rebirth
the dalai lama says those gods are representations of phsychological phenomena? this is typical selling of the religion to skeptics. if this were true, he wouldn't have put a ban on Dorje Shugden worship, saying by worshipping that deity his life would be endangered. shugden is seen as a demon (of sorts) that is very much alive and real and has the ability to physically harm people. that's just the tip of the iceburg. modern buddhists are great salesmen.
@compsciguy As a matter of fact, YES I DO!!! The fact that god does not show himself shows he is either an idiot or that he doesn't care. Since both attributes are inconstant with our definition of god, god does not exist.
@compsciguy "Do you expect Him to just appear and say "there's no need for faith anymore"?" that would be a great start actually, and not much to ask. if someone/something wants me to believe, it's only common courtesy to show up and have a chat.
What I have noticed is that many Atheist critics of Buddhism seem to take isolated examples of people, places and things and somehow try to define Buddhism with it. ("This Buddhist figure... this temple... etc) That heavily flawed approach sounds eerily familiar to me, considering I live in a country with a large population of biblical literalists.
I was also disappointed that the "philosopher's walk" at the Buddhist temple next to my apartment when I lived with Japan was lined with bronze busts of the rich BUSINESSMEN that donated money to the temple. It's complex, and I have very complex feelings about Buddhism after almost 20 years of Buddhist study of the spectrum of sects.
Your thoughts are really right. Buddhism is NOT a "theism," as in Buddha is not worshiped, nor is he a Western analog of "god." I do, however, think some sects have become monk-worshiping serfdoms, which are would-be theocracies.
it always amuses me that people fail to realize that the Buddha proclaimed his way to be the only way to liberation, and fiercly criticized all other paths of his time, and admonished his followers to not follow other paths, besides his own.
@BillKiernan It would be interesting to know where you get your source for this contention. If this cotnention is true (which I am not disagreeing with), it is very telling about the corruption that naturally occurs in persons who have power, including the Buddha. If one has people's ear, it becomes very easy to go from saying you have A way to saying you have THE way.
@SkepticSage it's from the Lion's Roar Sutta, but he says similar things in many parts of the Pali Canon. ""Bhikkhus, only here is there a recluse, only here a second recluse, only here a third recluse, only here a fourth recluse. The doctrines of others are devoid of recluses: that is how you should rightly roar your lion's roar" majjima nikaya 11
@SkepticSage in the same sutta, Buddha lists all the supernatural powers he has. I understand that among the world religions, buddhism really stands out because of the attitude of open inquiry, and the ability to take useful practices and discard others (for one that is not a card carrying buddhist). but the idea that it's an "anything goes" atheistic, humanistic philosophy is a widespread myth these days (not saying you say those things)
@BillKiernan I think we need to make a distinction between the modern philosophical, psychological, and psychotherapeutic western traditions that has emerged around Buddhist concepts and actual Buddhism as it actually existed 500 BC. They are very different. This difference is overlook, I beleive.
@SkepticSage "They are very different. This difference is overlook, I beleive" Indeed. But it's also important to note that the western tradition you describe is the minority, and a small one. Most Buddhists practicing in asian countries practice in a very orthodox, traditional, religious way. but yes, there is quite a bit of difference between the two.
@SkepticSage just re-watched this (paraphrasing) "he spoke about god beliefs as other people's beliefs" no, he spoke about gods as if they existed. he even spoke about how to be reborn into their realms. and "embrace the fact that we can't know anything" completely false. he spoke about the ability to know everything. and spoke of his own ability to recollect his past lives, see the birth and death of all beings, knwoing of the formation and dissoluton of worlds, etc. etc.
@SkepticSage "It would be interesting to know where you get your source for this contention" the lion's roar sutta is a good start. and don't you think it's a little disingenous to automatically chalk up anything you don't agree with to a cultural accretion or "corruption." the guy lived 2500 years ago, he could very well have believed all this stuff, in fact, it's the most likely explanation.
True that the Buddha taught that his was the only path to the liberation that he defined, false that he "fiercely criticized all other paths of his time". He was hard on any doctrine that resulted in amoral behavior, but not only encouraged laypeople to follow the wisdom of the day in terms of karma and the earning of merit, but when he conversed with kings and laypeople he spoke using the religious terms they were comfortable with. Tolerance was key to his success.
@justalittledust "false that he "fiercely criticized all other paths of his time"" would you like me to cite you the texts where he does a run-down of every single path being taught at the time, the jains, brahminical teachings, nihilists, the masters he previously followed, the acetics, etc and refutes every single one of them?
@BillKiernan No thanks, as I know those suttas well. I did say that he was hard on any doctrine that resulted in amoral behavior. He did also point out the failures in the other systems -- why would he not do that? But what I also see in reading the suttas is that again and again and again he talks about karma and rebirth as positive views though they are clearly not *his* view. He speaks in the language of the followers, encouraging them. It's false leaders he trounces.
@justalittledust "he talks about karma and rebirth as positive views though they are clearly not *his* view" ok, this is patently false. he didn't teach karma and rebirth as realities? you've got to be joking.
@BillKiernan Takes a little, okay, a *lot* of reading and not a little time sitting on the cushion to see what's going on but, no, I'm not joking. Time and again you'll see that when he is talking about karma and rebirth he is talking to believers in karma and rebirth. He is "speaking in their own language". He's translating from "Buddha-think" to "Brahmin-speak". He's actively NOT alienating his audience, but cajolling them into giving his method a try.
@justalittledust "and what is wrong view? ...there is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. there is not this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings, no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next having DIRECTLY KNOWN AND REALIZED FOR THEMSELVEDS.' this is wrong view 'mn117
Yes. Exactly. Those denying claims re: karma, rebirth, ancestor worship, deities, & monks who say they've been to the other side have wrong view & the reason is because folks who dissed everyone's beliefs displayed a lack of morality. Having stated it's wrong to dismiss the views of those trying to lead a moral life, Buddha is not going to dis karma, rebirth or any of the other beliefs. But that same sutta has those "right views" as tainted. His right view is supermundane, above all that.
@justalittledust "But that same sutta has those "right views" as tainted. His right view is supermundane, above all that" it describes the views as tainted because they are coupled with attachment, wherein the thatagata has no attachment to views. nevertheless, for common sentient beings, rebirth is a reality for them, they experience it, death doesn't take away suffering for them, they continue on. this is his teaching everywhere in the suttas.
@justalittledust if the buddha's teaching were that death ends suffering for everyone, then you can acheive instant release from all suffering by blowing one's brains out. but the buddha did not teach that death is the end, the game only ends when one fully realizes.
@justalittledust now, most likely you will counter with "birth and death are metaphors." this is not possible in all cases why? because on several occaisions the buddha speaks about people who have LITERALLY died. they are dead, and he talks about where they have been reborn. and, in a sutta (i can find it if i look around, been a while" he actually defines what he means by birth, old age, sickness, death. he defines the terms he uses. and describes death as the death of the physical body
@BillKiernan Actually, that literal description is Sariputta's. The Pali canon is VAST, man, vast. It's also 2,500 years old. Just like the bible, we can justify anything with it. It's self-contradictory in hundreds of places. I am sure you must know it cannot be a perfect transmission of what the buddha said and as well that these talks were not all given simultaneously to one person, they represent Gotama's evolving understanding, changing techniques, different audiences.
@justalittledust "Actually, that literal description is Sariputta's." i know which sutta you're talking about but there are others where the buddha states something similar. i agree it's not the perfect transmission of what he said, but you can't write off the stacks of pages where he talks about literal rebirth and just claim all that is added on, it just doesn't fit with the rest of the message to do so. gotama didn't see his understanding as "evolving" he saw his enligtenment as final.
This is why it's critical to study the whole thing, to try to figure out how it all fits, & to do this with an open mind. Sorting it out isn't easy , but if we look at what the Buddha said most often, & to his highest disciples (not to monks in general, kings, Brahmins) & most vehemently to his monks ("see it for yourselves, don't go on what others say, don't even go on what *I* say") it becomes quite clear he was not teaching anything you cannot see for yourself.
@justalittledust the thing i find strange is this modern attempt to deslect the majority of the canon like this. and also to talk as if masters and exegetes for 2500 years, from the sarvastivadin/theravadin exegetes/abhidammikas to nagarjuna etc. etc., many masters of several source languages, somehow overlooked that buddha didn't really teach literal rebirth, karma, the 6 realms. none of them understoood that it's all about this life and it's all psychologial states?
@BillKiernan It's not a "modern attempt" -- there were divisions in the sangha over what the Buddha taught beginning as he died. Maybe it's time we take this offline before we bore the masses?
@justalittledust haha, yeah, we should. but for now i need to get back to work anyway. but as a quick reply, there were divisions, but they were not over the teaching of rebirth, or the 6 realms. that was a non-issue until buddhism came into contact with modernity and scientific discovery. in my travels and study i never once found an ancient source, or a source from less than 100 years ago (most of those who questioned rebirth were zen folks) who questioned rebirth.
@BillKiernan How do you know that's all the divisions were about? Because the winners who believed the Buddha was talking about karma and rebirth wrote the history?
@justalittledust "How do you know that's all the divisions were about?" the losers didn't just die off, they continued for a time with their own shastras and traditions. none of the ones that survived denied rebirth. in fact the pugdalavadins, one of the outcast offshoots, concocted a kind of soul to help explain rebirth better. as far as i know there were no materialist/annihilationist (wrong views according to buddha) sects whose contention was "buddha didn't teach rebirth"
@BillKiernan Bill, think! Where do you get the information about these sects that "survived for a while"? Where is that written? Sure we "know all this" from history. What history? It's written in the Pali canon and nowhere else!
@justalittledust "Where do you get the information about these sects that "survived for a while"?" from their own writings. some of them "survive" in small ways within living traditions. an example of this would be the sarvastivadins, mahasamghikas, etc.
@justalittledust You can simply read any basic book on the Tao Te Ching or original Buddhism. There is very little disagreement in the literature on what I have said. You can find a book that will corroborate all of this at Barnes and Nobel for about 6 bucks. Again, everything I have said is basic scholarship you can get in an introductory course on eastern philosophy at any local community college. There is nothing controversial about what I have said.
@SkepticSage "Again, everything I have said is basic scholarship you can get in an introductory course on eastern philosophy at any local community college. There is nothing controversial about what I have said" sorry, you make a lot of claims about what the buddha said in this video that are flat out wrong. perhaps barnes and noble is the problem. i studied buddhism as a practitioner for over 10 years, majored in religious studies with a focus on eastern religions, etc.
@justalittledust i mean we can do that, or speculate that there were unnamed anti-rebirth schismatic sects that no one has any written record of, but, i mean, that's reaching don't you think? maybe, and maybe there were sects that thought buddha was an alien, i mean once you go down that road we get into consiracy theory zone. it very well could be, but we have no proof of it whatsoever. and usually opponents views are trotted out to be attacked, we find nothing about anti-rebirth sects
No need to go there, Bill, because there are other methods. I have a great deal of respect for those who put so much effort into passing on what the Buddha taught as best they understood it. It is clear to me how faithful was their intention in conveying to us what they remembered of his words, and his life. What he said is in there, we have only to read it and test it to see it.
@justalittledust But we must also remember that we have limited historical evidence about what the Buddha actually said. We know for a fact that many sacred writings attributed to the Budhha were written centuries alter after his death. Buddhists themselves disagree on what is canon and what is not (like all religions). All religions are mythological and are philosophies created in committee by many unknown persons, split into numerous disagreeing denominations.
@justalittledust But we have no way to know if the pali canon is accurate. Not that it matters. All philosophies and beleifs must stand on their own and should not contradict our own logic and common sense. We should not rely on authority or the written word. You know, I think I remember someone saying this before, oh yeah, the Buddha is reported to have given this advice (if in fact he DID say it at all). What matters is what works for us now.
@SkepticSage "What matters is what works for us now" right, so my whole contention is saying with an air of authority "buddha said this, buddha thought this way" which you do all over this video. all we know is wha the scriptures, and the living traditions say. both contradict some key things you state here. to simply say anything that doesn't agree with your views are add-ons, is a bit disingenuous. the dalai lama is an atheist towards the christian god, by no means towards other gods, at all
@BillKiernan You misunderstand. I am saying that the entire Pali canon is an add on. This is what you are missing. The idea that the Buddha was not a theist is as much an add on as anything. But that is not the point of my video. Many scholars make the claim that the Buddha was uninterested in theism, I am simply echoing their claims. There is no way to know since the writings about the Buddha were written long after his death and contradict each other. Buddhism is not by necessity theistic.
@BillKiernan To elaborate. Many scholars say the basic beleifs of Buddhism are: Life is suffering. Suffering is cause by desire and ignorance. Impermanence is a central/inevitable feature of existence. Acceptance and mindfulness are necessary for happiness. None of these ideas necessarily requires theistic beleifs. None of these ideas involves veneration or worship. In scripture Buddha is asked if he is a god, he said "no." When asked what he was he said, "I am awake."
@gayan006 We don't believe in gods because there is no rational or empirical reason to do so. I do not see what engaging in vague wordplay has to do with anything.
outlawleather 2 weeks ago
I think this video misses several points. The issue is not whether there are gods or not. Even if there are gods out there, they would merely be dependently originated sentient beings. Even Buddhas are dependently originated sentient beings. So it does not matter if gods exist or not. Check my video.
HinduismIsHeretical 2 weeks ago
dont try to mix ATHEISM & BUDDHISM ...
gayan006 1 month ago
@gayan006 But many atheists (e.g theravada) are atheists to begin with.
SkepticSage 2 weeks ago
@SkepticSage My friend, even in Mahayana all Buddhas and deities are merely dependently originated sentient beings.
HinduismIsHeretical 2 weeks ago
@SkepticSage ok sir. if you don't believe in gods, what do you believe ? whats the final aim in ATHEISM .. what you guys want to achieve in the end.. dont get me wrong, in buddhism , we believe gods are exists but as a another life form. not like almighty , internal god. ATHEISM is not a religion or a philosophy. you guys dont believe in gods, thats is.. the answers that you are looking in lays in buddhism .. so study it. and dont try to say buddhism is a part of ATHEISM .. thank you
gayan006 2 weeks ago
@gayan006 Atheism has no aim. Why do people require an aim? A better questions is: What do those who rely on science aim for? The answer is they aim for the same thing that everyone aims for, only they have a superior method to get to that aim. In order to reach goals one must understand the world. Science helps us do that, religion does not. Religion makes us happy by denying negative facts (e.g. no gods) of the actual world. This feels good at first but in the end is unhelpful.
outlawleather 2 weeks ago
@outlawleather do you think science actually helps to understand the world?( science means not only the astronomy)oh are they trying to make people attach to the physical world?(astronomy also does this)is this the real world u want to see?in real world nothing is permanent. lord Buddha has explain this many ways. and Buddha also said my teaching is like a Venomous snake. if you didn't catch it on the head it will bit u. and i'm asking u with kind hart,
gayan006 2 weeks ago
@gayan006 learn buddhism thoroughly before u come to such conclusions .. its not like reading 1 book. Buddha lived 45 years after he achieved enlightenment. i think there are about 84000 soothra.. and I ask u an aim because as a Buddhists we believe reincarnation. our main target is to end that. as an Atheist whats ur target? ( this is purely 4 my knowledge)
gayan006 2 weeks ago
@gayan006 you are totally true my friend, I like your comment
Buddhism and atheism two different way cannnot be same
dhammmaraja 2 weeks ago
@dhammmaraja atheism is the lack of belief in a deity/deities which is in buddhism since you don't have to believe that buddhism is a go but he is the teacher so a very intelligent person
MetalDoneMoreForME 2 weeks ago
@gayan006 The "real world" is whatever science shows us. What I "want" to see is irrelevant since I want to see what truly IS. You actually asked if science helps to understand the world, do realize how naive a question that is? Science is the ONLY way to understand the world. Systematically understanding the world is just another name for science. Attachment is an unhealthy relationship with something. How is truly and truthfully understanding something an act of attachment to it?
SkepticSage 2 weeks ago
@gayan006 I never said Buddhism is part of atheism. I only said that there are atheist Buddhists. One of the sufferings of this world (first nobel truth) is that we are without a creator or god to guide us and must take responsibility for ourselves. Buddha said to never believe in anything that contradicts your common sense. To slavishly and addictively believe in a god is a form of attachment. Wanting to believe in a god is a form of desire. Of course that is only view of Buddhism.
outlawleather 2 weeks ago
@SkepticSage I am theravada and I am not athiest :)
dhammmaraja 2 weeks ago
@dhammmaraja Many Theravada do not believe in deities.
SkepticSage 1 week ago
@SkepticSage how could theravada didn't believe in gods????
many kinds of gods mentioned in pali tipitaka, like brahmas, devas, and so on
the statues of gods are spreading in Thailand, and I like to told you all Thais believe in both god and gods and dieties, except that western who did not accept Buddhism as it is
dhammmaraja 1 week ago
@dhammmaraja Barbara O'Brien: the historical Buddha taught that believing in gods was not useful for realizing enlightenment. In other words, God is unnecessary in Buddhism. For this reason, Buddhism is more accurately called nontheistic than atheistic.
Austin Cline: Buddhism has taught that either there are no gods or they aren’t worth bothering with.
Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains, groves, trees and shrines, but these are not a secure kind of refuge.
The Dhammapada, 188
SkepticSage 1 week ago
@SkepticSage gods are mentioned many time in pali tipitaka, you cannot ignore all these things, there is no asian buddhist didn't believe in gods at least, all buddhist temples have an images of gods, and although buddha speak clearly become brahman is nirvana
"Sitting silent, dustless, absorbed in jhana, his task done, effluents gone, ultimate goal attained: he's what I call a brahman" dhammapada
western buddhist must stop changing buddhism under the influence of hating christianity
dhammmaraja 1 week ago
Thanks for the video. Someone who was attempting to to convince me that Buddhism is Atheist directed me to your video. Although I agree with your assessment: Buddhism does not teach worship of God or gods, one must take the Buddhist cannon into consideration, which describes many of Buddha's experiences within a supernatural framework, including his interactions with beings known as gods. The same must be said of Jesus' teachings. Thanks, again for sharing your thoughts. Peace.
bornbranded29 1 month ago
Old video, I know. But your final comment made me wonder.
What makes you say that fascism is an atheist religion? Fascism has very little to say on religion at all, if anything is it secular, with a bent towards incorporating the religious institutions into it self in order to use it to control the masses. See Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.
1stCainite 2 months ago
Buddhism's psychological orientation is a theme Rhys Davids pursued for decades as evidenced by Rhys Davids (1914) and Rhys Davids (1936).
KriztofferKriztenzen 3 months ago
@KriztofferKriztenzen This is true, but this is true but a "psychological orientation" in the way meant here is a philosophical approach and is not the same as the modern scientific approach of the field of field of psychology.
SkepticSage 2 months ago
[S]o Buddhism, from a quite early stage of its development, set itself to analyze and classify mental processes with remarkable insight and sagacity...." (Rhys Davids, 1900, pp. xvi-xvii.)
KriztofferKriztenzen 3 months ago
@KriztofferKriztenzen Your quotes still do not deal with the main problem. Many philosophers have set themselves to analyze mental states and processes and come to very different conclusions than Buddhist. Even different buddhist sects do not agree on the true nature of specific aspects of the human mind. This shows we can't linguistically describe consciousness with any precision the way we explicate the publicly observable natural world. Everyone disagrees on the nature of consciousness.
SkepticSage 2 months ago
The distinguishable groups of dhammā — of states or mental psychoses — 'arise' in every case in consciousness, in obedience to certain laws of causation, physical and moral — that is, ultimately, as the outcome of antecedent states of consciousness.... It postulated other percipients as Berkeley did, together with, not a Divine cause or source of precepts, but the implicit Monism of early thought veiled by a deliberate Agnosticism....
KriztofferKriztenzen 3 months ago
@KriztofferKriztenzen You are stating a dogmatic opinion as a fact. What is the verified method by which you come to such grand conclusions? I notice you have not responded to anything I have said to you. That is what a conversation is. One person challenges the other who takes the challenge in a responds to it. I have referenced what you have said but you ignore what I have said and continue to pontificate. Are you using this site for a personal lecture??
SkepticSage 2 months ago
[T]he Buddhists were, in a way, more advanced in the psychology of their ethics than Aristotle — in a way, that is, which would now be called scientific. Rejecting the assumption of a psyche and of its higher manifestations ..., they were content to resolve the consciousness of the Ethical Man, as they found it, into a complex continuum of subjective phenomena....
KriztofferKriztenzen 3 months ago
@KriztofferKriztenzen Nothing the Buddhists did or aristotle did in the field of psychology would be considered today even remotely scientific. It is obvious you have a definition of science which is unrelated to what most scientists would agree with.
SkepticSage 2 months ago
@SkepticSage Psychology is not scientific. Psychology has a lot of critics.
HinduismIsHeretical 3 weeks ago
@HinduismIsHeretical it depends on which psychology you are talking about. It is possible to study human behavior scientifically. This does nto mean that all psychologists do this, some would rather pursue psychology philosophically. However, there are clearly scientific studies doen in the field of psychology. Most critics of psychology are unaware and uneducated on what is and is not scientific in the field of psychology.
SkepticSage 2 weeks ago
In the introduction to this seminal work, Rhys Davids writes: "... Buddhist philosophy is ethical first and last. This is beyond dispute. But among ethical systems there is a world of difference in the degree of importance attached to the psychological prolegomena of ethics....
KriztofferKriztenzen 3 months ago
In 1900, Indologist Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids published through the Pali Text Society a translation of the Theravada Abhidhamma's first book, the Dhamma Sangani, and entitled the translation, "Buddhist Manual of Psychological Ethics" (Rhys Davids, 2003).
KriztofferKriztenzen 3 months ago
It classifies consciousness into a variety of types, specifies the factors and functions of each type, correlates them with their objects and physiological bases, and shows how the different types of consciousness link up with each other and with material phenomena to constitute the ongoing process of experience." (Bodhi, 2000, pp. 3-4.)
KriztofferKriztenzen 3 months ago
@KriztofferKriztenzen It would be hard to prove that such theories are true. Also, let us assume these theories are true, what use could we possibly put them to?
outlawleather 3 months ago
For this reason the philosophical enterprise of the Abhidhamma shades off into a phenomenological psychology. To facilitate the understanding of experienced reality, the Abhidhamma embarks upon an elaborate analysis of the mind as it presents itself to introspective meditation.
KriztofferKriztenzen 3 months ago
@KriztofferKriztenzen The problem with relying on introspections is that different people "see" different structures. How does one verify something that is not publicly observable and thus not testable. And again, if this is theoretical, how and for what purpose is it used?
outlawleather 3 months ago
The Abhidhamma's attempt to comprehend the nature of reality, contrary to that of classical science in the West, does not proceed from the standpoint of a neutral observer looking outwards towards the external world. The primary concern of the Abhidhamma is to understand the nature of experience, and thus the reality on which it focuses is conscious reality....
KriztofferKriztenzen 3 months ago
@KriztofferKriztenzen Comprehending the nature of reality is done by physicists. There is no such thing as "classical" science as opposed to another kind, science has no modern version different form an older version. Science does NOT assuem a neutral observer, it assumes a biased observer, hence the need for replication by multipel scientists to verify findings. Again, is there a method to explore consciousness directly that leads to verifiable results? How about cognitive science?
outlawleather 3 months ago
The earliest Buddhist writings are preserved in the three-part Tipitaka (Pali; Skt. Tripitaka). The third part (or pitaka, literally "basket") is known as the Abhidhamma (Pali; Skt. Abhidharma). Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, president of the Buddhist Publication Society, has synopsized the Abhidhamma as follows: "The system that the Abhidhamma Pitaka articulates is simultaneously a philosophy, a psychology, and an ethics, all integrated into the framework of a program for liberation....
KriztofferKriztenzen 3 months ago
Buddhism and science have increasingly been discussed as compatible, and Buddhism has increasingly entered into the science and religion dialogue. The case is made that the philosophic and psychological teachings within Buddhism share commonalities with modern scientific and philosophic thought.
KriztofferKriztenzen 3 months ago
@KriztofferKriztenzen Yes there are similarities but they are few when compared to the differences. Buddhism has supernatural aspects in some denominations and its method is not scientific. For example, some have stated that meditation is empirical. But this cannot be so since empiricism requires that experiments be publicly observable. The boo "The Tao of physics" mentions this idea, but was soundly criticized by scientists.
SkepticSage 3 months ago
Long-term efforts to juxtapose abhidhammic psychology with Western empirical sciences have been carried out by such Vajrayana leaders as Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche and the 14th Dalai Lama.
KriztofferKriztenzen 3 months ago
The establishment of Buddhism predates the field of psychology by over two millennia; thus, any assessment of Buddhism in terms of psychology is necessarily a modern invention. One of the first such assessments occurred when British Indologists started translating Theravada Buddhism's Abhidhamma from Pali and Sanskrit texts.
KriztofferKriztenzen 3 months ago
2. Psychotherapeutic meaning: Humanistic psychotherapists have found in Buddhism's non-dualistic approach and enlightenment experiences (such as in Zen kensho) the potential for transformation, healing and finding existential meaning.
3. Clinical utility: Contemporary mental-health practitioners increasingly find ancient Buddhist practices (such as the development of mindfulness) of empirically proven therapeutic value.
KriztofferKriztenzen 3 months ago
@KriztofferKriztenzen The third point is overstated. Meditation has been shown to create relaxation for anxiety prone individuals. But long term psychotherpeutic effects such as insight into cognitive structures or perceptions has only anecdotal evidence.
SkepticSage 3 months ago
Buddhism and psychology overlap in theory and in practice. Over the last century, three strands of interplay have evolved:
Descriptive phenomenology: Western and Buddhist scholars have found in Buddhist teachings a detailed introspective phenomenological psychology (particularly in the Abhidhamma).
KriztofferKriztenzen 3 months ago
@KriztofferKriztenzen Which psychology are you talking about? If you mean scientific psychology the answer is that the overlap is minimal. If you mean the field of clinical psychology, then the overlap is more. But again, you are overstating the issue. Phenomenological psychology is philosophical in nature, not scientific, and the utility in psychotherapy has never been scientifically determined. How can "phenomenology" be scientifically studied and described if it can't be publicly observed?
SkepticSage 3 months ago
Comment removed
topbluffa1 3 months ago
@topbluffa1 You are misinformed. Many Buddhists believe in God(s), some of them believe in many of them. Only some Buddhists are atheists. In fact many Buddhists believe the Buddha himself to be devine. Before call people "dummy" it might make more sense to look up your data, that way you will know what your talking about.
SkepticSage 3 months ago
@SkepticSage
sorry i was being saracastic, I to belive they are not athiests well the majority and the core of the teaching.
topbluffa1 3 months ago
I agree with the gist of what you say here, but I am not impressed with the Dalai Lama. His most foolish beliefs, such as reincarnation, are not testable by science - so it's not braveness on his part to offer to renounce the belief if science disproves it. It's like a Christian saying that they will cease to believe in God if science proves that there is no God.
KevinSolway 3 months ago
thanks for sharing this with us
SiNgHayStyle 4 months ago
Subscribed.
LostRituals 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PEACE TO YOU ALL! Did you know that Australian supermodel Miranda Kerr practices Nichiren Buddhism and believes "We have a responsibility to bring peace and harmony to our lives and the world." As part of her Nichiren beliefs, she reportedly chants every morning and night for 20 minutes, practices yoga, meditates, and reads widely on spirituality.
knightsofstjoan2004 4 months ago
Oh, and the bit about the Dalai Lama reading scientific research papers or whatnot. That's clearly because it is mentioned in the Kalama Sutta that one should always discern religious teachings...
KHGuitarFreak1988 4 months ago
Some of the Buddhism bashers on Youtube should really watch this. That's because they don't understand the simple concepts of The Four Noble Truths for a start...
KHGuitarFreak1988 4 months ago
A very good explaination of the core beliefs of Buddhism.
daverigby23 5 months ago
Im proud to say you have NOT changed any of my views... but have reassured me of them. Great video. I admire you
Jake2254 6 months ago
And since they 'have' effects they can be harmful or wholesome. And that very important in an emphatical, mindfull way of life - that's one of my favorit ways of viewing religions. More a way than a philosophy or religion and it goes further than a wisdom tradition because of 'intro'-spective research we call meditation. Wrong perception and self-delusion are also a root of harmful actions. So it's also important not to mistake buddhism with irrationalism, because it being "esoteric".
Aristoteles83 7 months ago
Thanks a lot for the refreshing video centred around the drive for truth without arrogance. That's rare flower to find on YouTube. ;-) I'd just like to add a simplistic definition of buddhist ethics. It's certainly not immoralistic in a misguiding Nietzsche sense that because the world was an empty, godless illusion nothing was true and everything was aloud. Very common nihilistic missunderstanding in the west "anything goes" is unbuddhist, because actions - karma is action - have effects.
Aristoteles83 7 months ago
I personally avoid the use of the term 'morals' due to exactly that problem. Morals are personal in practice. They tend to be received from outside sources, and vary between individuals and religions. But 'ethics' are by definition a set of standardized behavior that is meant to be good for both society and individuals.
So, morals can be based on about anything, and are not reliable, and are definitely not global in the sense we can standardize them. Ethics, however, are exactly that.
joembush 8 months ago
@joembush How are ethics any more reliable than morals? How are ethics "global" or "standardized" anymore than morals are? I beleive many people cannot deal with the idea that morals ethic are any ideas for that matter ate created by human beings and that there is not way to anchor any set of ideas in anythign objective and universal. Thus ideology, morality, religion, ethics are all subjective. If we decide to make them objective by using scientific principles, how would we do this?
SkepticSage 8 months ago
@SkepticSage I was trying presenting an issue of semantics regarding the two terms. Although their meanings are virtually identical, people normally associate morals with religious lessons. Stoning fornicators and removing the hands of thieves could be considered morally acceptable. I don't like this ideology.
I'm not a Buddhist, but I would claim that Buddhism teaches ethics, a humanitarian set of guidelines. The focus is less to control the individual, and more for society to thrive.
joembush 8 months ago
@SkepticSage For the same reason it can be argued that evolution can be proven to have had the ability to incorporate moral behavior (social evolution), I would argue that scientific principles can be used to determine a set of behavioral guidelines (ethics) that is deemed best for the survival of society as a whole.
Also, I don't mean to insinuate that all moral values are non-beneficial. Only that they aren't necessarily ethically acceptable. (using my definitions of the terms)
joembush 8 months ago
@SkepticSage what about anchoring them in health, survival and evolution? Even evil ethics and morals have evolutionary roots
lookatmepleasesir 5 months ago
Well at least what your talking makes sense since you have research to back it up. Unlike those arrogant idiots who based their criticisms on what they read or hear directly in front of them.
By the way, what's your stand on the New Age philosophy. They have this Theosophy (if I'm right) thing. It's an amalgam of today's religions but it's 75 to 80% Buddhism teaching. I have one of their magazines.
KhinShaider 8 months ago
Your contribution for making this video is priceless =)
Alexsuper15 9 months ago
˝Buddha˝ is awaken. in croatian awaken is ˝budan´. sanskrit is similar to old croatian
ProtivLazi 10 months ago
Buddha,as i have understood it,said clearly,that live is full of Dukkha(=discontentment,frustration,fear etc.)and not only in the time he lived in northern India.He said,that the root cause is desire(out of not understanding reality).
If i am totally content out of understanding interdependence of phenomena,what would it be i could desire?Nothing!
why? There is no individual,independent,lasting self in the appearance of Phenomena(Shunyata).This is to be directly experienced!
Hasshasser 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why doesnt work your video ˝SUPERFICIAL view of buddhisM˝? rebirth or paranirvana?What is truth?
ProtivLazi 10 months ago
Comment removed
ProtivLazi 10 months ago
Fascism is more closely related to Christianity then atheism.
MassLiberal1 11 months ago
This video put's things into perpective for me about any conflict between science and religion.
MrBigfan007 11 months ago
cool video :)
antichristeileen 1 year ago
And, fascism and communism are not "atheistic". They are political ideologies that can be adopted by and blended into any religion. You can have a fascist theocracy. You can have a de facto Communist economy that still allows for religious worship. That Communist governments have tended to violently suppress religion does not mean they had to.
2stormcloud 1 year ago
@2stormcloud This is true. But the head philosophers of communism preached atheism. However, there have been religious socialist societies. The Fabian society in the UK and the Kibbutz movement in Israel. However, it must be stated that atheism has been associated with communist doctrine: Marx, Engels, Lennon, the Soviet Union, China, north Korea, etc all taught atheism.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
Also, institutional Buddhism is as misogynistic as Christianity. It is stated explicitly in Buddhist literature that rebirth as a male is preferable. Then there is the business of taking children away from their families because they are believed to be a reincarnated Llama. Proof??? Sexual abuse of women and young boys/men in the monasteries.
2stormcloud 1 year ago
@2stormcloud I could not agree more
SkepticSage 1 year ago
I've read about the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path etc. I don't find them useful ideas to contemplate. It isn't that I don't find a lot to agree with in Buddhist philsophy, it's that I don't find most Buddhists to be any more skeptical of some of the wilder claims of Buddhism than the Christians are of their religion. In talking with them, it isn't too long before they are talking about so-and-so who was such-and-such in a past life, or their visit to see their psychic. Continued...
2stormcloud 1 year ago
@2stormcloud I agree. Reincarnation and karma seem ridiculous ideas to me. I think that when psychologists as myself are dealing with Buddhism, we cherry pick what we see as converging with the research. Acceptance, meditation, etc.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
There are a least two Buddhist pyschotherapists in Halifax who wave their hands over their patients claiming they are "realigning the patients Chi". There is an excellent book called In The Shadow of the Dalai Lama that offers a thorough critique of Tibetan Buddhism. I'm no expert, but I'm of the opinion that Buddhism has been poisoned by centuries of magical thinking, a corrupt priesthood and empty rituals. Continued...
2stormcloud 1 year ago
@2stormcloud These psychologists sound like idiots. This does not surprise me, the field is not policed very well. I agree with the last sentence. Magical thinking is like poison.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
Most Buddhists I have spoken with describe Buddhism as being non-theistic, not atheistic. I meditate, and have indeed found it to be the most useful treatment for my anxiety disorder. However, I have had great difficulty in accepting Buddhism as a philosophy, as I find the practioners all-to-eager to accept some very wild claims made by Buddhist leaders. One teacher claimed we don't remember our past lives because the birth process is so traumatic. Continued...
2stormcloud 1 year ago
@2stormcloud I agree. Also, anxiety disorders frequently are not treated well by meditation. In fact other treatments have better treatment outcomes. Mediation is good for low level chronic stress.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
The Buddha certainly did not say embrace ignorance. He said the exact opposite, ignorance is the cause of suffering.
zen699 1 year ago
@zen699 My choice of words is very poor in this video. I apologize. But, You misunderstand me. The Buddha said to avoid ignorance of the 4 noble truths (etc) he believed he was imparting. However, the Buddhist tradition also discusses the futility of attempting to know everything and especially eschews claiming to knwo things without evidence. Skepticism means admitting you don't know and neither does anyone else. The Buddha even stated we should be skeptical of Buddhist principles.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
Very good video, I really enjoy Buddhist philosophy. I find it to be very refreshing and could help many people with their health. I'm not sure I totally agree that there is no god though. I'm a believer that god and energy are descriptions of the same thing. So my beliefs are also based on scientific evidence. I would even argue that there is a universal consciousness, due to observer phenomenon in quantum physics, and the simple fact that we are conscious beings, and part of the universe.
TheLakesideYogi 1 year ago
@TheLakesideYogi I'm also thinking the same thing. Maybe God is the universe / cosmos itself. But I'm Christian so something tells me He's of human form. Remember He's not a physical human, but He created man in his image and likeness; but w/o any angelic powers, only virtues.
Anyway I'd rather stick to what my conscience say. Conscience is the most powerful. No human can deny this sense of right & wrong; atheists or religious. It's neither logical or emotional.
KhinShaider 8 months ago
@KhinShaider How can we determine morality based on something as unreliable as intuition or some internal experience. Should not morality be based on what is logically best for everyone?
SkepticSage 8 months ago
@SkepticSage I do not mean conscience as intuition. Intuition tend to be regarded by many as the 6th sense, somewhat a psychic feeling. Conscience tend to be the governing "something" inside of us that tells what is right or wrong. Conscience vary of course from culture to culture. However to upgrade one's conscience is to seek out & apply principles around us.
I know you might at odds with this, but it's OK. I accept constructive criticisms.
KhinShaider 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SkepticSage, you might want to do a lttle more research. Although you are right the Buddha certainly did not advocate the worship of God because he didn't think it was important to the path of enlightenment; when the Buddha was asked point blank whether there are gods he answered, "It is known by me to be the case, Bharadvaja, that there are gods." (Majjhima 100)
zen699 1 year ago
@zen699 A good point.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
Skeptic Sage, you might want to do a lttle more research. Although you are right the Buddha certainly did not advocate the worship of God because he didn't think it was important to the path of enlightenment; when the Buddha was asked point blank whether there are gods he answered, "It is known by me to be the case, Bharadvaja, that there are gods." (Majjhima 100)
zen699 1 year ago
@zen699 Is it not the case that he claimed knowledge of these supernatural ideas to be obtainable only by means of powerful meditation? While this claim is similar to Christians saying that God is knowable only through faith, did not the Buddha also say that none should believe what he says only because he says it? While Buddha may claim to know Gods, what Buddha claims to know is actually irrelevant unless it makes sense to his teachings.
slaughtz 1 year ago
@slaughtz It makes sense to his teachings because there are gods who do inhabit the 6 realms of existence. A favourable rebirth into this realm would depend on the amount of good karma accumulated within ones lifetime. The Buddha said not to believe what he says, but he also told everyone to test out what he said for themselves to see whether it was true for them or not. Theres only one way to test if you are going to be reincarnated in heavely realms and that is to follow the path and do good.
zen699 1 year ago
@zen699 There is much disagreement on what the Buddha actually said. It is very likely that the majority of what has been attributed to him was written by others. We just do not have adequate information to create a historical Buddha. What the real Buddha was like and what he actually said will remain forever unknown. It is better to see Buddhism as a philosophical/religious tradition of multiple denominations. Like with everything, it is best to take what works for you and leave the rest.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@slaughtz What the Buddha actually said is irrelevant. Here's what I think is relevant (for me). There are four self-evident truths that are largely denied. 1. Life is not what it is cracked up to be. It is inherently disappointing and frustrating with inevitable physical and emotional pain. 2. People attempt to deny this with greed, perfectionism, grandiosity, and hurting others. This makes their pain worse. 3. Giving up greed etc reduces pain. 4. It requires discipline. Ring true for you?
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@SkepticSage I agree with #1 and #4 to alleviate suffering. #2, I see a connection, but from my perspective it is a very fragile one. It just seems to me that what you listed could be flipped around to instead be an acknowledgment of that pain and a way of dealing with it. #3, I hope yes, giving up ever present greed would reduce pain; not sure. The reason for my skepticism is that for the past couple of months I have been talking with sociopaths. That would be a tangent, though.
slaughtz 1 year ago
@zen699 An example of someone's teachings being separate from what they claim to know on a personal level is that whether a mathematics teacher believes in God, doesn't believe in God, or believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster has no effect on the accuracy and legitimacy of what they're teaching. In other words, criticize the teachings, not the man who teaches.
slaughtz 1 year ago
@slaughtz Indeed.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@SkepticSage Why some buddists want to believe in rebirth? I think Buddha was talking and studing about paranirvana.Why that superficial view is so present in ˝buddhism˝?
ProtivLazi 10 months ago
@ProtivLazi Humans beleive much based on conditioning, tradition, what makes them feel good, etc. Rarely do people beleive due to logic or observation. In fact, many people who use words like science and logic, do not truly know what they mean.
SkepticSage 10 months ago
God is real.Please dont come off as intelligent it is not an athiest trait
WildernessTree 1 year ago
@WildernessTree So let me get this straight. Just saying "God is real" without evidence is intelligent but pointing out the lack of evidence is unintelligent. If atheism is not associated with intelligence, why are most scientists atheists? Why is there a correlation between higher education and skepticism/disbelief.
SkepticSage 1 year ago 6
@SkepticSage I'm pretty sure about half of scientists are atheists
lookatmepleasesir 5 months ago
@lookatmepleasesir The studies I read in college had the percentage as much higher. Over 90%. The more educated the scientists the higher the percentage. Among Nobel prize winners it is over 95%
outlawleather 5 months ago
@SkepticSage great that you like buddhism..so do I and I am agnostic. But the Buddha did teach that there was a eternal soul ,but no eternal self. Buddha said anihilation and nihilism is wrongview. Also Buddha taught there is rebirth of the SOUL. Buddhism is the only religion I like and I have alot of buddhist scripture. Buddha was the teacher of gods and men. buddha walked on water. buddha was not atheist..the only way to get that from buddhist scripture is by not reading it.
DarkBeauty1989 4 months ago
@DarkBeauty1989 Just because the Buddha spoke against nihilism doesn't mean he said there is a soul. All nihilism means is that life has no objective value. As far as rebirth, again, he did not say "soul." He left that for others to experience by mere observation that our life as we know it ends (impermanence) and then we change form like compost for other life and matter. This cycle be scientifically observed- ou matter does not "go away", but rather change form. A soul or "god" is irrelevant.
RipTheSystem33 3 months ago
@RipTheSystem33 The Buddha said annihilation was wrong view. Buddha said there is rebirth of the eternal soul. The mind is the soul btw. Why do you think buddhism has several realms of rebirth-Nirvana,hell,heaven,demon,ghost,animal? KARMA? Please read buddhist scripture cause it does not support the view that there is no life after death. The buddha said there is a eternal soul but no eternal self/ego.
DarkBeauty1989 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarkBeauty1989 "Please read buddhist scripture cause it does not support the view that there is no life after death. The buddha said there is a eternal soul..."
I've read buddhist scripture at length and I would like to know where you find the Buddha's mention of a "soul," as you say. The Mahakammavibhanga Sutta, Kukkuravatika Sutta, and Sankha Sutta are the main references to rebirth, yet none of them mention a soul. Neither do the rest. They do mention a continuing consciousness.
RipTheSystem33 3 months ago
Loved this video. I've been flirting with Buddhism for some time now and I wish I could embrace any vehicle of it. However, in all three I always run into something that is clearly absurd/mythology which drags down the more logical/philosophical parts that I enjoy.
HeroesofApostasy 1 year ago
Great video, learned alot! Thanks!
Deadleader555 1 year ago
taoists believe in all kinds of gods, shintoism is based on the foundation of worshiping local spirits (the kami) not to be rude but this video has way too many errors in it to be taken seriously at all.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan I was talking about philosophical Taoism. Gods were added to Taoism later as was true for Buddhism. If you listen to the video you will see that I am talking about these philosophies as they are originally described, not as they were elaborated upon later. The Tao Te Ching makes no mention of gods that I know of. The Buddha discusses gods in passing and does not encourage worship. But again, much has been attributed to the Buddha that he himself never said.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@SkepticSage good lord i need to stop working on my computer so long, instant responses...buddha didn't just talk about gods in passing, he talks directly about, them, talks about how you can be reborn into their realms, etc, huge difference. as far as what buddha did or did not say, how do you know? so, you assume anything supernatural was added, on what basis? to use the oft used example, newton was a genius, yet believed in alchemy...
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan Original Taoists mentioned no gods, they only added gods later, much later. The Buddha mentions gods, but in passing. The creation of a Buddhist pantheon came long after the Buddhas death. You only think I am being inaccurate because you and I are relying on different sources.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@SkepticSage "You only think I am being inaccurate because you and I are relying on different sources" i'm relying on the Pali Canon, the oldest extent collection of texts we know of on the budda's teaching. in that canon, he talks about brahma(s), indra, vishnu, tree spirits (yakshas) multitudes of god realms, the deeds one can do to be reborn there, etc. as for the "buddhist pantheon" you have the mahayana pantheon of bodhisattvas/buddhas, etc, which are quite different.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan But there is no evidence that the pali canon is true. As late as the early 1900's Theravada Buddhists declared that there was no god. Many Buddhists are atheist to this day. Dali Lama says Buddhist gods are only representations of mental states. Again, you are taking one perspective on Buddhism and treating it like it is THE perspective on Buddhism. The truth is that we have now way to know what the Buddha said or did not say and opinions vary, especially amongst Buddhists.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
"the dalai lama is an atheist" totally false. time and time again i see claims like this from atheists that are just wrong about buddhism. "The intermediate being has all five senses, but also clairvoyance, unobstructiveness and an ability to arrive immediately wherever he or she wants. He or she sees other intermediate beings of his or her own type— hell-being, hungry ghost, animal, human, demigod or god—and can be seen by clairvoyants" dalai lama: Death, Intermediate State and Rebirth
BillKiernan 1 year ago
the dalai lama says those gods are representations of phsychological phenomena? this is typical selling of the religion to skeptics. if this were true, he wouldn't have put a ban on Dorje Shugden worship, saying by worshipping that deity his life would be endangered. shugden is seen as a demon (of sorts) that is very much alive and real and has the ability to physically harm people. that's just the tip of the iceburg. modern buddhists are great salesmen.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
There's no "known" Gods..exactly. Do you expect Him to just appear and say "there's no need for faith anymore"?
compsciguy 1 year ago
@compsciguy As a matter of fact, YES I DO!!! The fact that god does not show himself shows he is either an idiot or that he doesn't care. Since both attributes are inconstant with our definition of god, god does not exist.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@compsciguy "Do you expect Him to just appear and say "there's no need for faith anymore"?" that would be a great start actually, and not much to ask. if someone/something wants me to believe, it's only common courtesy to show up and have a chat.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
What I have noticed is that many Atheist critics of Buddhism seem to take isolated examples of people, places and things and somehow try to define Buddhism with it. ("This Buddhist figure... this temple... etc) That heavily flawed approach sounds eerily familiar to me, considering I live in a country with a large population of biblical literalists.
RipTheSystem33 1 year ago
I was also disappointed that the "philosopher's walk" at the Buddhist temple next to my apartment when I lived with Japan was lined with bronze busts of the rich BUSINESSMEN that donated money to the temple. It's complex, and I have very complex feelings about Buddhism after almost 20 years of Buddhist study of the spectrum of sects.
bundangbear 1 year ago
Your thoughts are really right. Buddhism is NOT a "theism," as in Buddha is not worshiped, nor is he a Western analog of "god." I do, however, think some sects have become monk-worshiping serfdoms, which are would-be theocracies.
bundangbear 1 year ago
A well spoken video. Nice job... ^^
rfwelsh 1 year ago
Fascism isn't a form of atheism. Otherwise, decent enough video.
crestrisen 1 year ago
it always amuses me that people fail to realize that the Buddha proclaimed his way to be the only way to liberation, and fiercly criticized all other paths of his time, and admonished his followers to not follow other paths, besides his own.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan It would be interesting to know where you get your source for this contention. If this cotnention is true (which I am not disagreeing with), it is very telling about the corruption that naturally occurs in persons who have power, including the Buddha. If one has people's ear, it becomes very easy to go from saying you have A way to saying you have THE way.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@SkepticSage it's from the Lion's Roar Sutta, but he says similar things in many parts of the Pali Canon. ""Bhikkhus, only here is there a recluse, only here a second recluse, only here a third recluse, only here a fourth recluse. The doctrines of others are devoid of recluses: that is how you should rightly roar your lion's roar" majjima nikaya 11
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@SkepticSage in the same sutta, Buddha lists all the supernatural powers he has. I understand that among the world religions, buddhism really stands out because of the attitude of open inquiry, and the ability to take useful practices and discard others (for one that is not a card carrying buddhist). but the idea that it's an "anything goes" atheistic, humanistic philosophy is a widespread myth these days (not saying you say those things)
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan I think we need to make a distinction between the modern philosophical, psychological, and psychotherapeutic western traditions that has emerged around Buddhist concepts and actual Buddhism as it actually existed 500 BC. They are very different. This difference is overlook, I beleive.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SkepticSage "They are very different. This difference is overlook, I beleive" Indeed. But it's also important to note that the western tradition you describe is the minority, and a small one. Most Buddhists practicing in asian countries practice in a very orthodox, traditional, religious way. but yes, there is quite a bit of difference between the two.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@SkepticSage just re-watched this (paraphrasing) "he spoke about god beliefs as other people's beliefs" no, he spoke about gods as if they existed. he even spoke about how to be reborn into their realms. and "embrace the fact that we can't know anything" completely false. he spoke about the ability to know everything. and spoke of his own ability to recollect his past lives, see the birth and death of all beings, knwoing of the formation and dissoluton of worlds, etc. etc.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@SkepticSage "It would be interesting to know where you get your source for this contention" the lion's roar sutta is a good start. and don't you think it's a little disingenous to automatically chalk up anything you don't agree with to a cultural accretion or "corruption." the guy lived 2500 years ago, he could very well have believed all this stuff, in fact, it's the most likely explanation.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
True that the Buddha taught that his was the only path to the liberation that he defined, false that he "fiercely criticized all other paths of his time". He was hard on any doctrine that resulted in amoral behavior, but not only encouraged laypeople to follow the wisdom of the day in terms of karma and the earning of merit, but when he conversed with kings and laypeople he spoke using the religious terms they were comfortable with. Tolerance was key to his success.
justalittledust 1 year ago
@justalittledust "false that he "fiercely criticized all other paths of his time"" would you like me to cite you the texts where he does a run-down of every single path being taught at the time, the jains, brahminical teachings, nihilists, the masters he previously followed, the acetics, etc and refutes every single one of them?
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan No thanks, as I know those suttas well. I did say that he was hard on any doctrine that resulted in amoral behavior. He did also point out the failures in the other systems -- why would he not do that? But what I also see in reading the suttas is that again and again and again he talks about karma and rebirth as positive views though they are clearly not *his* view. He speaks in the language of the followers, encouraging them. It's false leaders he trounces.
justalittledust 1 year ago
@justalittledust "he talks about karma and rebirth as positive views though they are clearly not *his* view" ok, this is patently false. he didn't teach karma and rebirth as realities? you've got to be joking.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan Takes a little, okay, a *lot* of reading and not a little time sitting on the cushion to see what's going on but, no, I'm not joking. Time and again you'll see that when he is talking about karma and rebirth he is talking to believers in karma and rebirth. He is "speaking in their own language". He's translating from "Buddha-think" to "Brahmin-speak". He's actively NOT alienating his audience, but cajolling them into giving his method a try.
justalittledust 1 year ago
@justalittledust "and what is wrong view? ...there is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. there is not this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings, no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next having DIRECTLY KNOWN AND REALIZED FOR THEMSELVEDS.' this is wrong view 'mn117
BillKiernan 1 year ago
Yes. Exactly. Those denying claims re: karma, rebirth, ancestor worship, deities, & monks who say they've been to the other side have wrong view & the reason is because folks who dissed everyone's beliefs displayed a lack of morality. Having stated it's wrong to dismiss the views of those trying to lead a moral life, Buddha is not going to dis karma, rebirth or any of the other beliefs. But that same sutta has those "right views" as tainted. His right view is supermundane, above all that.
justalittledust 1 year ago
@justalittledust "But that same sutta has those "right views" as tainted. His right view is supermundane, above all that" it describes the views as tainted because they are coupled with attachment, wherein the thatagata has no attachment to views. nevertheless, for common sentient beings, rebirth is a reality for them, they experience it, death doesn't take away suffering for them, they continue on. this is his teaching everywhere in the suttas.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@justalittledust if the buddha's teaching were that death ends suffering for everyone, then you can acheive instant release from all suffering by blowing one's brains out. but the buddha did not teach that death is the end, the game only ends when one fully realizes.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@justalittledust now, most likely you will counter with "birth and death are metaphors." this is not possible in all cases why? because on several occaisions the buddha speaks about people who have LITERALLY died. they are dead, and he talks about where they have been reborn. and, in a sutta (i can find it if i look around, been a while" he actually defines what he means by birth, old age, sickness, death. he defines the terms he uses. and describes death as the death of the physical body
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan Actually, that literal description is Sariputta's. The Pali canon is VAST, man, vast. It's also 2,500 years old. Just like the bible, we can justify anything with it. It's self-contradictory in hundreds of places. I am sure you must know it cannot be a perfect transmission of what the buddha said and as well that these talks were not all given simultaneously to one person, they represent Gotama's evolving understanding, changing techniques, different audiences.
justalittledust 1 year ago
@justalittledust "Actually, that literal description is Sariputta's." i know which sutta you're talking about but there are others where the buddha states something similar. i agree it's not the perfect transmission of what he said, but you can't write off the stacks of pages where he talks about literal rebirth and just claim all that is added on, it just doesn't fit with the rest of the message to do so. gotama didn't see his understanding as "evolving" he saw his enligtenment as final.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
This is why it's critical to study the whole thing, to try to figure out how it all fits, & to do this with an open mind. Sorting it out isn't easy , but if we look at what the Buddha said most often, & to his highest disciples (not to monks in general, kings, Brahmins) & most vehemently to his monks ("see it for yourselves, don't go on what others say, don't even go on what *I* say") it becomes quite clear he was not teaching anything you cannot see for yourself.
justalittledust 1 year ago
@justalittledust the thing i find strange is this modern attempt to deslect the majority of the canon like this. and also to talk as if masters and exegetes for 2500 years, from the sarvastivadin/theravadin exegetes/abhidammikas to nagarjuna etc. etc., many masters of several source languages, somehow overlooked that buddha didn't really teach literal rebirth, karma, the 6 realms. none of them understoood that it's all about this life and it's all psychologial states?
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan It's not a "modern attempt" -- there were divisions in the sangha over what the Buddha taught beginning as he died. Maybe it's time we take this offline before we bore the masses?
justalittledust 1 year ago
@justalittledust haha, yeah, we should. but for now i need to get back to work anyway. but as a quick reply, there were divisions, but they were not over the teaching of rebirth, or the 6 realms. that was a non-issue until buddhism came into contact with modernity and scientific discovery. in my travels and study i never once found an ancient source, or a source from less than 100 years ago (most of those who questioned rebirth were zen folks) who questioned rebirth.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan How do you know that's all the divisions were about? Because the winners who believed the Buddha was talking about karma and rebirth wrote the history?
justalittledust 1 year ago
@justalittledust "How do you know that's all the divisions were about?" the losers didn't just die off, they continued for a time with their own shastras and traditions. none of the ones that survived denied rebirth. in fact the pugdalavadins, one of the outcast offshoots, concocted a kind of soul to help explain rebirth better. as far as i know there were no materialist/annihilationist (wrong views according to buddha) sects whose contention was "buddha didn't teach rebirth"
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan Bill, think! Where do you get the information about these sects that "survived for a while"? Where is that written? Sure we "know all this" from history. What history? It's written in the Pali canon and nowhere else!
justalittledust 1 year ago
@justalittledust "Where do you get the information about these sects that "survived for a while"?" from their own writings. some of them "survive" in small ways within living traditions. an example of this would be the sarvastivadins, mahasamghikas, etc.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan Citations, please?
justalittledust 1 year ago
@justalittledust for taoists and shinto you mean?
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@justalittledust You can simply read any basic book on the Tao Te Ching or original Buddhism. There is very little disagreement in the literature on what I have said. You can find a book that will corroborate all of this at Barnes and Nobel for about 6 bucks. Again, everything I have said is basic scholarship you can get in an introductory course on eastern philosophy at any local community college. There is nothing controversial about what I have said.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SkepticSage "Again, everything I have said is basic scholarship you can get in an introductory course on eastern philosophy at any local community college. There is nothing controversial about what I have said" sorry, you make a lot of claims about what the buddha said in this video that are flat out wrong. perhaps barnes and noble is the problem. i studied buddhism as a practitioner for over 10 years, majored in religious studies with a focus on eastern religions, etc.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@justalittledust i mean we can do that, or speculate that there were unnamed anti-rebirth schismatic sects that no one has any written record of, but, i mean, that's reaching don't you think? maybe, and maybe there were sects that thought buddha was an alien, i mean once you go down that road we get into consiracy theory zone. it very well could be, but we have no proof of it whatsoever. and usually opponents views are trotted out to be attacked, we find nothing about anti-rebirth sects
BillKiernan 1 year ago
No need to go there, Bill, because there are other methods. I have a great deal of respect for those who put so much effort into passing on what the Buddha taught as best they understood it. It is clear to me how faithful was their intention in conveying to us what they remembered of his words, and his life. What he said is in there, we have only to read it and test it to see it.
justalittledust 1 year ago
@justalittledust But we must also remember that we have limited historical evidence about what the Buddha actually said. We know for a fact that many sacred writings attributed to the Budhha were written centuries alter after his death. Buddhists themselves disagree on what is canon and what is not (like all religions). All religions are mythological and are philosophies created in committee by many unknown persons, split into numerous disagreeing denominations.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@justalittledust But we have no way to know if the pali canon is accurate. Not that it matters. All philosophies and beleifs must stand on their own and should not contradict our own logic and common sense. We should not rely on authority or the written word. You know, I think I remember someone saying this before, oh yeah, the Buddha is reported to have given this advice (if in fact he DID say it at all). What matters is what works for us now.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@SkepticSage "What matters is what works for us now" right, so my whole contention is saying with an air of authority "buddha said this, buddha thought this way" which you do all over this video. all we know is wha the scriptures, and the living traditions say. both contradict some key things you state here. to simply say anything that doesn't agree with your views are add-ons, is a bit disingenuous. the dalai lama is an atheist towards the christian god, by no means towards other gods, at all
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan You misunderstand. I am saying that the entire Pali canon is an add on. This is what you are missing. The idea that the Buddha was not a theist is as much an add on as anything. But that is not the point of my video. Many scholars make the claim that the Buddha was uninterested in theism, I am simply echoing their claims. There is no way to know since the writings about the Buddha were written long after his death and contradict each other. Buddhism is not by necessity theistic.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@BillKiernan To elaborate. Many scholars say the basic beleifs of Buddhism are: Life is suffering. Suffering is cause by desire and ignorance. Impermanence is a central/inevitable feature of existence. Acceptance and mindfulness are necessary for happiness. None of these ideas necessarily requires theistic beleifs. None of these ideas involves veneration or worship. In scripture Buddha is asked if he is a god, he said "no." When asked what he was he said, "I am awake."
SkepticSage 1 year ago