He does not portray Buddha as bad or Buddhists as bad nor did he challenge any of Buddhas teachings. He only challenged our image of Buddha, which many have great attachement to, as relatively poor and unconcerned with money and law. Considering he was the son of a King, it stands to reason he had a good grasp of law, economics and government. I am sure that although he had no attachment these things he understood the practical necessity of dealing with them.
As a Buddhist businessman, I liked this. The Buddhas purpose and mission are neglected here. That being ending suffering with as a bodhisattva would. He was a master in the both purposes of self and other. He wasnt in it solely for the owners benefit. I doubt he charged fixed fees for services, but an open bid for his time. The sangha is closer akin to the co-operative. The Sambhogakaya forms are closest to the legal entities today. That he was a fair property judge is refreshing.
Buddhist here. I really enjoyed this video and its information. I don't think Schopen is trying to "degrade" Buddhism. If his tone is cynical, I suspect it's because he's trying to counter the Western trend of ignorantly exoticizing Indian culture and Eastern religion. But nothing he says is offensive. It's well known that many early monasteries became quite wealthy (to their own detriment, if you ask me), and even the most devout and frugal monasteries had to deal with the realities of rent.
This lecture depicts Buddhism in a more real way than it is shown in movies or most documentaries. “Buddhist scriptures describe secular millionaires as being of good family, possessing wealth, having dignity, being pure in their actions, exhibiting proper manners, and enjoying great prestige…” Based on my Buddhist faith I constantly endeavor to develop the qualities of these millionaires, who were wealthy not only in money but in virtues…
It would be nice if the texts used as reference were given in some way. It is very fascinating - like the elephant trunk poster. I haven't heard that before. A list of sources would help. Great talk thankyou .
Some of the points in the lecture are controversial, which I have no knowledge as a Theravada Buddhist for almost 35 years. Therefore, it is best if the sutta or the source of quotations from Buddhist teachings/literature is clearly mentioned. Sanga for example is a community not an enterprise/corporation. Buddha acknowledged sanga's responsibility towards their parents, because taking care of the parents is a highly regarded merit in Buddhism, unlike the western world where elderly parents are neglected. I would say the arguments are not substantiated with evidence.
Schopen says several times "After the Buddha's death"; Most early Manuscripts describe his disappearance as a parinirvana. Applying the philological approach, 'parinirvana' means something like "on the borders of nirvana". Without citing any particular dictionary it is good to remember that many of the Buddhist traditions begin when Buddha turns his back away from (para) nirvana
I've been a Kyoshi (teachings master) of a major tradition of Japanese Buddhism since 1972, before that earning a MA in a Japanese Buddhist graduate program. Decades of primary research done the old fashion way within the tradition establishes this much about Greg's work: he's right on the money, much to the embarrassment of Western colonialist reductionist interpretation. What a breath of fresh air!
Prof. Schopen shows a seal in the video which I think is significant but not connected to Gotama's time. Numerous Persepolis tablets mention Suddayauda Saramana who I think is Suddhodana whose seal PFS 32 is famous. I have surmised that the seal PFS 79 belongs to Sedda Saramana or Sedda arta.
I want to say something about Gotama Buddha and taxes. If we give up the bad habit of associating Gotama Buddha with Nepal he can be seen to be same as Gaumata of the Behistun inscription. Herodotus wrote that Gomata was widely popular and M. Dandamayev notes that he was a reformer who had freed slaves and waived taxes. This gives a very different picture of Gotama Buddha the Businessman.
@@aryankarki7900 It should work where the monks own nothing but the Sangha, which includes ley people does. The ley people are supposed to be managing all aspects of money. Unfortunately the idea and reality are not always the same. The Buddha himself, despite what was said in this video never addressed how to maintain a monastery because there wasn't one while he was alive. The monks where wandering ascetics during his life, moving from place to place as the seasons changed.
One problem in western have is they try to interpret everything in their own way. If buddist was businessmen, why did he left palace. As main goal of businessmen is to earn profit and what sorts of business he was doing by leaving every wealth in the palace. Bullshit interpretation but I think he read lots of buddhist books.
The title being Buddha as a Businessman and not Buddha was a Businessman may be twofold. One it is a catchy title. Secondly looking at the early buddhist monastic scene when dealing with money and property in practical business sense. Myself also a follower of the teachings, found this video very informative and the questions here touch on the nature of reality and truth if you reconsider the buddha's teachings. The buddha from the texts would only fault them for not pointing to liberation.
This seems to me to be a historical exploration into the Buddha's business dealings and related skillful business acumen - not a degradation of the Buddha, himself. But, it does point to the possibility that we are today, possibly operating from some mis- perceptions about money in relation to spiritual pursuits.
there might be some truth to this. i sometimes come across things that makes me really question what early buddhism was really about. like, how the first monastery was gotten through placing gold coins all over the surface area. or how the history has been altered...but what is his reference material? ...there seems to be huge discrepancies between the buddha's agamas, and the rest of the pali cannon. i sort of feel, that what this professor is talking about, is more about an era in buddhist history, then the historical buddha.
when were you last in a university? most of them cetainly fall into the "money-seeking business organisation" category. He's a historian, he clearly states what the sources are and when they date from. Siddhattha Gotama was a nobleman, came from an aristocratic family, was trained in law, and affairs of the state, and personally enaged with the rulers of the day. Why do you believe mudane affairs would have been beneath him if spreading dhamma was his primary concern?
A lot of triggered buddhists here. Your assumptions are contributing to your suffering. Better to abandon them and acknowledge evidence of what is said. (Hint: It helps to read in the original language and meaning rather than your interpretations of translations. But I warn you, it won't appear so holy and ascetic)
No I don't think he is. Rather he is trying to upgrade the status of Buddhist wisdom above the status of spiritual, which would be very low amongst economists and adherents of hard science, and elevate it to the level of advice with factual repercussions, which would be of more value to them.
He's not talking about the actual, historical Buddha (which, he says, would be impossible due to the lack of evidence). He's talking about the Buddha as conceived by early Buddhists, a couple hundred years after the Buddha's death. He says it's just one of many conceptions of the Buddha, but it's one that has been neglected by Western scholarship.
Even they don’t say shit like this. I am a sri lankan buddhist from birth. We are not like this. Yes really feel sorry about this person whoever he is. Therawada is actually a very wise religion although i am more of believer in his actual words about 4 noble truths and the quote “everything changes”. That’s universe in two words.
earthly desires are a main theme in buddhism. hinayana teachings see earthly desires as something to shun. mahayana teachings see earthly desires and enlightenment as one, but thats not to say that the buddha was a greedy miser concerned only with wealth. i hope his guy knows that buddhism is pragmatic and vigorous and of this world. its true that too many seem to see it as some introspective newage mumbo dumbo zen like closing off of oneself from the world. which it isn't.
true knowledge seeker will study where the knowledge or what we used to called modern science came from. i assured you that most of those are czme from india;
In retrospect I'm struggling to understand the point of what he's saying at all. He didn't open up by explaining whatever it is he is trying to demonstrate or why and the content I have heard so far is far from timely. Anybody else with a clue about this talk, thanks?
Right, this being in an educational setting, doing anything like degrading any good image of a major religion would be akin to academic suicide. He mentions that money as the root of evil in the western concept. But asks us to reconsider good = 0 money from the ancient Indian, Buddhist cultural context.
the part where he is talking about 10'000'000 gold coins, the number 10'000'000 is an ancient hindu one referring to all things. to the unity of all things. like in the Rama story where Rama "returns" to the 10'ooo things. both numbers are sort of arbitrary, as to denote "all of." ...it's sort of like he either doesn't entirely know buddhism, or he is deliberately taking jabs at it....but then again, without the source material(unless, he is simply concluding from plaques his own deductions without any real knowledge of Buddhist practice.)...that being said, there may not be sufficient information to make a sufficient argument either pro or con, to what ancient buddhism was really about. or how money and sex was actually involved. and there may be some twisting about of things like sex, money, and order of like. those may not actually apply to monastics, but i could see how those would be very relevant to lay people. plus too, i've never heard of any connection between the kama sutta, and buddhism. that's a first for me. but i have heard that merchants and buddhism, and the spread of buddhism, are closely linked together. but then too, that is period after shakyamuni(as far as i know.) ...which really sucks. because i wish i did know as to satisfy my own curiosity. it may be, the really history of the Shakayamuni, and his teachings, are either completely lost, or totally bastardized at this point.
and his lecture is so verbose, it may be only schopen that truly understands what he is talking about l0l! it's almost like he's not using english anymore.
and too, in some ways, buddhism isn't different than anything else. it's totally as corruptible as any other philosophy, practice, or religion. simply because it is a by product of humanity.
See sujato (dot) wordpress (dot) com and search for "The Ironic Assumptions of Gregory Schopen" for a monk's commentary on topics included in this video.
Great comment, alovelytime. There's also Dzogchen and Vajayana .... plus there are many Buddhas ... as Buddhists who do their homework know. I'm weary of new age nitwits.
Well...this is one of the MOST revelatory peaces of information I have heard for years. Very interesting indeed...How extraordinary that we have all been 'hoodwinked' for so long by airy fairy buddhism...when all along the truth is very other. No wonder those squatting men look so well fed and smug...
Many people look at what Buddhism ask of them and they find themselves lacking. Instead of trying to improve themselves, they set out to tear down Buddhism. For some people this is apparently easier than changing themselves. Why spend so much time talking about the Karma Sutra when it was written by a Hindu and not a Buddhist monk, unless your intent is to taint through association. This would be like judging Christianity for the Greek belief in Zeus. He fails to mention there where dozens of Buddhist schools, undoubtedly each with it's flaws. Instead he takes every flaw and with a broad stroke applies them to all of Buddhism. Worse, history has shown the monastic branches which where not following the teachings about money and poverty are the one which died out. Hence the monks which spread and survived where the ones who followed the teachings about austerity. It seem very dishonest when there all multiple text that have one message, consistent through time and across geography to ignore that message for a singular example from an extinct version of Buddhism. Thousands of text show the Buddha with no possessions but a robe and an alms bowl, spend a lecture going over a handful of text, from extinct schools of Buddhism no less, showing him with money. As for the Buddha as a banker, this is just silly. Why make the tenth precept, precepts are for Buddhism like the ten commandments are for Christians, never handling Gold or Silver? Why make rules forbidden owning property? For the speaker to say there wasn't reprimand for owning property is just a lie. Judging Buddhism by the monks that didn't uphold the standard is like judging the teachings of Christ by the Mega churches in the US. People like the Buddha and Jesus taught and practiced a very difficult life. When judging a faith, you don't look at the people who fail to attain it you look at the goal and the people who created it. As for there being no core Buddhist text, this simply isn't true. There are four main Books in early Buddhism acknowledged by all Buddhist and the are consistent across languages.. My guess is he is trying to compare Buddhism to Christianity. In Christianity's early history an orthodoxy was established and all contradictory text where destroyed, leaving the New Testament as the only text. Buddhist choose to preserve everything and destroy nothing, let each person choose for themselves what should be orthodox. It needs to be pointed out, he seems to be conflating stories of the Buddha's past lives with the life of a Buddha. You would think a Buddhist scholar would understand the concept of reincarnation/rebirth. It is very dishonest, basically lying, to refer to the Sangha as a corporation. The term Sangha in ancient India meant to come together, a group or heap. It has nothing to do with business. The speaker is using the term corporate to denigrate Buddhism, I'm not really sure what his motivation is. He gives lip service to the fact that after the Buddha's death people put words in his mouth, then he applies no common sense as to which words where spoken by the Buddha and when he was used as a mouth piece. A simple fact, there where no large monasteries while the Buddha was alive, these didn't start till hundreds of years after his death, so how could the Buddha be giving decrees about how they should be run? This is one of the most dishonest things I've seen on RUclips.
Maybe i'm not westerner so I don't clearly understand what he want to explain. This might be reason why I cannot understand Western way of thought, and this might be reason why Western don't understand the Oriental way
what do you mean To say buddha is a bussiness man. ? Yoyu are learning from buddhism and coding him as a bussinessman. i am a BUddhism but we never tought jesus was a fiction. FIRSTLY LEARN YOUR OWN history
The only big difference was heinous casteism. Except that most of the philosophical discourse was similar in Buddhism and Brahminism. Brahminism is nothing but appropriation of every available knowledge with their own twisted touch
Historic Buddha had renounced all belongings except alms bowl robe and medicine. Most "buddha" quoted by u were not historic buddha. Schopen mixed up d.
This is just academic fad! If you cannot convince others, just confuse them! This is the motto of some so called scholars! They are not scholars but 'atee pundit' as said in a story of JATAKA.
IF one donot want to teach then confuse other..... (Jataka tales stories ). I knw Indian history personally verywell. To me he is very confused about subject itself.
i got it. he's a part time clown working for a circus & a full time professor. or is it the other way around? his tie & hair proves the clown theory. the second theory - this is a talk sponsored by a reborn christian church. it's a toss up.
He does not portray Buddha as bad or Buddhists as bad nor did he challenge any of Buddhas teachings. He only challenged our image of Buddha, which many have great attachement to, as relatively poor and unconcerned with money and law. Considering he was the son of a King, it stands to reason he had a good grasp of law, economics and government. I am sure that although he had no attachment these things he understood the practical necessity of dealing with them.
As a Buddhist businessman, I liked this. The Buddhas purpose and mission are neglected here. That being ending suffering with as a bodhisattva would. He was a master in the both purposes of self and other. He wasnt in it solely for the owners benefit. I doubt he charged fixed fees for services, but an open bid for his time. The sangha is closer akin to the co-operative. The Sambhogakaya forms are closest to the legal entities today. That he was a fair property judge is refreshing.
Buddhist here. I really enjoyed this video and its information. I don't think Schopen is trying to "degrade" Buddhism. If his tone is cynical, I suspect it's because he's trying to counter the Western trend of ignorantly exoticizing Indian culture and Eastern religion. But nothing he says is offensive. It's well known that many early monasteries became quite wealthy (to their own detriment, if you ask me), and even the most devout and frugal monasteries had to deal with the realities of rent.
I think he is also misprinting the facts and the meanings of those status.
This lecture depicts Buddhism in a more real way than it is shown in movies or most documentaries. “Buddhist scriptures describe secular millionaires as being of good family, possessing wealth, having dignity, being pure in their actions, exhibiting proper manners, and enjoying great prestige…” Based on my Buddhist faith I constantly endeavor to develop the qualities of these millionaires, who were wealthy not only in money but in virtues…
then why he went into forest in search of truth. You are brain drain,
It would be nice if the texts used as reference were given in some way. It is very fascinating - like the elephant trunk poster. I haven't heard that before. A list of sources would help. Great talk thankyou .
I think business is completely acceptable to Buddhist ethics if it's a 'win-win' transaction.
Some of the points in the lecture are controversial, which I have no knowledge as a Theravada Buddhist for almost 35 years. Therefore, it is best if the sutta or the source of quotations from Buddhist teachings/literature is clearly mentioned. Sanga for example is a community not an enterprise/corporation. Buddha acknowledged sanga's responsibility towards their parents, because taking care of the parents is a highly regarded merit in Buddhism, unlike the western world where elderly parents are neglected. I would say the arguments are not substantiated with evidence.
Schopen says several times "After the Buddha's death"; Most early Manuscripts describe his disappearance as a parinirvana. Applying the philological approach, 'parinirvana' means something like "on the borders of nirvana". Without citing any particular dictionary it is good to remember that many of the Buddhist traditions begin when Buddha turns his back away from (para) nirvana
he wasn't diassappear ; you can go there at Kushal Nagar, you can see whole
I've been a Kyoshi (teachings master) of a major tradition of Japanese Buddhism since 1972, before that earning a MA in a Japanese Buddhist graduate program. Decades of primary research done the old fashion way within the tradition establishes this much about Greg's work: he's right on the money, much to the embarrassment of Western colonialist reductionist interpretation. What a breath of fresh air!
kayoneill01 Agree!
Avery good facts with evidence from the lecturer/ professor. Thank you!
Prof. Schopen shows a seal in the video which I think is significant but not connected to Gotama's time. Numerous Persepolis tablets mention Suddayauda Saramana who I think is Suddhodana whose seal PFS 32 is famous. I have surmised that the seal PFS 79 belongs to Sedda Saramana or Sedda arta.
I want to say something about Gotama Buddha and taxes. If we give up the bad habit of associating Gotama Buddha with Nepal he can be seen to be same as Gaumata of the Behistun inscription. Herodotus wrote that Gomata was widely popular and M. Dandamayev notes that he was a reformer who had freed slaves and waived taxes. This gives a very different picture of Gotama Buddha the Businessman.
Ranajit Pal Why Dalai Lama not following Buddhist Economy?
Ranajit Pal ji you are right .
@@aryankarki7900 It should work where the monks own nothing but the Sangha, which includes ley people does. The ley people are supposed to be managing all aspects of money. Unfortunately the idea and reality are not always the same. The Buddha himself, despite what was said in this video never addressed how to maintain a monastery because there wasn't one while he was alive. The monks where wandering ascetics during his life, moving from place to place as the seasons changed.
One problem in western have is they try to interpret everything in their own way. If buddist was businessmen, why did he left palace. As main goal of businessmen is to earn profit and what sorts of business he was doing by leaving every wealth in the palace. Bullshit interpretation but I think he read lots of buddhist books.
A very good talk, Now I understand how Buddhism spread !
wow,mind blowing subject,lecture.
Too awesome
The title being Buddha as a Businessman and not Buddha was a Businessman may be twofold. One it is a catchy title. Secondly looking at the early buddhist monastic scene when dealing with money and property in practical business sense. Myself also a follower of the teachings, found this video very informative and the questions here touch on the nature of reality and truth if you reconsider the buddha's teachings. The buddha from the texts would only fault them for not pointing to liberation.
these are cristian who are jealeouse. Let them express and show thier charazcters
?? There was no writing in the time of the Buddha.
This seems to me to be a historical exploration into the Buddha's business dealings and related skillful business acumen - not a degradation of the Buddha, himself. But, it does point to the possibility that we are today, possibly operating from some mis- perceptions about money in relation to spiritual pursuits.
there might be some truth to this. i sometimes come across things that makes me really question what early buddhism was really about. like, how the first monastery was gotten through placing gold coins all over the surface area. or how the history has been altered...but what is his reference material? ...there seems to be huge discrepancies between the buddha's agamas, and the rest of the pali cannon. i sort of feel, that what this professor is talking about, is more about an era in buddhist history, then the historical buddha.
when were you last in a university? most of them cetainly fall into the "money-seeking business organisation" category. He's a historian, he clearly states what the sources are and when they date from. Siddhattha Gotama was a nobleman, came from an aristocratic family, was trained in law, and affairs of the state, and personally enaged with the rulers of the day. Why do you believe mudane affairs would have been beneath him if spreading dhamma was his primary concern?
It would have been much better if the speaker used less ego. It made the presentation less enjoyable.
A lot of triggered buddhists here. Your assumptions are contributing to your suffering. Better to abandon them and acknowledge evidence of what is said. (Hint: It helps to read in the original language and meaning rather than your interpretations of translations. But I warn you, it won't appear so holy and ascetic)
Buddha is a conmen.
Do you know Pali ?
Yes, professor's argument is not the Buddha, the image of the Buddha to which later fabrications depicted as his image, and distorted doctrine.
The Buddha as a businessman for the welfare of the human beings of the world, please follow his kindness.
use your mind before accepting
No I don't think he is. Rather he is trying to upgrade the status of Buddhist wisdom above the status of spiritual, which would be very low amongst economists and adherents of hard science, and elevate it to the level of advice with factual repercussions, which would be of more value to them.
He's not talking about the actual, historical Buddha (which, he says, would be impossible due to the lack of evidence). He's talking about the Buddha as conceived by early Buddhists, a couple hundred years after the Buddha's death. He says it's just one of many conceptions of the Buddha, but it's one that has been neglected by Western scholarship.
Even they don’t say shit like this. I am a sri lankan buddhist from birth. We are not like this. Yes really feel sorry about this person whoever he is. Therawada is actually a very wise religion although i am more of believer in his actual words about 4 noble truths and the quote “everything changes”. That’s universe in two words.
He is mostly focusing on silk road buddhism.
i was wrong to think that Christians are so empathetic; its all for thier purposes.
common people are not fools
earthly desires are a main theme in buddhism.
hinayana teachings see earthly desires as something to shun.
mahayana teachings see earthly desires and enlightenment as one, but thats not to say that the buddha was a greedy miser concerned only with wealth.
i hope his guy knows that
buddhism is pragmatic and vigorous and of this world. its true that too many seem to see it as some introspective newage mumbo dumbo zen like closing off of oneself from the world.
which it isn't.
true knowledge seeker will study where the knowledge or what we used to called modern science came from. i assured you that most of those are czme from india;
In retrospect I'm struggling to understand the point of what he's saying at all. He didn't open up by explaining whatever it is he is trying to demonstrate or why and the content I have heard so far is far from timely. Anybody else with a clue about this talk, thanks?
follow the teachings of Buddha then decide yourself..
Jay Bhim Namo buddhay Ashok Samrat SC ST OBC bahujan samaj party of India constitution great 🇮🇳💯📚 Education right science 💙💪🔥✍️🙏🙏🎓✅☸️☸️⚛️🇮🇳🌎
@mattblackbigmouth your right.
Right, this being in an educational setting, doing anything like degrading any good image of a major religion would be akin to academic suicide. He mentions that money as the root of evil in the western concept. But asks us to reconsider good = 0 money from the ancient Indian, Buddhist cultural context.
why Dalai Lama doesn't follow Buddhist Economy?
the part where he is talking about 10'000'000 gold coins, the number 10'000'000 is an ancient hindu one referring to all things. to the unity of all things. like in the Rama story where Rama "returns" to the 10'ooo things. both numbers are sort of arbitrary, as to denote "all of." ...it's sort of like he either doesn't entirely know buddhism, or he is deliberately taking jabs at it....but then again, without the source material(unless, he is simply concluding from plaques his own deductions without any real knowledge of Buddhist practice.)...that being said, there may not be sufficient information to make a sufficient argument either pro or con, to what ancient buddhism was really about. or how money and sex was actually involved. and there may be some twisting about of things like sex, money, and order of like. those may not actually apply to monastics, but i could see how those would be very relevant to lay people. plus too, i've never heard of any connection between the kama sutta, and buddhism. that's a first for me. but i have heard that merchants and buddhism, and the spread of buddhism, are closely linked together. but then too, that is period after shakyamuni(as far as i know.) ...which really sucks. because i wish i did know as to satisfy my own curiosity. it may be, the really history of the Shakayamuni, and his teachings, are either completely lost, or totally bastardized at this point.
and his lecture is so verbose, it may be only schopen that truly understands what he is talking about l0l! it's almost like he's not using english anymore.
and too, in some ways, buddhism isn't different than anything else. it's totally as corruptible as any other philosophy, practice, or religion. simply because it is a by product of humanity.
@amilagmail Yeah you're right. Winning the MacArthur Fellowship award doesn't mean anything.
Does anyone have an outline of this video? It's long.
See sujato (dot) wordpress (dot) com and search for "The Ironic Assumptions of Gregory Schopen" for a monk's commentary on topics included in this video.
Thank you.
Great comment, alovelytime. There's also Dzogchen and Vajayana .... plus there are many Buddhas ... as Buddhists who do their homework know.
I'm weary of new age nitwits.
Well...this is one of the MOST revelatory peaces of information I have heard for years. Very interesting indeed...How extraordinary that we have all been 'hoodwinked' for so long by airy fairy buddhism...when all along the truth is very other. No wonder those squatting men look so well fed and smug...
I think that was not the point. Many open hearted buddhist teachers I know would agree too.
Many people look at what Buddhism ask of them and they find themselves lacking. Instead of trying to improve themselves, they set out to tear down Buddhism. For some people this is apparently easier than changing themselves.
Why spend so much time talking about the Karma Sutra when it was written by a Hindu and not a Buddhist monk, unless your intent is to taint through association. This would be like judging Christianity for the Greek belief in Zeus.
He fails to mention there where dozens of Buddhist schools, undoubtedly each with it's flaws. Instead he takes every flaw and with a broad stroke applies them to all of Buddhism. Worse, history has shown the monastic branches which where not following the teachings about money and poverty are the one which died out. Hence the monks which spread and survived where the ones who followed the teachings about austerity. It seem very dishonest when there all multiple text that have one message, consistent through time and across geography to ignore that message for a singular example from an extinct version of Buddhism. Thousands of text show the Buddha with no possessions but a robe and an alms bowl, spend a lecture going over a handful of text, from extinct schools of Buddhism no less, showing him with money.
As for the Buddha as a banker, this is just silly. Why make the tenth precept, precepts are for Buddhism like the ten commandments are for Christians, never handling Gold or Silver? Why make rules forbidden owning property? For the speaker to say there wasn't reprimand for owning property is just a lie.
Judging Buddhism by the monks that didn't uphold the standard is like judging the teachings of Christ by the Mega churches in the US.
People like the Buddha and Jesus taught and practiced a very difficult life. When judging a faith, you don't look at the people who fail to attain it you look at the goal and the people who created it.
As for there being no core Buddhist text, this simply isn't true. There are four main Books in early Buddhism acknowledged by all Buddhist and the are consistent across languages.. My guess is he is trying to compare Buddhism to Christianity. In Christianity's early history an orthodoxy was established and all contradictory text where destroyed, leaving the New Testament as the only text. Buddhist choose to preserve everything and destroy nothing, let each person choose for themselves what should be orthodox.
It needs to be pointed out, he seems to be conflating stories of the Buddha's past lives with the life of a Buddha. You would think a Buddhist scholar would understand the concept of reincarnation/rebirth.
It is very dishonest, basically lying, to refer to the Sangha as a corporation. The term Sangha in ancient India meant to come together, a group or heap. It has nothing to do with business. The speaker is using the term corporate to denigrate Buddhism, I'm not really sure what his motivation is. He gives lip service to the fact that after the Buddha's death people put words in his mouth, then he applies no common sense as to which words where spoken by the Buddha and when he was used as a mouth piece. A simple fact, there where no large monasteries while the Buddha was alive, these didn't start till hundreds of years after his death, so how could the Buddha be giving decrees about how they should be run?
This is one of the most dishonest things I've seen on RUclips.
Maybe i'm not westerner so I don't clearly understand what he want to explain. This might be reason why I cannot understand Western way of thought, and this might be reason why Western don't understand the Oriental way
what do you mean To say buddha is a bussiness man. ? Yoyu are learning from buddhism and coding him as a bussinessman. i am a BUddhism but we never tought jesus was a fiction. FIRSTLY LEARN YOUR OWN history
I hope this makes both sides happy
This one seems to confuse Buddhism with Hindu Drama Sastra.
The only big difference was heinous casteism. Except that most of the philosophical discourse was similar in Buddhism and Brahminism. Brahminism is nothing but appropriation of every available knowledge with their own twisted touch
what kind of scholars he is ? I never heard this kind of stuff in Bufdhism.
so, Buddhists are cool biz guys all along !
i am not a Buddhist but this video must be re made and be made into a just and unbiased presentation
GagagagaagaG!
Jbeaden's talking about himself.
GagagagaaaG, sour grapes. Ouch!
Bibi Bin Laden n
Historic Buddha had renounced all belongings except alms bowl robe and medicine. Most "buddha" quoted by u were not historic buddha. Schopen mixed up d.
actually buddists today seem to "invest" in lame ideas, there was a heap more sense in the old ways which sounds like a commercial bank basically
This is just academic fad! If you cannot convince others, just confuse them! This is the motto of some so called scholars! They are not scholars but 'atee pundit' as said in a story of JATAKA.
Its like been police and judge also to creating crime scene and deliver judgement.
Nothing but hypothesis with unknow intent.
i can debate him easily. They will read my comments but won't reply because they think they are well stratured but not because of thier faulsehood
IF one donot want to teach then confuse other..... (Jataka tales stories ). I knw Indian history personally verywell.
To me he is very confused about subject itself.
your cunning words are vicouse
You are talking about your BUDDHA, not Lord Buddha who taught Buddhism
Hmmmm...,
Hahahahaha
Pity his soul. Namo Amitabha !
please get a brain wash ..........why talking about buddha like this
Study and write to academically..
He doesn't speak mongol! Lol
i got it. he's a part time clown working for a circus & a full time professor. or is it the other way around? his tie & hair proves the clown theory. the second theory - this is a talk sponsored by a reborn christian church. it's a toss up.
lol. these people can't help themselves. Can't see past the business transactions...
Damn man if you're going to criticise start with the tie! Also, maybe learn your lecture instead of just reading it?
just a professor. A lot of facts, nothing useful. Very boring
Your comparison is outdated way to mislead people