I have always preferred oatmeal over popcorn. Now I can see that preference extends into realms much more significant than I knew! :-) Thank you for making these excellent lectures publicly accessible.
Thank you so much for your work! I'm not a philosophy student, just interested in this subject. But I understand everything (ok, maybe not everything, but a lot :)), because your explanation is clear and you put so much love in it, so it's interesting to listen) Wish you all the best!
I love this material. As a Westerner, former engineer, former project manager, and former program manager, I notice certain "Eastern" ways at problem solving. When we had brain storming sessions, free thinking sessions, to get some ideas to solve problems, it seemed kinda Buddhist to me. "No idea is stupid", "Say what ever is on your mind" .. nothing is "real" just use your imagination. As a Westerner this can sometimes cause discomfort as the "real" world has boundaries, time limits, budgets. Yet it's interesting that so called stupid (magical) ideas lead to "real" solutions. Everything seemed contextual .. so dharmic? IMO, when Heraclitus, then atomic theory was used as an example in this video I started to get what Doc Bonevac was getting at. Sidebar: Maybe Western and Eastern ways of processing makes for better problem solving? Can Westerners handle that concept?
@@Javo_Non Eastern verses Western thinking? Left brain verses right brain processing? Is one better than the other? Getting to the point may miss the point? My original comment was 6 months ago and I was in a "brain storming" phase. Maybe a bit anti- linear thinking phase.
idealism doesn't necessitate a rejection of realism. idealism seeks to shift the perspective of what "is" real from viewing things outside of the self that are *being experienced* as the basis of reality to *inner experience itself* as that basis. however, if we introduce a transcendent element it becomes possible to avoid subjectivism (and the great western boogie-man: solipsism) and instead come to an objective understanding of the "other". in the western tradition, this is seen in the platonic-pythagorean mathematical realism and the "logos" (later adopted by Christianity), wherein number is not an *abstraction* but rather a *transcendent phenomena* that Forms reality - giving us a foundation beyond the self from which idealism can be realist. in indian philosophy we see similar notions of a first-cause/ unifying principle, often expressed in the notion of music/ vibration...
From what I understood, the type of idealism expoused by this particular strand of Buddhism is concerned with the mind-dpenedence of the categories we segregate our objects of experiences into. I might be wrong about this but I don't think the mind-independent existence of some tangible entities that cause those experiences is doubted here. If that is the case, would it be fair to say that this form of idealism is closer to Kant's conception of transcendental idealism?
I couldnt stop thinking about Kant at some point of this video too. Having read a couple of sutras I think the mind independent existence of the world is not denied in Buddhism.
All religions deny that the world is real, and claim that people are really immortal spirit beings just here for a visit. Which religion doesn't preach this?
Yet the Christian God, a God of Creation, compels one to reject the natural world, and natural man, and live according to virtue (which requires building upon the material world). So it's not a matter of if a religion denies the real world, pretty much all of them do, but to the degree as such
Most Indian authors treat Buddhism as realist and materialist philosophy in Indian Tradition. I don't know from which reference you took it to be as idealist. Its clearly a materialist philosophy. But Buddha said it to be the middle way between Nihilist and Idealist.
There are different strands within Buddhism. I had in mind chiefly the Yogacara school-Vasubandhu, Dignaga, Dharmakirti, etc. I'm basing my interpretation on their writings, but there's a great deal of secondary literature, See, for some summaries, plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/#6.4. Also plato.stanford.edu/entries/vasubandhu/, plato.stanford.edu/entries/dharmakiirti/. There's a nice discussion of idealist and non-idealist interpretations of Yogacara here: plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-india/
Thank you for talking about Eastern Philosophy, its is so hard to find good content on Eastern Philosophy!
Thank you for doing Eastern philosophy too
I have always preferred oatmeal over popcorn. Now I can see that preference extends into realms much more significant than I knew! :-) Thank you for making these excellent lectures publicly accessible.
Thank you so much for your work! I'm not a philosophy student, just interested in this subject. But I understand everything (ok, maybe not everything, but a lot :)), because your explanation is clear and you put so much love in it, so it's interesting to listen) Wish you all the best!
I just like how this video came up right when I was talking to a friend about Indian / Asian religions lol
@Nicolas Abdullah the answer is no. No one cares.
Excellent , very helpful
Thank you so much 😊
I love this material. As a Westerner, former engineer, former project manager, and former program manager, I notice certain "Eastern" ways at problem solving. When we had brain storming sessions, free thinking sessions, to get some ideas to solve problems, it seemed kinda Buddhist to me. "No idea is stupid", "Say what ever is on your mind" .. nothing is "real" just use your imagination. As a Westerner this can sometimes cause discomfort as the "real" world has boundaries, time limits, budgets. Yet it's interesting that so called stupid (magical) ideas lead to "real" solutions. Everything seemed contextual .. so dharmic? IMO, when Heraclitus, then atomic theory was used as an example in this video I started to get what Doc Bonevac was getting at. Sidebar: Maybe Western and Eastern ways of processing makes for better problem solving? Can Westerners handle that concept?
I think you missed the point
@@BungerOverheat How "Western" of you to state that. Once you use the term "point" you are in fact trying to narrow experience.
@@billtimmons7071 i would question myself if there's a point to miss here.
@@Javo_Non Eastern verses Western thinking? Left brain verses right brain processing? Is one better than the other? Getting to the point may miss the point? My original comment was 6 months ago and I was in a "brain storming" phase. Maybe a bit anti- linear thinking phase.
🙏 thank you sir.
idealism doesn't necessitate a rejection of realism. idealism seeks to shift the perspective of what "is" real from viewing things outside of the self that are *being experienced* as the basis of reality to *inner experience itself* as that basis. however, if we introduce a transcendent element it becomes possible to avoid subjectivism (and the great western boogie-man: solipsism) and instead come to an objective understanding of the "other". in the western tradition, this is seen in the platonic-pythagorean mathematical realism and the "logos" (later adopted by Christianity), wherein number is not an *abstraction* but rather a *transcendent phenomena* that Forms reality - giving us a foundation beyond the self from which idealism can be realist. in indian philosophy we see similar notions of a first-cause/ unifying principle, often expressed in the notion of music/ vibration...
From what I understood, the type of idealism expoused by this particular strand of Buddhism is concerned with the mind-dpenedence of the categories we segregate our objects of experiences into. I might be wrong about this but I don't think the mind-independent existence of some tangible entities that cause those experiences is doubted here. If that is the case, would it be fair to say that this form of idealism is closer to Kant's conception of transcendental idealism?
I couldnt stop thinking about Kant at some point of this video too. Having read a couple of sutras I think the mind independent existence of the world is not denied in Buddhism.
I laughed at "it's important to _realize."_
Dharma comes from the root to support.
🤔🤔🤔
This sounds simalar to the Allegory of the cave
So when an Indian pulls up at a level crossing no need to look up and down the tracks, right ?
Now, Buddha is being worshipped in countries like Myanmar.
All religions deny that the world is real, and claim that people are really immortal spirit beings just here for a visit. Which religion doesn't preach this?
Yet the Christian God, a God of Creation, compels one to reject the natural world, and natural man, and live according to virtue (which requires building upon the material world). So it's not a matter of if a religion denies the real world, pretty much all of them do, but to the degree as such
Most Indian authors treat Buddhism as realist and materialist philosophy in Indian Tradition. I don't know from which reference you took it to be as idealist. Its clearly a materialist philosophy. But Buddha said it to be the middle way between Nihilist and Idealist.
There are different strands within Buddhism. I had in mind chiefly the Yogacara school-Vasubandhu, Dignaga, Dharmakirti, etc. I'm basing my interpretation on their writings, but there's a great deal of secondary literature, See, for some summaries, plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/#6.4. Also plato.stanford.edu/entries/vasubandhu/, plato.stanford.edu/entries/dharmakiirti/. There's a nice discussion of idealist and non-idealist interpretations of Yogacara here: plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-india/