Love Dawkins but agree with the Buddhists on this point. You can look outwards all you like but if the inner world is disturbed then that affects what we see on the "outside."
I would go as far as to say there is no outside world. At least experientially everything we experience is brought in by sense data that we interpret then form into our conscious experience which is all being presented inside ourselves which means what matters most to the quality of the experience is how we interpret that sense data which is greatly effected by our thoughts beliefs fears ect. Meditation is the answer to overcoming these barriers
Both ways of getting happiness are good, focusing on meditating only or just enjoying other people's art. There are different ways to live, all that matters is that one is not delusional, and that he's healthy and happy.
No. The overwhelming majority suffering starts with violence or force from the outside. The only purpose of community is to police this. The only purpose of ethics and morality is to police this. This is where Eastern tradition get it wrong spiritually, and engage hypocritically when it comes to governance. The idea of "putting it out of mind" only benefits the psychopaths either engaging in violence/force, or the psychopaths that look on and do nothing when they witness it.
@@marcusfossa6695 so ,if you don’t notice the difference between what thought says about reality,and how you find reality to actually be you won’t notice your inner peace and freedom
What may be lost in that quote is the meaning of the word "inability". We may read that and imagine a lack of wisdom in people, as if they were too dumb or proud or shallow to go so sit in that room. But in reality, sitting quietly in a room alone is actually INTENSELY difficult, and people simply do not know how to do it, or cannot endure it when they try, or in fact do not know how to do so in way where they are merely lost in thought, and only perpetuate their suffering. It is a skill issue
The quote is from Pascal's Pensées, which is an unfinished defense of Christianity. If we could sit alone in a room, we would understand the misery of our condition, that we have fallen from a better estate. Then we would seek the remedy for it, which is through faith in Jesus Christ, who reconciles us to God though His blood. Whoever believes in Jesus will not perish but have everlasting life. But instead of "sitting alone in a room," and starting upon this journey, man rather seeks distraction from his condition-distraction of all kinds (hunting, games, leisure, work, warfare, etc.). This is the bigger context of the quote. Pascal was Christian through and through.
I`m practicing Vipassana meditation for quite some time now, have sat plenty of retreats... two months ago I had a terrible accident in my profession as a carpenter. I basically cut off all four fingers of my right hand. three of them are reattached, not sure how well they ever gonna move... I lost my job too and my dreams and quite a few more things... yet I am still as happy and optimistic as always. I shed some tears of course but all in all I am full of gratitude and love for my life. I did not had a single minute of pain and the doctors and therapists are in awe as how quick my hand is healing... The message is this: sustainable, reliable happyness does only come from inside and it does come from a consistent training in the insight of impermanence (within the mind and body)... all things that arise must pass. All of us will lose our jobs eventually (maybe through retirement) All of us will lose everyone we love eventually All of us will lose everything we own eventually All our body parts will be nothing but death and decay eventually better prepare for this now, because we'll never now when tragedy is striking
The guy with no shoes has sympathy with the guy with no feet. Any meditation is never pre-meditated. When 'you' are there, meditation is not. Losing 4 fingers lacked meditation. Impermanence is here today and permanence , the afterlife if you believe in that. Which is what most believe , unfortunately.
“I find it in music, not by looking inwards.” Music must be experienced inwardly. Two people can listen to the same music and have vastly different experiences.
Okay but music doesnt come from within you, except if you create it yourself. But imo banning every external factor of potential happiness like music or people is a little stupid when you only have one life. Why devoting your time on focusing on yourself if you have a whole world to see ? This is don’t understand.
@@uwayn9829 They are not banning external factors. If you are listening to music or talking to people then you simply see the three characteristics in them. "Why devoting your time on focusing on yourself if you have a whole world to see?" How can you see the world if your glasses are caked in mud? Since everything you experience is filtered through the mind, it cannot be seen clearly unless the mind is also clear. You can focus on yourself while exploring the world too! No need to put one off for later.
@@bike4aday well, i dont see monks traveling the world often lol, once you adopt true buddishm practices, you devote your life to it and it requires alot of personal investment. My point was rather aimed at those ones who dissociate from the outside world and focus on themselves. Imo, when you have the ability and the energy to explore the outside world when youre young, you should take the chance to. You wont be able to when youre old and thats when you should start seeking spirituality. You should try all options of happiness practices before heading to this one, because it might be sufficient to most people.
@@uwayn9829 Monks travel all the time! How do you think Buddhism spread? Haha! Monastic life is optional, of course. There's no one perfect environment that fits everyone's needs. Anybody can do these practices. Just be present and mindful of what's happening in your experience. This will enhance your experience, not take away from it. No need to put it off until tomorrow!
I learned that "happiness only comes from within" many years ago but this isn't easy and external forces or events in one's life can definitely make this more challenging. Practicing gratitude is one way to find this happiness. Also being aware of all the little miracles that surround us every day is another way.
The problem is, imho, identification with the objects of observation and possession, which not only body, but also so called rational mind is. Like person could become a raging a-hole whilst driving a car, totally merging with the object of possession and the observable process. Or you can forget about your clothes, rings, bracelets, headwear, etc. Body-ego identification is 100 times that combined, that's why it's so powerful. And sceptics whilst being theoretically sceptical about their emergent and elusive mind and personality are totally not sceptical about it in practice, because such practice would shatter their whole narrative and as we say in Russia, they "would be left woth a bare ass in an open/empty field".
Dawkins apparently does, and I think he reasonably can. He's incredibly accomplished and seemingly leads a fulfilling life without needing to look inward. If everyone in general looked inward the world today would most likely improve. That doesn't mean everyone should.
Dawkins cannot escape his own paradigm. Buddhism has primarily to do with alleviating suffering through compassion. And everyone has suffering based on the way they think. This is not a belief, it's a fact of life. And to alleviate suffering has nothing to do with belief; it has to do with coming from the heart.
@@AndrewMSmith130It could also increase the suffering of many others. But then the opposite is just as true; it could alleviate your suffering & the suffering of many others. All depends on whether you want to choose to succumb to fear.
Everyone may have suffering based on the way they think, but that does not mean that suffering is due to thought alone. Many people have suffering due to physical needs, which compassion does not resolve.
Not being able to escape his own paradigm is Dawkin's big problem. His view of the world is narrow and, since it automatically dismisses contradiction, self-perpetuating.
@@10538overture Yep, and he also overlooks the wisdom of all the great western thinkers, from Aristotle to Nietzsche to Jung.... that it all begins with "Know Thyself".
@@keyserxx "That for me is where I find true meaning..." Therein lies the monk's point. Someone else could listen to the same music and feel nothing, but that isn't the music's fault, it's theirs. The joy that Timmy Mallett's music has provided is inspired from the outside but arises from within you.
I get Dawkins is giving his view here but its a bit retarded to feel you even need to have a come back. Clearly what the monk is saying is obviously true doesn't everyone know this intuitively.
You're all forgetting that Dawkin's lives an incredibly accomplished and fulfilling life. If he says he doesn't need to look inward then I believe him. Looking inward is vital when you are not content with who you are or your circumstances. He seems to be neither.
For people who have not mediated extensively, there are interesting experiences that you come across if you do begin meditating regularly. I had an experience at a 10 day silent meditation retreat which I can only describe as being more real than reality (as if the normal waking world was the dream). I don’t meditate much anymore, but there is definitely something to the meditation experience so when this monk says the creative blissful experience one gets in meditation is unmatched, I know exactly what he means. Or at least I do to some extent. You really have to experience it to understand.
Attachment is the most counterintuitive aspect of these teachings it really is confusing sometimes even when you know what is meant by it.The Ego self deliberately misinterperits what is meant it.
Sam Harris is a BIG advocate for meditation….do you think he would say the same thing as you? And how do we differentiate between something that is real and something that only happens within the gray matter of our mind? If it’s only within our mind, is it reality?
One of the most anti-dogmatic statement is the Kalam Sutta, or a validation of faith. In the Kalama Sutta the reader is challenged and it questions religious teachings: Mā anussavena: Do not believe something just because it has been passed along and retold for many generations. Mā paramparāya: Do not believe something merely because it has become a traditional practice. Mā itikirāya: Do not believe something simply because it is well-known everywhere. Mā Pitakasampadanena: Do not believe something just because it is cited in a text. Mā takkahetu: Do not believe something solely on the grounds of logical reasoning. Mā nayahetu: Do not believe something merely because it accords with your philosophy. Mā akaraparivitakkena: Do not believe something because it appeals to "common sense." Mā ditthinijjhanakkhantiya: Do not believe something just because you like the idea. Mā bhabbarupataya: Do not believe something because the speaker seems trustworthy. Mā samano no garu ti: Do not believe something thinking, “This is what our teacher says.”
Amazing. One can also note the striking similarities to the classic fallacies of argumentation formulated by the Ancient Greek philosophers. Well, maybe they would diverge on the “logical reasoning” one ;)
If it resonates with your natural and innate way of being, free from conditioning and manipulation- it makes sense to me. From investigations into all kinds on the spiritual path, mainstream "religion"is just another external control for the masses, no freedom or true understanding of your inner world and what it actually means. The Buddhist practices (love, compassion, interbeing, wisdom, impermanence, ever changing, etc) have always been within from a young age. It took decades to throw off the shackles of control pushed onto me from birth to uncover it again.
Dawkins is a plonker. Not that I follow "buddhism" or practice any rituals or believe in anything abstract at all, but I very much respect the foundations of buddhism and it's original teachings have enormous meaning and importance. Dawkins is just another kind of egotism parading itself around as "look how grounded, sensible and tough-minded I am!" and often trampling on others to try and beat them into submission. However much someone may believe in things that aren't true, trying to dominate and bully them down like these people do only creates more defensiveness and more problems. Dawkins could discover a great deal that is profound if he let himself see beyond his own psychological limitations and just observe life quietly with humility as these people try to demonstrate, but he won't. He's already made his mind up on a belief that science is the only thing, and that that in fact rather vague assumptions drawn from certain areas of science are where it ends. Science is the most important tool we have, but trying to use it to therefore believe in the ego as all you are...it's just an endless game isn't it. Science itself shows the clues that the mind, the self-identity is a construction of thought created as we grow up, and that what we fundamentally are IS the organism...therefore we are the whole of existence. The organism is not and never can be separate from everything else, as is the unquestioned assumption still holding back the purely scientific mind. It's very odd because every good scientist should know full well that we are absolutely integrated with the whole environment, and even the entire cosmos that grew us here. That is no proof of any belief at all, but it is a very profound indicator that this conscious awareness we all ARE (not have as is often said) is something much more fundamental to existence than the simple mind we and our particular life circumstances and those around us create. These people do not have the slightest understanding of what real meditation means, to stop focusing on one's endless churning thoughts and just observe what is actually happening now, quietly, and taking in the complete wholeness of it all, which includes oneself.
@@DM-kv9kj But even at a scientific level, the "happiest man on earth" according to science is a Buddhist monk name Mattieu Ricard. Compassion is truly the key to true happiness according to the dharma, I don't see how listening to music could possibly compare to the cultivation of true happiness, which comes from compassion or what we call bodhicitta (heart mind).
No such thing as 'eternal', you word salad-spewing pseudointellectual. You're just making up some weird and incoherent distinction between 'ordinary' happiness and 'inside' everlasting happiness. Inside as opposed to what? All the happiness that's flying around outside my window. And happiness is an emotion. It dies alongside the brain.
Three minutes of Buddhism from 2500 years of teachings and 84,000 dharmas, (truths) and it rang true the same as the whole of the treasury of the Buddhist teachings.
I've been meditating since I was about 10, my mom taught me. When I was 19 and again when I was 24 I experienced and explosion of "bliss" that came in waves. It shot down from the top of my head down throughout my whole body. The second time I was able to see "behind the scenes" of reality at night. So instead of falling asleep I would remain conscious and witness the body go through the sleep cycle. I would see alien-like geometric patterns and hear electronic/computer noises everywhere, like the body was rebooting and I woke up into a machine. Crazy. I think the organic world is an illusion and the higher reality is "electronic/computerish."
This is the problem with approaching Eastern philosophy through a Western lens. It is completely different from the ground up, from its most fundamental perspective. It requires a letting go of all notions and ideas one has to be able to grasp the simplicity and universality of Eastern thought. It is all inclusive and meant for everyone at the core of it. And it is ultimately and necessarily experiential. One can talk about it all they want, but at the end they must walk it for themselves to truly "get it." It's much like asking directions to get to a destination, one can talk all they want and figure out all the ways to get there, but ultimately the path has to be walked on by the seeker themself to get there. All talk merely points towards that liberation, it must ultimately be experienced for oneself to truly understand it. This is why Western thinking that relies so much on objectivity fails to grasp the magnificence and simplicity of Eastern thought which emphasises the subjective experience. And ironically enough this opens it up to a universal approach that excludes no one. It is one of the reason why Eastern "religions" need no conversion, one experiential taste of it and the seeker understands it for themselves which keeps them coming back. You could be considered one of the smartest Western thinkers like Dawkins here, but not able to discriminate between intrinsic lasting inner peace that can be tapped into at all times and extrinisic outer "happiness" that is fleeting. Indian philiosophy categorises happiness as Sukha (fleeting happpiness whose counterpart is dukha or sadness) and Ananda which is our true nature (lasting happiness that has no counterpart and requires nothing extrinisic and material). Funny thing is this experience is also something that a lot of Stoic wisdom talks about. So it is not completely foreign to Western thought either.
Meditation is not at all common to other faiths lol The word meditation shows up a lot in historical documents in say, Europe; they are not talking about eastern meditation, they are referring to thinking about something lol
Nah, it is just another take on the common trope of religion: perpetuating injustice. Buddhism does that by neglicence and ignorance rather than robbing the peasants blind. It is thus highly popular among today's Westerners, because it is the perfect cult for those who are socialized in the neoliberal hyper-individualist paradigm.
Totally agree. But buddhism is on the next level. If the west can integrate buddhism ( which I think science will force it to do in the next 100 years) humanity will have progressed a tiny step more on the path.
Dawkins says that rather than get happiness from inner peace he'd prefer to get happiness from music, for instance. He seems to miss the point that inner peace enhances enjoyment of other things but it doesn't necessarily replace them. It's like trying to enjoy music in a noisy room. You're not trying to remove the noise AND the music and be left with nothing. You're trying to remove the noise so you can enjoy the music. Inner peace isn't eradication of everything, it's the eradication of unnecessary things so you can enjoy what's necessary.
While I agree with you for the most part, does Dawkin's really seem like a person who needs help separating the wheat from the chaff mentally? He lives an incredibly accomplished and seemingly purposeful life. He clearly doesn't feel the need to look inward.
What happens when you run out of art, music, and scientific curiosities? I love how Geshe Lhakor nods, "yes, yes" when Dawkins talks about finding joy in the world. Buddhism isn't about not enjoying life, the "external" world. But it's about seeing how your "internal" world truly shapes your experience of the "outside" world. It's about learning how to settle into each moment as it is. True happiness, beyond happiness.
Tibetan monks don't run out of that noisy music, or that stereotype tanka paintings. They chant and chant and meditate rarely. I know it, I stayed in two Tibetan monasteries in India. Just a lot of memorizing old stuff.
I love Richard Dawkins and agree with most of his views, but this isn't aging very well. Scientific evidence for the psychological benefits of meditation is compounding year after year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, from what I've heard, anybody can follow the ways of Buddhism including atheists, Christians, and Muslims while still staying true to their religion or lack there of. I really want to give meditation a shot, but I'm just way too goddamned lazy.
The principle of yoga is that you let go of your own personal little identities and attachments. So in those moments you cannot be anything, not even Hindu or Buddhist or man or woman or anything definitive. You meditate to feel the universe as is - a continuous play of light and dark and mass and vacuum. It helps you put your own little troubles in perspective, and you come out as a more stable person. But if in those moments some egoistic identity (I am a Sunni or I am a CEO) is still playing in your head, that's not yoga.
It does highlight the radical idea of what the Buddha taught - many people either can’t imagine or dismiss as unrealistic that there can be a dimension of experience that is completely satisfying, perfect in every way that it makes any other experience based on the six senses pale in comparison. An experience so profound that even death can’t disturb it.
Prior to delving into the realm of spiritual wisdom, it's crucial to ground yourself in common sense. Additionally, make certain that your moral compass is accurately calibrated.
Dawkins didn't understand the Bhuddist. He wasn't talking specifically about meditation, he was talking about the temporary state of enlightenment we all have achieved atleast once in our lives when we want for nothing else in the moment but the moment itself. It is just that many get this from meditation, others from getting in that flow state from running, music or the when playing an instrument etc. What Dawkins is saying he wants from life is actually what Bhuddism encourages. The purity of thoughts they preach has a purpose, to ease passage through the second bardo state, which you can visit temporarily if you know what you are doing ;)
@@patrickfitzgerald4189No, Dawkins is a biologist. Hence when it comes to biology he is an expert. When it comes to general philosophy he doesn't seem no better or worse than any other layman, when it comes to theology he is a nitwit.
I don't think you can find happiness by looking inwards. I think you find happiness through a life of caring for others. Pets, wildlife, children, the elderly, and helping society at large. When somebody builds a chair as a job, it's unfulfilling; but when yhat somebody crafts a chair for somebody they love, passion and creativity is poured into it.
Dawkins agrees with you I think but substitutes in his own forms such as a love of science and music as mentioned. I find it odd that so many people in the comments are disappointed by his takes here. Have they never listened to him before this?
On the outside, I'm Catholic and Jewish, but on the inside, I'm Buddhist. The hardest part of my life has been letting go of the consumeristic self-gratifying obsession I had to grow up with. I even wrote a book titled "Impermanence: The Dissolution of Perception" to help counter it.
If you seek happiness by looking outward, of course you can find it. What often happens is that people lose their way and the happiness they once found is no longer available to them. The door to that happiness somehow shuts. That door is still available, and by meditating you may find access to that door and the peace and happiness that comes with it.
The west needs a lot more wisdom from eastern traditions, especially Daoism and minfulness meditation from Buddhism. It changes your outlook on what life is supposed to mean for you, as a beautiful experience here and now, rather than as a journey or race to be completed. Alan Watts got me to appreciate that more, and I'm thankful I was able to learn about that on RUclips.
Except Buddhism is an inward-looking and regressive religion. That's why Buddhist cultures have been out-competed by other religious societies and cultures. If it was actually more constructive to modern society, it'd have thrived more. You can appreciate it on your own terms but it's objectively inferior as a religion in its ability to accommodate and evolve with the times.
You're all forgetting that Dawkin's lives an incredibly accomplished and fulfilling life. If he says he doesn't need to look inward then I believe him. Looking inward is vital when you are not content with who you are or your circumstances. He seems to be neither.
A lot of people get the false idea that buddhism is not a Believe system but a philosophy. But it is both. buddhist do believe in the supernatural and practical philosophical ideas. Most buddhist, no matter the denomination, believe in spiritual beings. I can't spell what the beings are called. But you get the idea. So at the end of the day buddhism is a belief system Like any other religion.
but the simple fact is that unlike basically every other religion, you can extract the core (100% of all the fundamental teachings) of Buddhism, and find that core is totally free of anything supernatural, and still call yourself a Buddhist. Original Pali Buddhism was essentially this (the Buddha himself was famously silent on all supernatural topics, such as what happens after we die), and this is why so-called secular Buddhism exists in the west today, which is so in vogue among modern intellectuals and atheists. When you get right down to it, Buddhism is more like a scientific method applied to the internal world, more a form of technology against suffering, than a real belief system. Except in the most basic way imaginable, and in which sense everyone everywhere is a believer. The thing is always this though: practice the four noble truths, and decide for yourself whether it alleviates suffering
@@saulkorzeneckithat is called new age buddhism and is a western invention and has even less of an actual basis than the many Buddhist religions. It is belief based, not text based.
@@saulkorzeneckii wouldn't call that real buddhism. Most westerners share a good deal with christians in terms of morals. That doesn't make them inherently christian.
Why r u equating spiritual with philosophical ideas. Where is your evidemce of what most buddhists believe? Most buddhists believing in spiritual stuff can be explained by mosy buddhists coming from traditional societies where people still believe in ghosts spirits etc
Come on Dawkins, how will you enjoy music if there is going to be so much noise in your mind from suffering? Meditation if done correctly will help you enjoy music 10x more than if you didn’t.
@@ovariantrolley2327 That is because when we are young, the internal monologue/dialogue is not so loud, and we are naturally more present in the moment, in the body, at a lower level of consciousness, as animals are.
This video makes Dawkins look like an small child, I don't know if he says what he says for the sake of conversation, but he falls so short in depth. Like he is trapped in his materialistic views. "But music makes me feel good", man that comment feels so limited, so confining.
Isn't it fairly obvious that Dawkins is not someone who is impressed by subjective experience. As a Darwinian I imagine he views Buddhism with some skepticism, as the animal that can be happy / content in any circumstance is not an animal that survives or procreates. This comment smacks of someone who does not understand Dawkins criticizing Dawkins for his lack of understanding. It's rather hypocritical. He's materialistic... yeah, that's sort of his whole shtick. He doesn't believe in the metaphysical, the material world is all he believes in.
Indeed. Meditation has radically improved the quality of my consciousness, or the quality of my being for the better over many, many years. There is a light and a joy that happens during meditation, I believe, because we connect our individuated consciousness to the source consciousness as a whole. They say we're born alone and we die alone. But during meditation I feel anything but alone. I feel held and connected at the deepest level.
It is nicely put, as means of expression but also as insight into why Dawkins is not bothered at all. He does not believe there is a connected source of consciousness. How could he, he does not believe in the metaphysical.
In his longer discussions of Buddhism, Dawkins simply commits the same logical errors he rightly calls out creationists for making. He also takes the easiest route by providing a simplistic definition of dhamma. Then he only considers Tibetan (Mahayan) views and makes no mention of Theravada.
What logical errors did he make? Merely saying he made them doesn't count, if you don't elaborate and merely accuses then your accusation is as weightless as slander.
@@ImperatorZed Buddhism is one of the oldest indoctrinations. It's kind of the grand daddy of dogmatism. One only needs to look at how a devout Buddhist lives to know it.
@@rodneyshackelford7529 Christ rose from the grave. Buddha is still lying dead. It's never late to come back to Orthodoxy, the one and only true faith.
Oh heavens yes, Buddhism also rid me of Catholicism... the latter closed around me, dominated me, taught me the meaning of guilt, and said I was inherently sinful. The former offers me liberation, endless spiritual development and hope for future spiritual expansion by way of reincarnation. I discovered Buddhism by reading the teachings of Carl Gustav Jung.
This worked for me for many years, but now thoughts invade while I ride. I've contemplated this problem and wonder whether after after 42 years of riding, it has become so second nature that the levels of concentration needed have lessened. Therefore, the zone one used to be in has diminished??-
Both sides make sense to me, we are all after all alone in this world; we simply can’t get happiness from a pot of gold, a career advancement, marriage, and all the things that we westerners call goals. Instead we gain happiness through satisfaction from living the mundane life - being our own friend and our own Buddha throughout the day. Either through meditation practices and mindfulness or Art, and doing something with ease, passion, and enjoymentt. All of which require commitment and practice daily.
@@jatintharkoti2318they are on the same side, with a slightly different perspective. Dawkins finds happiness in science and music, but to him that seems external. The Buddhist recognise this happiness, but to him this seems internal - “from within”.
His last sentence sums it all up for me, I am getting to that inner tranquility and letting go... not all the time, sometimes not at all, but having touched it makes attaining it worthwhile.
Meditation is common to many faiths and also secularism. It does not justify or elevate Buddhism. Place Buddhism under the same analysis as other religions and you will find the same practices. The best example is of Buddhism in Bhutan. Although disputed by Buddhist adherents, the findings of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch determined a genocide/ethnic cleansing against southern Nepalese. Or the violence forced on the Rohingya Muslim by Buddhist communities in Myanmar.
@@ssudhak2 Discounting anybody problematic from your religion despite their professed religiosity is a cop out. Many of these human rights abuses are done precisely in the name of religion and religious disagreement, so saying "all who do evil are not from my religion" is at best ignorant, and at worst dishonest.
I agree with them both. True happiness comes from within, but Buddhism also states that your physical health is crucial to achieving that state and there is a great deal of science in staying healthy.
Nothing good about Buddhism requires you to be a Buddhist... Lot of butt hurt Spiritual egotistical apologists in this comment section who ironically feel a need to profess their superior lack of ego 😂 And It's always robes and magic hats with these people.....and a loooot of dudes.
Nothing good about Buddhism requires you to be a Buddhist, dress like a weirdo And live on a mountain. Lot of butt hurt Spiritual egotistical apologists in this comment section who ironically feel a need to profess their superior lack of ego though 😂 And It's always robes and magic hats with these people.... Lot of dudes too.... Loooot of dudes.
Nothing good about Buddhism requires you to be a Buddhist, dress like a weirdo Amd live on a mountain. Lot of butt hurt Spiritual egotistical apologists in this comment section who ironically feel a need to profess their superior lack of ego though 😂 And It's always robes and magic hats with these people.... Lot of dudes too.... Loooot of dudes.
Nothing good about Buddhism requires you to be a Buddhist, dress like a weirdo And live on a mountain. Lot of butt hurt Spiritual egotistical apologists in this comment section who ironically feel a need to profess their superior lack of ego though 😂 And It's always robes and magic hats with these people.... Lot of dudes too.... Loooot of dudes.
@matthewphilip1977 Lol, what a ridiculous argument! You may as well say the Buddhist understands evolution better because he's not bought into all the nonsense...pff!
You're forgetting that Dawkin's lives an incredibly accomplished and seemingly fulfilling life. If he says he doesn't need to look inward then I believe him. Looking inward is vital when you are not content with who you are or your circumstances. He seems to be neither. Just because you benefit does not necessarily mean he would. Meditators in this comment section are not nearly as open minded as they think they are.
@@FranzLiszt-n3k Another intellectual story from someone who, like Dawkins, does not meditate. It's like listening to someone who has never eaten chocolate trying to tell me, who has eaten a lot of different chocolates, exactly what chocolate tastes like and what a fool I am for thinking I know better.
@@williambenson Wrong. I have meditated in the past, it just never clicked for me. Now of course you'll gatekeep and say I wasn't doing it right but that's irrelevant. The reality is that our entire conscious experience evolved in relation to our body's central nervous system. This system encourages or discourages certain behaviours that are beneficial for survival. Behaviours, as in activity in the external, physical world, not internally. Behaviours or circumstances that make us feel good or bad and compel us to act accordingly. Dawkins is a Darwinian, and it therefore stands to reason he is somewhat skeptical of meditation, as the animal that is always content / happy in any circumstance is not the animal that survives. You should not feel content when you are starving for example. Due to the nature of evolution it is totally reasonable to suggest that not everyone would derive great benefit from meditation. The fact that you cannot even consider this is why I call you less open minded than you thInk you are.
@@FranzLiszt-n3k Everyone who has ever meditated with intention and commitment, and is reading your rationalizing, intellectual nonsense, knows where you are stuck and that you cannot think your way out of it. Oh well, up to you. You are very welcome to stay there. None of my business. Do you really imagine that I have never heard this from anyone else before? "I went to the gym once. It wasn't for me. People who exercise are less open minded than they think they are. Dawkins is a Darwinian and therefore he knows that animals can survive perfectly well without exercise. blah blah blah". Either you are willing to do the work necessary to wake up or you are not. Fine by me. Go for it.
Served. Happiness is fickle and transitory. Joy is from deep within and not as susceptible external conditions. The difficulty is truly realising that we pour joy from deep within ourselves into whatever the present circumstances are and not the other way round.
Happiness and contentment are states of mind. Philosophies built on surviving, accumulating stuff to represent status, as a buffer from death and because of fear of suffering, are a long way from achieving this and indeed go in the opposite direction. Life is a chance to be creative and is there to be enjoyed. If life really becomes too hard, there is always the self-composting option. Not being prepared to be exploited would make things difficult for the sociopathic leaders, for whom exploitation of others is vital. Perhaps it is the life after death religions which help to ensure continued suffering; on the basis that you just need to hold out in this life, you’ll then get into everlasting paradise / heaven. Hope is one of the main shackles to the cycle of continued abuse and exploitation.
Old post but I think this is because at a fundamental level Buddhism is unlike other dogmatic religions. A religion truly based on peace, in an attempt to reduce inevitable suffering is actually a noble thing unlike nameless other religions.
He’s such a smart guy that he doesn’t understand the point and direction of this practice. His assumption of “spiritual wisdom,” or “mystical understanding” is his personal bias that he uses to denounce any idea that doesn’t align with his spiritual science mysticism.
It's the words that are used. They are somehwhat 'woo woo'. 'Spiritual' and 'mystical', are not terms that are quantifiable. This is the crux of the issue.
Science is not mysticism. All mysticism is based on dogma, and science is based on evidence. If tomorrow there's evidence that science is critically flawed and is more destructive than constructive, then scientists would be the first to abandon it. Can't say the same with any religion.
@@RhetoricalMusethe funny thing is that the big anomaly in western science is consciousness and that it cannot be explained rationally or quantified. It can only be understood experientially by living an ethical life and development of the mind. Unfortunate for Dawkins if he hasn't changed is that if you try to explain it rationally, think about the why or how or what then you cannot find the peace and happiness from the practice.
@@user26912 Who says consciousness can't be explained rationally or quantified? Science has explained a lot about consciousness, but it still has a long way to go. If science had all the answers already, we wouldn't need science to try to find the answers.
Meditation is a free medication for almost every illness, and out of all the religions in the world, i find Buddhism to the most practical and compatible with science, and i love Richard Dawkins too, he's one of my heroes
Problem with most athiest, is they criticize before even either reading on it, partaking in it, and practicing it. The dhammapada by Gautama siddartha is very clinical and appeals to the logical mind, but he also wasn’t just some doctor or professor in emotional, devotional and aesthetic practices, in his canonical books like the samayutta Nikaya, he didn’t just consult wise men, other Buddhas, Adiyogis, Brahmins and bodhivistas, he is consulting Gods, deities and other worldly beings, some gave good insights of diligence over negligence like Sakka, others were more rigid in emotional attachments or detachments like Brahma, while the samayutta itself gives accounts of universal Gods like Shiva teaching Buddha the importance of constant movement and experiences, through all this he did a Sadhana, which is a modern way of going to a college university and learning what works and what does not work, the difference between Buddha and many of his disciples which 10 accompanied him on his journey, was he was very fast pace, he could learn very quick, applied what worked, and what didn’t work and mold it in his own rhythms of the dharma chakra, which is now the center fold teachings of Buddhism, also known as the eight fold path, to counter the 4 sukkhas, 4 noble truths of suffering and overcoming it with samsara. It truly is incredible, many of the sutras give insight and practices on how to live simply, not too lazy nor over worry, just have a stream flow of life with its basics. As you go along this path you become wiser, and stronger, and more adept to life’s woes. When reading it, like the Bible, it is as practical as it is mystical, as gurus tell us, dipping into mysticism doesn’t gain or make you super human, but it shows you that being human, is super when you unlock and use your potentials that’s already there. Buddhism as a whole is very good, it takes a snippet of the dharma practiced in Hindusim, but most Hindus would tell you they don’t practice Hindusim, they practice sanatana dharma, they aren’t religious, they are in a spiritual journey. I’m so happy I found the Buddhist books, they always help me when my mind is jumbled up and I can straighten them and instead of being stuck in a corner, I can move with the stream flow. This takes aesthetic practice, along with what most self help books or discipline and motivational of modernity provide, modern ones, which is more tailored to modernity of work, money, priorities, goals, and commune, the only thing most modern books lack are the spiritual sides, for most modernity books make it out as robotic almost emotionless, to the degree one can’t believe that all their is are man made equations and law biding, while our spiritual books from Buddhism, Hindusim, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, go beyond this, to the unknown to be known, and the known to be unknown. After reading the Bible, Quran, some Vedas like the gita, Dhammapada, ect I can unequivocally say that is not only a incredible base to grow from, but to cultivate that connection can elevate you higher to plains not thought possible. Dawkins only wants answers from the possible and shuns anything that appears impossible, yet doesn’t even see in the word itself, impossible, when broken down, says…I’m-possible. So when one says God is impossible, the voice within is saying, through God…I’m-possible. Whether Elohim, Yahweh, Allah, Shiva, Brahma, Vishnu, or gods of their ordnance, you can reach them by following the foot prints and foot steps they left for us to follow. Follow.
@@sibanoughtThe asian have a different religious structure than westerners. He was largely agnostic, or did not feel it was necessary to his teachings.
Focusing on music or a math problem IS a meditative experience. there is no conflict here! When Dawkins says “sort of half understand that” about an ancient spiritual tradition, that’s a major concession :)
Not about "going within" like a prairie dog hiding in its hole, but more like self-knowledge, Mr. Dawkins. Stilling the mind so that you can recognize the Mind As It Is apart from its projections, fluctuations, and conceptual elaborations (thoughts).... Knowing the Mind as it is is in fact an empirical investigation just as rational as any scientific method used to observe physical events. Listening to music with all of your attention can still the mind as well, but if you are not observing the mind then you will not gain any self-knowledge but you will become a conneiseur of good music, which is fine.
Dawkins is unfamiliar with self knowledge. He has no interest in it or curiosity about it. His only interest is stubbornly asserting his own narrow, ignorant belief system and mocking or intimidating anyone who challenges it. He’s an utter bore.
Us Westerners are indeed too materialistic and suffer from our attachment to what we have and what we want to have. Meditating can help remove the attachment by reminding us all we have is our own breath, our own life but it takes discipline to regularly meditate and we are not used to the discipline required.
I got sober in 2012 then I turned inward...I also was 43 now I continue to use esoteric philosophy to assist with my overall well-being. I learned much from it all...ive no words to say...hard to explain.
I don’t know what Dawkins said here that makes everyone take a side. They don’t even disagree? Dawkins is sharing that he gets happiness from music, and that this doesn’t seem like coming “from within”. The Buddhist sees his point, but points out that it actually is!
Dawkins is deriving happiness from the sound of music, rhythm and melody, but the Buddhist is deriving happiness from the nature of music, impermanence and no-self. These are very different ways of engaging with music.
I think Dawkins is brilliant when it comes to the understanding of our species and its origin, but I wouldn't go to him for advice about happiness and meaning. He is a hardcore scientific and logical person (imho) but buddhism goes beyond logic, and that's why he struggles to understand it.
@@jonrixbus listen to Sam Harris about Buddhism which he has studied closely over a long period. He demonstrates that even though Buddhist practices and meditation provide an excellent non theological spirituality, this is rooted in neurological phenomena.
@@peteconrad2077 The only time I would listen to anything S Harris has to say is if I was deaf. He contains a terrible combination of arrogance and ignorance. On almost any topic he has been proven wrong,his position on CV and Vs shows his inability to perceive reality and his neuroscience is basic at best.
Humans have discovered two tools to understand reality beyond what we can “sense” with our sensory organs. One is mathematics. Science is based on top of it. Second is meditation. Both math and meditation can take years of practice and learning. And you may still not get it. Both should be approached with open mind and curiosity.
Eastern and Western people all grapple with the line between assertion and acceptance. In a snowstorm, any sensible person changes the environment to be more suitable. (e.g. fire and clothing) But how much will should one assert before becoming aggressive? Why and when to take a strong position -- in either direction? We all draw a line, and it's in different places for different groups. It seems to me that most Buddhism lies toward the accepting end of the spectrum. Is acceptance the same as passivity? Those are pretty nuanced words, to be discussed in a situation more august than RUclips.
Lots of people did scientific research about consciousness. Famous psychonauts such as Terence McKenna , Timothy Leary are just the two that come to mind but there are others .
We don't know we can't, we're finding out more ways to get closer to doing it as we speak. At the end of the day, we don't know what consciousness is, but science is getting more progress done in a hundred years than religions have done over thousands.
Why is always the most superstitious form of Buddhism (Vajrayana) always given the limelight? Thervada is the most purest and may I dare say the most rational form of Buddhism.
On the surface from an outside point of view Vajrayana seems the most superstitious. And it is true that a lot of practitioners are not monks and get hung up on the superstitious elements, much like lay people in theravada countries. However, from a meditation practice point of view, Vajrayana is just as valid as Theravada and has its own unique areas where it shines. This lama in the video represents the Gelugpa school, which shares your view to some extent, but doesn't totally dismiss Vajrayana. Tibetan Buddhism isn't just Vajrayana, but preserves the sutrayana teachings and practices as well. I must defend such traditions as Mahamudra and Dzogchen and the inner tantra yogas as being very amazingly rich and powerful insight traditions. Many outsiders who are exposed to Vajrayana see the Outer Tantra traditions, which I agree are very superstitious and place so much importance on proper ritual purity and so on. But these are lower tantras and not the supreme understanding of Vajrayana. The supreme understanding of Vajrayana are the inner tantras (and Mahamudra and Dzogchen) regarding the Nature of Mind and continuing in that recognition in all aspects of life while in Sahaja Samadhi.... Peace and Blessings and salutations to you Neil Pinto! Theravada is great as well! Much respect and admiration to all these teachings. Something for everybody!
+Vasu Srivastava yes Theravada is Buddha is frist teaching mahayana tradition Buddha is teach in rajgir and second teaching..if mahayana tradition Buddha is not teaching then Buddha is just simply human because 3th noble truth is very very explain in mahayana tradition Now scientists are very interest mahayana tradition Buddha is teaching you read nalanda master like nagarjuna is book and some other nalanda master book then you find New thinking and idea....
@@RadicallyGreen Best or worse can’t be generalised. What is best for you may not be best for me. There is no doubt about this fact that all traditions of Buddhism are superb and best. But which best suits you is your understanding of the tradition not just superficially, but in its core essence. For me without Pragya pramitas sutta, Buddhism is quite shallow.
Give over: attachment is commitment is love. We live in a material world those that lead others into “captivity” will walk into captivity. Don’t give your material goods to the temple.
Not sure how he can "half understand" this - but hey that's where he was at - any where everyone is at, is exactly where they are meant to be - May a seed of understanding from the creator be planted inside his heart, which will one day germinate into a beautiful loving peace for him. Amen 🙏
i also only half understand it. like the attachment to other people. why should we lose it. we are social beings. other people is what gives me meaning so why would i live a numb, detached, neutral life
@@VanoArts Because attachments to anything at all is harmful, it opens a door to desire, which is the source of perpetual sorrow in Buddhism. No one's asking you to go live in a desert away from humans, but you cannot be... as dependent as most people are today. Frankly, I'm a little surprised it didn't make sense to Dawkins. I learnt of the principles of Buddhism in my early teens, and nothing had made more sense to me before.
@@twisted_nether373 i want to feel sorrow, i want to feel happiness, i want to feel sadness, i want to be a human, i am grateful that i can experience different emotions. so i guess i have to do exactly the opposite of what buddhists do. i want to love fully. imagine a mother who isnt attached to her child. what is this? should we just be psychopaths according to buddhism? i understand if it is about material things. dont be attached to a car for example. that makes sense but for humans?
@@VanoArts I'm no expert, but according do buddhism, everything and everyone around is not gonna give you everlasting happiness since it can be taken away from you, so they detach from everything and meditate in order to escape suffering, but i can understand it's hard to grasp unless you have meditated deeply, and opened up new understanding of reality.
@@VanoArts Attachment is what causes numbness, indifference, suppressed emotions, etc. To detach means to embrace everything that comes and let go of everything that goes. It is the "unconditional" part of unconditional love!
Well, he has hundreds of hours of his mind compiled on the internet, regarding a relatively limited number of subjects and detailed thoughts in each. To me it seems fairly obvious that he isn't impressed by subjective experience and would much rather study and absorb the outside world as opposed to study and absorb the inner workings of his own mind. He's commented often on how the brain can deceive us as conscious observers. That really isn't a stretch if you've listened to him much.
No, he's not "great".He's an arrogant dogmatic materialist, who blindly believes that living beigs are just mere biological machines determined by their dna and natural selection. He lacks any sense of transcendence beyond matter.
@@buddhistphilosopher800 Richard Dawkins is not a materialist. And virtually every intelligent person believes in evolution and that we are biological beings determined by our DNA. I do not understand why you would include the word "mere" in talking about the wonder of evolution. Saying that he does not believe in fantasy is hardly a criticism.
I'm surprised at Richard. He was informed that the pursuit of creative things was positive, but failed to recognise that meditation was also a creative pursuit. And yet, to solve a problem mentally, is in itself, a meditative creative act. And yet he failed to connect the dots. Perplexing.
@@j.johnson3520 he seems to believe that meditation has its roots in religion, and as he opposes the latter, he must also oppose the former, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
If your mind is a mess, jumping everywhere and causing you serious problems it's hard to do anything. I suspect Richard D's mind is already pretty calm so he doesn't appreciate the value of meditating. Once you meditate your mind is much more calm and clear. And it's only with a clear mind that you can really appreciate music and science.
Good for you. But the tradition of buddhism is kept alive by sacrificing underage boys on the altar. Under age ten boys are ordinated as monks and are brainwashed into celibate but peadophilia filled life because no post puberty fellows not enough agree to enter celibate monkhood. There something fundamentally rotten in all religions of the world
Because no such thing exists, if “looking inwards” (whatever that means) had any benefits we would have evolved to do it naturally without putting any effort, like taking a shit
Probably the most amicable talk Dawkins ever had with a religious person, hardly a debate. Dawkins is controversial for his rigid, aggressive debating style, on the other hand, it's always quite reciprocal, few of those who debate Dawkins are close to be so polite and calm as this monk. Although Dawkins changed. After the stroke his head was never the same...
The scientific mind will always try to understand it, but there's nothing to understand. If you think you know you don't know. If you know you don't know, you know.
This man has not helped the UK with his defiant atheist message. He and Hitchens have done a lot of damage and the religious void will be taken up by others
I like the advice Keith Richards gives Johnny Depp in the 3rd Pirates of the Caribbean movie (Keith playing Johnny's Jack Sparrow's character's dad): "It's not about living forever, Jackie - it's about living with yourself"
@@aden060 you don’t need to worship a deity for it to be a religion. Scientology, Jainism, some forms of atheistic Satanism, even some forms of progressive Christianity and Judaism, and of course Buddhism are some examples. You act like nontheistic religions don’t exist. Google is free. Google literally says it is the world’s 4th largest RELIGION. 😂 Bing says it is a widespread Asian religion. Yahoo says it is an Indian religion. I can go on and on.
"It is a mistake to assume that everyone, no matter how irrational, can be reached intellectually " if only one knew the right words . " Everyone is not reachable because not everyone wants to be reached." -Nathaniel Branden-
''I sort of half understand that''' - the only time Dawkins has actually been honest with his views on religion, he's just an embarrassment in here. He hasn't got a clue about being introspective. The guy could start an argument in an empty room.
Definitely. I agree with many of his criticisms of religion. But God or no God, there is still a spiritual dimension to human life. Even Sam Harris admits this. I don't see what's so terrible about that.
Meditation for happiness, peace and tranquillity is a mere declaration against nature the way it is. A FIGHT for a fleeting state of mind without closure
@@StClare_ an observation on the suchness (thatata) of things and events. No exclusions. Happiness doctrine is misleading. Happiness happen of itself so and not on demand. Natural state.
@@farrider3339Finally, amongst all the people in these comments espousing what they mistakenly understand the purpose of buddhist meditation to be - someone who actually understands what it in fact is!! AND you didn't find it nessecary to attack Mr Dawkins in your explanation of dhamma !! 👍
The monks have security: a roof over their head, regular meals, a housekeeper for cooking, cleaning and laundry... They can be peaceful if someone else is dealing with life's daily tedium.
@@newdawnfades5725 correct he is simmiler to a littile child who has not reached adalence thinking he or she will never fancy the outher sex he is not worth lisning to i make fun o people who take the clown sericily
Love Dawkins but agree with the Buddhists on this point. You can look outwards all you like but if the inner world is disturbed then that affects what we see on the "outside."
I would go as far as to say there is no outside world. At least experientially everything we experience is brought in by sense data that we interpret then form into our conscious experience which is all being presented inside ourselves which means what matters most to the quality of the experience is how we interpret that sense data which is greatly effected by our thoughts beliefs fears ect. Meditation is the answer to overcoming these barriers
@@cyclingseth4580 I don't disagree.
@@cyclingseth4580 Yes, projection makes perception.
Both ways of getting happiness are good, focusing on meditating only or just enjoying other people's art. There are different ways to live, all that matters is that one is not delusional, and that he's healthy and happy.
No. The overwhelming majority suffering starts with violence or force from the outside. The only purpose of community is to police this. The only purpose of ethics and morality is to police this. This is where Eastern tradition get it wrong spiritually, and engage hypocritically when it comes to governance. The idea of "putting it out of mind" only benefits the psychopaths either engaging in violence/force, or the psychopaths that look on and do nothing when they witness it.
"The tranquility that you get when you know how to be alone and go within cannot be compared to anything else." Yeah, this monk knows whats up.
“All of humanity's problems, stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” - Blaise Pascal
“The sole cause of man’s unhappiness is that he does not know how to stay quietly in his room” Pascal
Believe it or not,Sam Harris could have told him that
@@robertjsmith ruclips.net/video/XHw1Qj5ccGY/видео.html&pp=ygUYd2h5IHNhbSBoYXJyaXMgaXMgd3Jvbmcg
@@marcusfossa6695 so ,if you don’t notice the difference between what thought says about reality,and how you find reality to actually be you won’t notice your inner peace and freedom
“All of humanity's problems, stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” - Blaise Pascal
brainstorms are fruitful
...he wrote while sitting quietly in a room alone.
What may be lost in that quote is the meaning of the word "inability". We may read that and imagine a lack of wisdom in people, as if they were too dumb or proud or shallow to go so sit in that room. But in reality, sitting quietly in a room alone is actually INTENSELY difficult, and people simply do not know how to do it, or cannot endure it when they try, or in fact do not know how to do so in way where they are merely lost in thought, and only perpetuate their suffering. It is a skill issue
I had an uncle who could do that for hours ...
The quote is from Pascal's Pensées, which is an unfinished defense of Christianity. If we could sit alone in a room, we would understand the misery of our condition, that we have fallen from a better estate. Then we would seek the remedy for it, which is through faith in Jesus Christ, who reconciles us to God though His blood. Whoever believes in Jesus will not perish but have everlasting life. But instead of "sitting alone in a room," and starting upon this journey, man rather seeks distraction from his condition-distraction of all kinds (hunting, games, leisure, work, warfare, etc.).
This is the bigger context of the quote. Pascal was Christian through and through.
I`m practicing Vipassana meditation for quite some time now, have sat plenty of retreats...
two months ago I had a terrible accident in my profession as a carpenter. I basically cut off all four fingers of my right hand. three of them are reattached, not sure how well they ever gonna move... I lost my job too and my dreams and quite a few more things...
yet I am still as happy and optimistic as always. I shed some tears of course but all in all I am full of gratitude and love for my life. I did not had a single minute of pain and the doctors and therapists are in awe as how quick my hand is healing...
The message is this: sustainable, reliable happyness does only come from inside and it does come from a consistent training in the insight of impermanence (within the mind and body)... all things that arise must pass.
All of us will lose our jobs eventually (maybe through retirement)
All of us will lose everyone we love eventually
All of us will lose everything we own eventually
All our body parts will be nothing but death and decay eventually
better prepare for this now, because we'll never now when tragedy is striking
The guy with no shoes has sympathy with the guy with no feet.
Any meditation is never pre-meditated.
When 'you' are there, meditation is not.
Losing 4 fingers lacked meditation.
Impermanence is here today and permanence , the afterlife if you believe in that. Which is what most believe , unfortunately.
All that ever seems to be lost is illusion.
You are strong and wise, my friend.
Best of luck
Sadhu sadhu sadhu, wishing you well in these difficult times
@@francismadden8561 you sound very smart. best of luck and may you be happy
“I find it in music, not by looking inwards.”
Music must be experienced inwardly. Two people can listen to the same music and have vastly different experiences.
Yes. It stimulates what's already inside you.
Okay but music doesnt come from within you, except if you create it yourself. But imo banning every external factor of potential happiness like music or people is a little stupid when you only have one life. Why devoting your time on focusing on yourself if you have a whole world to see ? This is don’t understand.
@@uwayn9829 They are not banning external factors. If you are listening to music or talking to people then you simply see the three characteristics in them.
"Why devoting your time on focusing on yourself if you have a whole world to see?"
How can you see the world if your glasses are caked in mud? Since everything you experience is filtered through the mind, it cannot be seen clearly unless the mind is also clear. You can focus on yourself while exploring the world too! No need to put one off for later.
@@bike4aday well, i dont see monks traveling the world often lol, once you adopt true buddishm practices, you devote your life to it and it requires alot of personal investment. My point was rather aimed at those ones who dissociate from the outside world and focus on themselves. Imo, when you have the ability and the energy to explore the outside world when youre young, you should take the chance to. You wont be able to when youre old and thats when you should start seeking spirituality. You should try all options of happiness practices before heading to this one, because it might be sufficient to most people.
@@uwayn9829 Monks travel all the time! How do you think Buddhism spread? Haha! Monastic life is optional, of course. There's no one perfect environment that fits everyone's needs. Anybody can do these practices. Just be present and mindful of what's happening in your experience. This will enhance your experience, not take away from it. No need to put it off until tomorrow!
I learned that "happiness only comes from within" many years ago but this isn't easy and external forces or events in one's life can definitely make this more challenging. Practicing gratitude is one way to find this happiness. Also being aware of all the little miracles that surround us every day is another way.
The problem is, imho, identification with the objects of observation and possession, which not only body, but also so called rational mind is.
Like person could become a raging a-hole whilst driving a car, totally merging with the object of possession and the observable process. Or you can forget about your clothes, rings, bracelets, headwear, etc.
Body-ego identification is 100 times that combined, that's why it's so powerful. And sceptics whilst being theoretically sceptical about their emergent and elusive mind and personality are totally not sceptical about it in practice, because such practice would shatter their whole narrative and as we say in Russia, they "would be left woth a bare ass in an open/empty field".
Happiness does depend on the outside in that sense though that the worse the external circumstances are the harder it becomes to be internally happy.
@@laaaliiiluuu The inner peace is always there,regardless of what is going on,on the outside.
Happiness is not the point
@@robertjsmith Easy to say when not much harmful is going on outside. Go tell that to the millions starving and fearing for their lives daily.
“Long lasting peace and happiness has to come from within.” Hard to argue that point.
Dawkins apparently does, and I think he reasonably can.
He's incredibly accomplished and seemingly leads a fulfilling life without needing to look inward.
If everyone in general looked inward the world today would most likely improve. That doesn't mean everyone should.
Dawkins cannot escape his own paradigm. Buddhism has primarily to do with alleviating suffering through compassion. And everyone has suffering based on the way they think. This is not a belief, it's a fact of life. And to alleviate suffering has nothing to do with belief; it has to do with coming from the heart.
If you are compassionate to the wrong people, it can increase your suffering I am sorry to say.
@@AndrewMSmith130It could also increase the suffering of many others. But then the opposite is just as true; it could alleviate your suffering & the suffering of many others. All depends on whether you want to choose to succumb to fear.
Everyone may have suffering based on the way they think, but that does not mean that suffering is due to thought alone. Many people have suffering due to physical needs, which compassion does not resolve.
Not being able to escape his own paradigm is Dawkin's big problem. His view of the world is narrow and, since it automatically dismisses contradiction, self-perpetuating.
@@10538overture Yep, and he also overlooks the wisdom of all the great western thinkers, from Aristotle to Nietzsche to Jung.... that it all begins with "Know Thyself".
“I find it in music, not by looking inwards.” You can clearly see that Mr. Dawkins is not there yet.
Music means nothing without the personal interpretation of the sounds, listening to music is a form of meditation.
He clearly has heard the music of Timmy Mallett. That for me is where I find true meaning and oneness with the universe.
@@keyserxx "That for me is where I find true meaning..."
Therein lies the monk's point. Someone else could listen to the same music and feel nothing, but that isn't the music's fault, it's theirs. The joy that Timmy Mallett's music has provided is inspired from the outside but arises from within you.
I get Dawkins is giving his view here but its a bit retarded to feel you even need to have a come back. Clearly what the monk is saying is obviously true doesn't everyone know this intuitively.
You're all forgetting that Dawkin's lives an incredibly accomplished and fulfilling life.
If he says he doesn't need to look inward then I believe him. Looking inward is vital when you are not content with who you are or your circumstances. He seems to be neither.
For people who have not mediated extensively, there are interesting experiences that you come across if you do begin meditating regularly. I had an experience at a 10 day silent meditation retreat which I can only describe as being more real than reality (as if the normal waking world was the dream). I don’t meditate much anymore, but there is definitely something to the meditation experience so when this monk says the creative blissful experience one gets in meditation is unmatched, I know exactly what he means. Or at least I do to some extent. You really have to experience it to understand.
Some times you can stumble upon the elimination of self purely buy accident, and see reality as it truly is for a brief moment.
Attachment is the most counterintuitive aspect of these teachings it really is confusing sometimes even when you know what is meant by it.The Ego self deliberately misinterperits what is meant it.
@@Typhoon-2009What does “empirically” mean to you? I’m genuinely curious.
Sam Harris is a BIG advocate for meditation….do you think he would say the same thing as you? And how do we differentiate between something that is real and something that only happens within the gray matter of our mind? If it’s only within our mind, is it reality?
One of the most anti-dogmatic statement is the Kalam Sutta, or a validation of faith.
In the Kalama Sutta the reader is challenged and it questions religious teachings:
Mā anussavena: Do not believe something just because it has been passed along and retold for many generations.
Mā paramparāya: Do not believe something merely because it has become a traditional practice.
Mā itikirāya: Do not believe something simply because it is well-known everywhere.
Mā Pitakasampadanena: Do not believe something just because it is cited in a text.
Mā takkahetu: Do not believe something solely on the grounds of logical reasoning.
Mā nayahetu: Do not believe something merely because it accords with your philosophy.
Mā akaraparivitakkena: Do not believe something because it appeals to "common sense."
Mā ditthinijjhanakkhantiya: Do not believe something just because you like the idea.
Mā bhabbarupataya: Do not believe something because the speaker seems trustworthy.
Mā samano no garu ti: Do not believe something thinking, “This is what our teacher says.”
This Sutta and my own experience are what keep me firmly Buddhist.
Amazing. One can also note the striking similarities to the classic fallacies of argumentation formulated by the Ancient Greek philosophers. Well, maybe they would diverge on the “logical reasoning” one ;)
@@adamleckius2253 logical correctness doesn’t mean the conclusion sound
Perfect
If it resonates with your natural and innate way of being, free from conditioning and manipulation- it makes sense to me. From investigations into all kinds on the spiritual path, mainstream "religion"is just another external control for the masses, no freedom or true understanding of your inner world and what it actually means. The Buddhist practices (love, compassion, interbeing, wisdom, impermanence, ever changing, etc) have always been within from a young age. It took decades to throw off the shackles of control pushed onto me from birth to uncover it again.
Dawkins is talking about ordinary happiness which is fleeting, not bliss which is from inside and is not fleeting.
Dawkins is a plonker. Not that I follow "buddhism" or practice any rituals or believe in anything abstract at all, but I very much respect the foundations of buddhism and it's original teachings have enormous meaning and importance. Dawkins is just another kind of egotism parading itself around as "look how grounded, sensible and tough-minded I am!" and often trampling on others to try and beat them into submission. However much someone may believe in things that aren't true, trying to dominate and bully them down like these people do only creates more defensiveness and more problems. Dawkins could discover a great deal that is profound if he let himself see beyond his own psychological limitations and just observe life quietly with humility as these people try to demonstrate, but he won't. He's already made his mind up on a belief that science is the only thing, and that that in fact rather vague assumptions drawn from certain areas of science are where it ends. Science is the most important tool we have, but trying to use it to therefore believe in the ego as all you are...it's just an endless game isn't it.
Science itself shows the clues that the mind, the self-identity is a construction of thought created as we grow up, and that what we fundamentally are IS the organism...therefore we are the whole of existence. The organism is not and never can be separate from everything else, as is the unquestioned assumption still holding back the purely scientific mind. It's very odd because every good scientist should know full well that we are absolutely integrated with the whole environment, and even the entire cosmos that grew us here. That is no proof of any belief at all, but it is a very profound indicator that this conscious awareness we all ARE (not have as is often said) is something much more fundamental to existence than the simple mind we and our particular life circumstances and those around us create. These people do not have the slightest understanding of what real meditation means, to stop focusing on one's endless churning thoughts and just observe what is actually happening now, quietly, and taking in the complete wholeness of it all, which includes oneself.
@@DM-kv9kj But even at a scientific level, the "happiest man on earth" according to science is a Buddhist monk name Mattieu Ricard. Compassion is truly the key to true happiness according to the dharma, I don't see how listening to music could possibly compare to the cultivation of true happiness, which comes from compassion or what we call bodhicitta (heart mind).
The rohingya genocide exposed the fraud that is Buddhism
No such thing as 'eternal', you word salad-spewing pseudointellectual. You're just making up some weird and incoherent distinction between 'ordinary' happiness and 'inside' everlasting happiness. Inside as opposed to what? All the happiness that's flying around outside my window. And happiness is an emotion. It dies alongside the brain.
“Bliss” is not remotely eternal, and both come from “inside”. Grasping at straws now are we?
Three minutes of Buddhism from 2500 years of teachings and 84,000 dharmas, (truths) and it rang true the same as the whole of the treasury of the Buddhist teachings.
Yes. Fractal thinking. Like looking at any part of a snowflake structure and seeing the whole
Excellent .@@MikeD-tf7dk
Universities are FULL of IDIOTS who are ONLY an EXPERT in ONE SUBJECT!!
I've been meditating since I was about 10, my mom taught me. When I was 19 and again when I was 24 I experienced and explosion of "bliss" that came in waves. It shot down from the top of my head down throughout my whole body. The second time I was able to see "behind the scenes" of reality at night. So instead of falling asleep I would remain conscious and witness the body go through the sleep cycle. I would see alien-like geometric patterns and hear electronic/computer noises everywhere, like the body was rebooting and I woke up into a machine. Crazy. I think the organic world is an illusion and the higher reality is "electronic/computerish."
This is the problem with approaching Eastern philosophy through a Western lens. It is completely different from the ground up, from its most fundamental perspective. It requires a letting go of all notions and ideas one has to be able to grasp the simplicity and universality of Eastern thought.
It is all inclusive and meant for everyone at the core of it. And it is ultimately and necessarily experiential. One can talk about it all they want, but at the end they must walk it for themselves to truly "get it." It's much like asking directions to get to a destination, one can talk all they want and figure out all the ways to get there, but ultimately the path has to be walked on by the seeker themself to get there. All talk merely points towards that liberation, it must ultimately be experienced for oneself to truly understand it.
This is why Western thinking that relies so much on objectivity fails to grasp the magnificence and simplicity of Eastern thought which emphasises the subjective experience. And ironically enough this opens it up to a universal approach that excludes no one. It is one of the reason why Eastern "religions" need no conversion, one experiential taste of it and the seeker understands it for themselves which keeps them coming back.
You could be considered one of the smartest Western thinkers like Dawkins here, but not able to discriminate between intrinsic lasting inner peace that can be tapped into at all times and extrinisic outer "happiness" that is fleeting. Indian philiosophy categorises happiness as Sukha (fleeting happpiness whose counterpart is dukha or sadness) and Ananda which is our true nature (lasting happiness that has no counterpart and requires nothing extrinisic and material).
Funny thing is this experience is also something that a lot of Stoic wisdom talks about. So it is not completely foreign to Western thought either.
Meditation is not at all common to other faiths lol
The word meditation shows up a lot in historical documents in say, Europe; they are not talking about eastern meditation, they are referring to thinking about something lol
Nah, it is just another take on the common trope of religion: perpetuating injustice. Buddhism does that by neglicence and ignorance rather than robbing the peasants blind. It is thus highly popular among today's Westerners, because it is the perfect cult for those who are socialized in the neoliberal hyper-individualist paradigm.
Totally agree. But buddhism is on the next level. If the west can integrate buddhism ( which I think science will force it to do in the next 100 years) humanity will have progressed a tiny step more on the path.
I agree. Well said on all points!
@@sunkintreeHe's talking about Western Stoic philosophers.
The happiness that comes from peace of mind is incomparable.
Dawkins says that rather than get happiness from inner peace he'd prefer to get happiness from music, for instance. He seems to miss the point that inner peace enhances enjoyment of other things but it doesn't necessarily replace them. It's like trying to enjoy music in a noisy room. You're not trying to remove the noise AND the music and be left with nothing. You're trying to remove the noise so you can enjoy the music. Inner peace isn't eradication of everything, it's the eradication of unnecessary things so you can enjoy what's necessary.
While I agree with you for the most part, does Dawkin's really seem like a person who needs help separating the wheat from the chaff mentally?
He lives an incredibly accomplished and seemingly purposeful life. He clearly doesn't feel the need to look inward.
What happens when you run out of art, music, and scientific curiosities?
I love how Geshe Lhakor nods, "yes, yes" when Dawkins talks about finding joy in the world. Buddhism isn't about not enjoying life, the "external" world. But it's about seeing how your "internal" world truly shapes your experience of the "outside" world. It's about learning how to settle into each moment as it is. True happiness, beyond happiness.
Tibetan monks don't run out of that noisy music, or that stereotype tanka paintings. They chant and chant and meditate rarely. I know it, I stayed in two Tibetan monasteries in India. Just a lot of memorizing old stuff.
I love Richard Dawkins and agree with most of his views, but this isn't aging very well. Scientific evidence for the psychological benefits of meditation is compounding year after year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, from what I've heard, anybody can follow the ways of Buddhism including atheists, Christians, and Muslims while still staying true to their religion or lack there of. I really want to give meditation a shot, but I'm just way too goddamned lazy.
The principle of yoga is that you let go of your own personal little identities and attachments. So in those moments you cannot be anything, not even Hindu or Buddhist or man or woman or anything definitive. You meditate to feel the universe as is - a continuous play of light and dark and mass and vacuum. It helps you put your own little troubles in perspective, and you come out as a more stable person. But if in those moments some egoistic identity (I am a Sunni or I am a CEO) is still playing in your head, that's not yoga.
you nailed it just keep sitting, one day, you will get it.
Dawkins seems to be pretty ignorant on Buddhism here, not in a bad or offensive way though.
They legit discovered brain plasticity by studying meditation.
You can stay true to your religion because Buddhism doesn’t ask you to believe in anything. So you can, the question now is: will you?
It does highlight the radical idea of what the Buddha taught - many people either can’t imagine or dismiss as unrealistic that there can be a dimension of experience that is completely satisfying, perfect in every way that it makes any other experience based on the six senses pale in comparison. An experience so profound that even death can’t disturb it.
Working on inner peace and enjoying music aren’t mutually exclusive
Prior to delving into the realm of spiritual wisdom, it's crucial to ground yourself in common sense. Additionally, make certain that your moral compass is accurately calibrated.
Dawkins didn't understand the Bhuddist. He wasn't talking specifically about meditation, he was talking about the temporary state of enlightenment we all have achieved atleast once in our lives when we want for nothing else in the moment but the moment itself. It is just that many get this from meditation, others from getting in that flow state from running, music or the when playing an instrument etc.
What Dawkins is saying he wants from life is actually what Bhuddism encourages.
The purity of thoughts they preach has a purpose, to ease passage through the second bardo state, which you can visit temporarily if you know what you are doing ;)
The greatest yogis pass through all the bardos in this life.
@@squamish4244they do, but the second bardo state is the reason they purify their minds.
Dawkins is a fool.
Dawkins doesn't understand people generally. He's a smart guy by most yardsticks but he has the emotional intelligence of a Commodore 64.
@@patrickfitzgerald4189No, Dawkins is a biologist. Hence when it comes to biology he is an expert. When it comes to general philosophy he doesn't seem no better or worse than any other layman, when it comes to theology he is a nitwit.
I don't think you can find happiness by looking inwards. I think you find happiness through a life of caring for others. Pets, wildlife, children, the elderly, and helping society at large. When somebody builds a chair as a job, it's unfulfilling; but when yhat somebody crafts a chair for somebody they love, passion and creativity is poured into it.
Dawkins agrees with you I think but substitutes in his own forms such as a love of science and music as mentioned.
I find it odd that so many people in the comments are disappointed by his takes here. Have they never listened to him before this?
On the outside, I'm Catholic and Jewish, but on the inside, I'm Buddhist. The hardest part of my life has been letting go of the consumeristic self-gratifying obsession I had to grow up with. I even wrote a book titled "Impermanence: The Dissolution of Perception" to help counter it.
If you seek happiness by looking outward, of course you can find it. What often happens is that people lose their way and the happiness they once found is no longer available to them. The door to that happiness somehow shuts. That door is still available, and by meditating you may find access to that door and the peace and happiness that comes with it.
The west needs a lot more wisdom from eastern traditions, especially Daoism and minfulness meditation from Buddhism. It changes your outlook on what life is supposed to mean for you, as a beautiful experience here and now, rather than as a journey or race to be completed. Alan Watts got me to appreciate that more, and I'm thankful I was able to learn about that on RUclips.
Except Buddhism is an inward-looking and regressive religion. That's why Buddhist cultures have been out-competed by other religious societies and cultures. If it was actually more constructive to modern society, it'd have thrived more. You can appreciate it on your own terms but it's objectively inferior as a religion in its ability to accommodate and evolve with the times.
Yes. Allan Watts found his happiness in alcohol. That is easier to get than to sitting for hours on your ass.
You're all forgetting that Dawkin's lives an incredibly accomplished and fulfilling life.
If he says he doesn't need to look inward then I believe him. Looking inward is vital when you are not content with who you are or your circumstances. He seems to be neither.
A lot of people get the false idea that buddhism is not a Believe system but a philosophy. But it is both. buddhist do believe in the supernatural and practical philosophical ideas. Most buddhist, no matter the denomination, believe in spiritual beings. I can't spell what the beings are called. But you get the idea. So at the end of the day buddhism is a belief system Like any other religion.
but the simple fact is that unlike basically every other religion, you can extract the core (100% of all the fundamental teachings) of Buddhism, and find that core is totally free of anything supernatural, and still call yourself a Buddhist. Original Pali Buddhism was essentially this (the Buddha himself was famously silent on all supernatural topics, such as what happens after we die), and this is why so-called secular Buddhism exists in the west today, which is so in vogue among modern intellectuals and atheists. When you get right down to it, Buddhism is more like a scientific method applied to the internal world, more a form of technology against suffering, than a real belief system. Except in the most basic way imaginable, and in which sense everyone everywhere is a believer. The thing is always this though: practice the four noble truths, and decide for yourself whether it alleviates suffering
Not to mention reincarnation ans the law of karma is at the core of Buddhist teachings. It doesn't get more spiritual/religious than that.
@@saulkorzeneckithat is called new age buddhism and is a western invention and has even less of an actual basis than the many Buddhist religions. It is belief based, not text based.
@@saulkorzeneckii wouldn't call that real buddhism. Most westerners share a good deal with christians in terms of morals. That doesn't make them inherently christian.
Why r u equating spiritual with philosophical ideas. Where is your evidemce of what most buddhists believe?
Most buddhists believing in spiritual stuff can be explained by mosy buddhists coming from traditional societies where people still believe in ghosts spirits etc
Come on Dawkins, how will you enjoy music if there is going to be so much noise in your mind from suffering? Meditation if done correctly will help you enjoy music 10x more than if you didn’t.
I dont know. I had more ecstatic experience from music when I was younger.
@@ovariantrolley2327 That is because when we are young, the internal monologue/dialogue is not so loud, and we are naturally more present in the moment, in the body, at a lower level of consciousness, as animals are.
The peace and happiness, the tranquility, that you get when you know how to stay alone and go within cannot be matched by anything else.
This video makes Dawkins look like an small child, I don't know if he says what he says for the sake of conversation, but he falls so short in depth. Like he is trapped in his materialistic views. "But music makes me feel good", man that comment feels so limited, so confining.
Isn't it fairly obvious that Dawkins is not someone who is impressed by subjective experience.
As a Darwinian I imagine he views Buddhism with some skepticism, as the animal that can be happy / content in any circumstance is not an animal that survives or procreates.
This comment smacks of someone who does not understand Dawkins criticizing Dawkins for his lack of understanding. It's rather hypocritical. He's materialistic... yeah, that's sort of his whole shtick. He doesn't believe in the metaphysical, the material world is all he believes in.
Everyone of our thoughts and actions affects everyone, everything, the whole universe. Nothing happens in isolation.
Indeed. Meditation has radically improved the quality of my consciousness, or the quality of my being for the better over many, many years. There is a light and a joy that happens during meditation, I believe, because we connect our individuated consciousness to the source consciousness as a whole. They say we're born alone and we die alone. But during meditation I feel anything but alone. I feel held and connected at the deepest level.
Nicely put, and I completely agree 👍
It is nicely put, as means of expression but also as insight into why Dawkins is not bothered at all.
He does not believe there is a connected source of consciousness. How could he, he does not believe in the metaphysical.
In his longer discussions of Buddhism, Dawkins simply commits the same logical errors he rightly calls out creationists for making. He also takes the easiest route by providing a simplistic definition of dhamma. Then he only considers Tibetan (Mahayan) views and makes no mention of Theravada.
He also doesn't address mormonism and scientology.
@@ImperatorZed Yes he does. He calls them crazy religions. About as much "addressing" as they deserve.
What logical errors did he make? Merely saying he made them doesn't count, if you don't elaborate and merely accuses then your accusation is as weightless as slander.
@@zxbc1 So the same as Buddhism.
@@ImperatorZed Buddhism is one of the oldest indoctrinations. It's kind of the grand daddy of dogmatism. One only needs to look at how a devout Buddhist lives to know it.
Always love and admire Dr Dawkins.
Buddhism cured me of Catholicism.
Atheism cured me of Buddhism
Buddhism cured me of Orthodoxy.
@@rodneyshackelford7529 Christ rose from the grave. Buddha is still lying dead. It's never late to come back to Orthodoxy, the one and only true faith.
Oh heavens yes, Buddhism also rid me of Catholicism... the latter closed around me, dominated me, taught me the meaning of guilt, and said I was inherently sinful. The former offers me liberation, endless spiritual development and hope for future spiritual expansion by way of reincarnation. I discovered Buddhism by reading the teachings of Carl Gustav Jung.
@@andreasliou007 you are ignorant
Closest i can get to meditation is to go out for a motorbike ride, it frees my mind for a while.
Same here
Ditto. Apart from the bit about going out for a motorbike ride freeing my mind for a while.
@@martinwood744
Likewise … But with the bit about going out for a motorbike ride freeing my mind for a while.
I went out on a motorbike for a while and it didn't free my mind. Do I need a different motorbike.?
This worked for me for many years, but now thoughts invade while I ride. I've contemplated this problem and wonder whether after after 42 years of riding, it has become so second nature that the levels of concentration needed have lessened. Therefore, the zone one used to be in has diminished??-
Both sides make sense to me, we are all after all alone in this world; we simply can’t get happiness from a pot of gold, a career advancement, marriage, and all the things that we westerners call goals. Instead we gain happiness through satisfaction from living the mundane life - being our own friend and our own Buddha throughout the day. Either through meditation practices and mindfulness or Art, and doing something with ease, passion, and enjoymentt. All of which require commitment and practice daily.
What about the Dawkins side?
@@jatintharkoti2318they are on the same side, with a slightly different perspective.
Dawkins finds happiness in science and music, but to him that seems external.
The Buddhist recognise this happiness, but to him this seems internal - “from within”.
His last sentence sums it all up for me, I am getting to that inner tranquility and letting go... not all the time, sometimes not at all, but having touched it makes attaining it worthwhile.
Meditation is common to many faiths and also secularism. It does not justify or elevate Buddhism. Place Buddhism under the same analysis as other religions and you will find the same practices. The best example is of Buddhism in Bhutan. Although disputed by Buddhist adherents, the findings of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch determined a genocide/ethnic cleansing against southern Nepalese. Or the violence forced on the Rohingya Muslim by Buddhist communities in Myanmar.
Many people in these countries dont practise budhas core teachings. They are just born into these religion.
At the end your problem is Christian are more concern on Buddhist...
@@ssudhak2 Discounting anybody problematic from your religion despite their professed religiosity is a cop out. Many of these human rights abuses are done precisely in the name of religion and religious disagreement, so saying "all who do evil are not from my religion" is at best ignorant, and at worst dishonest.
Art has always been my most reliable companion.
I agree with them both.
True happiness comes from within, but Buddhism also states that your physical health is crucial to achieving that state and there is a great deal of science in staying healthy.
Everything is science, and just because a scientist can't explain something doesn't make it any less scientific.
Nothing good about Buddhism requires you to be a Buddhist... Lot of butt hurt Spiritual egotistical apologists in this comment section who ironically feel a need to profess their superior lack of ego 😂
And It's always robes and magic hats with these people.....and a loooot of dudes.
Nothing good about Buddhism requires you to be a Buddhist, dress like a weirdo And live on a mountain.
Lot of butt hurt Spiritual egotistical apologists in this comment section who ironically feel a need to profess their superior lack of ego though 😂
And It's always robes and magic hats with these people.... Lot of dudes too.... Loooot of dudes.
Nothing good about Buddhism requires you to be a Buddhist, dress like a weirdo Amd live on a mountain.
Lot of butt hurt Spiritual egotistical apologists in this comment section who ironically feel a need to profess their superior lack of ego though 😂
And It's always robes and magic hats with these people.... Lot of dudes too.... Loooot of dudes.
Nothing good about Buddhism requires you to be a Buddhist, dress like a weirdo And live on a mountain.
Lot of butt hurt Spiritual egotistical apologists in this comment section who ironically feel a need to profess their superior lack of ego though 😂
And It's always robes and magic hats with these people.... Lot of dudes too.... Loooot of dudes.
Richard is great. But his understanding on Buddhism is of a kid.
May be this clip is too short. Where can we find the full video?
And a more recent view from him on this subject, this clip is 9 years old
@matthewphilip1977 thank you not-Richard for answering in HIS holy name.
A kid pointed out that the emperor had no clothes.
@matthewphilip1977 Lol, what a ridiculous argument! You may as well say the Buddhist understands evolution better because he's not bought into all the nonsense...pff!
@matthewphilip1977isn’t science a man made concept , if so how is it the truth?
I wish I met Richard Dawkin in dharmsala.. I am sure they have great discussion.
"I'm not sure that I would look inward though ..." a perfect example of the limitations of the intellect.
You're forgetting that Dawkin's lives an incredibly accomplished and seemingly fulfilling life.
If he says he doesn't need to look inward then I believe him. Looking inward is vital when you are not content with who you are or your circumstances. He seems to be neither.
Just because you benefit does not necessarily mean he would. Meditators in this comment section are not nearly as open minded as they think they are.
@@FranzLiszt-n3k Another intellectual story from someone who, like Dawkins, does not meditate. It's like listening to someone who has never eaten chocolate trying to tell me, who has eaten a lot of different chocolates, exactly what chocolate tastes like and what a fool I am for thinking I know better.
@@williambenson Wrong. I have meditated in the past, it just never clicked for me. Now of course you'll gatekeep and say I wasn't doing it right but that's irrelevant.
The reality is that our entire conscious experience evolved in relation to our body's central nervous system. This system encourages or discourages certain behaviours that are beneficial for survival. Behaviours, as in activity in the external, physical world, not internally. Behaviours or circumstances that make us feel good or bad and compel us to act accordingly.
Dawkins is a Darwinian, and it therefore stands to reason he is somewhat skeptical of meditation, as the animal that is always content / happy in any circumstance is not the animal that survives. You should not feel content when you are starving for example.
Due to the nature of evolution it is totally reasonable to suggest that not everyone would derive great benefit from meditation. The fact that you cannot even consider this is why I call you less open minded than you thInk you are.
@@williambensonBad example. Comparing it to someone who has never taken psychedelics before would be much more appropriate.
@@FranzLiszt-n3k Everyone who has ever meditated with intention and commitment, and is reading your rationalizing, intellectual nonsense, knows where you are stuck and that you cannot think your way out of it. Oh well, up to you. You are very welcome to stay there. None of my business.
Do you really imagine that I have never heard this from anyone else before? "I went to the gym once. It wasn't for me. People who exercise are less open minded than they think they are. Dawkins is a Darwinian and therefore he knows that animals can survive perfectly well without exercise. blah blah blah".
Either you are willing to do the work necessary to wake up or you are not. Fine by me. Go for it.
Served. Happiness is fickle and transitory. Joy is from deep within and not as susceptible external conditions. The difficulty is truly realising that we pour joy from deep within ourselves into whatever the present circumstances are and not the other way round.
Very good questions Sir Dawkins. And good answers too from Gueshela. I sure would like to exchange on this topic.
Happiness and contentment are states of mind. Philosophies built on surviving, accumulating stuff to represent status, as a buffer from death and because of fear of suffering, are a long way from achieving this and indeed go in the opposite direction. Life is a chance to be creative and is there to be enjoyed. If life really becomes too hard, there is always the self-composting option. Not being prepared to be exploited would make things difficult for the sociopathic leaders, for whom exploitation of others is vital. Perhaps it is the life after death religions which help to ensure continued suffering; on the basis that you just need to hold out in this life, you’ll then get into everlasting paradise / heaven. Hope is one of the main shackles to the cycle of continued abuse and exploitation.
Marx thought much the same.
Dear Prof Dawkins. What I found back in 93 is that there is nothing in the world that will make you happy if you don’t choose to be.
2:32
i knew there was a "but" coming, but considering that this is Dawkins, it was a fairly respectful "but". He's usually much more condescending.
Old post but I think this is because at a fundamental level Buddhism is unlike other dogmatic religions. A religion truly based on peace, in an attempt to reduce inevitable suffering is actually a noble thing unlike nameless other religions.
Nah it's pretty dogmatic
The most fascinating thing about Buddhism is the statue of Bhudda itself!
He’s such a smart guy that he doesn’t understand the point and direction of this practice. His assumption of “spiritual wisdom,” or “mystical understanding” is his personal bias that he uses to denounce any idea that doesn’t align with his spiritual science mysticism.
It's the words that are used. They are somehwhat 'woo woo'.
'Spiritual' and 'mystical', are not terms that are quantifiable. This is the crux of the issue.
Science is not mysticism. All mysticism is based on dogma, and science is based on evidence. If tomorrow there's evidence that science is critically flawed and is more destructive than constructive, then scientists would be the first to abandon it. Can't say the same with any religion.
@@RhetoricalMusethe funny thing is that the big anomaly in western science is consciousness and that it cannot be explained rationally or quantified. It can only be understood experientially by living an ethical life and development of the mind. Unfortunate for Dawkins if he hasn't changed is that if you try to explain it rationally, think about the why or how or what then you cannot find the peace and happiness from the practice.
He doesn't understand, he admits he doesn't understand, and he asks questions to try to understand. I don't see any denouncements here.
@@user26912 Who says consciousness can't be explained rationally or quantified? Science has explained a lot about consciousness, but it still has a long way to go. If science had all the answers already, we wouldn't need science to try to find the answers.
Meditation is a free medication for almost every illness, and out of all the religions in the world, i find Buddhism to the most practical and compatible with science, and i love Richard Dawkins too, he's one of my heroes
Problem with most athiest, is they criticize before even either reading on it, partaking in it, and practicing it. The dhammapada by Gautama siddartha is very clinical and appeals to the logical mind, but he also wasn’t just some doctor or professor in emotional, devotional and aesthetic practices, in his canonical books like the samayutta Nikaya, he didn’t just consult wise men, other Buddhas, Adiyogis, Brahmins and bodhivistas, he is consulting Gods, deities and other worldly beings, some gave good insights of diligence over negligence like Sakka, others were more rigid in emotional attachments or detachments like Brahma, while the samayutta itself gives accounts of universal Gods like Shiva teaching Buddha the importance of constant movement and experiences, through all this he did a Sadhana, which is a modern way of going to a college university and learning what works and what does not work, the difference between Buddha and many of his disciples which 10 accompanied him on his journey, was he was very fast pace, he could learn very quick, applied what worked, and what didn’t work and mold it in his own rhythms of the dharma chakra, which is now the center fold teachings of Buddhism, also known as the eight fold path, to counter the 4 sukkhas, 4 noble truths of suffering and overcoming it with samsara.
It truly is incredible, many of the sutras give insight and practices on how to live simply, not too lazy nor over worry, just have a stream flow of life with its basics. As you go along this path you become wiser, and stronger, and more adept to life’s woes. When reading it, like the Bible, it is as practical as it is mystical, as gurus tell us, dipping into mysticism doesn’t gain or make you super human, but it shows you that being human, is super when you unlock and use your potentials that’s already there.
Buddhism as a whole is very good, it takes a snippet of the dharma practiced in Hindusim, but most Hindus would tell you they don’t practice Hindusim, they practice sanatana dharma, they aren’t religious, they are in a spiritual journey. I’m so happy I found the Buddhist books, they always help me when my mind is jumbled up and I can straighten them and instead of being stuck in a corner, I can move with the stream flow. This takes aesthetic practice, along with what most self help books or discipline and motivational of modernity provide, modern ones, which is more tailored to modernity of work, money, priorities, goals, and commune, the only thing most modern books lack are the spiritual sides, for most modernity books make it out as robotic almost emotionless, to the degree one can’t believe that all their is are man made equations and law biding, while our spiritual books from Buddhism, Hindusim, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, go beyond this, to the unknown to be known, and the known to be unknown. After reading the Bible, Quran, some Vedas like the gita, Dhammapada, ect I can unequivocally say that is not only a incredible base to grow from, but to cultivate that connection can elevate you higher to plains not thought possible.
Dawkins only wants answers from the possible and shuns anything that appears impossible, yet doesn’t even see in the word itself, impossible, when broken down, says…I’m-possible.
So when one says God is impossible, the voice within is saying, through God…I’m-possible. Whether Elohim, Yahweh, Allah, Shiva, Brahma, Vishnu, or gods of their ordnance, you can reach them by following the foot prints and foot steps they left for us to follow.
Follow.
Poo in Loo Bobs and Vegene ass
I wonder if you're aware that Gautama the Buddha was also an atheist?
Okay
@@sibanoughtThe asian have a different religious structure than westerners. He was largely agnostic, or did not feel it was necessary to his teachings.
Focusing on music or a math problem IS a meditative experience. there is no conflict here! When Dawkins says “sort of half understand that” about an ancient spiritual tradition, that’s a major concession :)
Not about "going within" like a prairie dog hiding in its hole, but more like self-knowledge, Mr. Dawkins. Stilling the mind so that you can recognize the Mind As It Is apart from its projections, fluctuations, and conceptual elaborations (thoughts).... Knowing the Mind as it is is in fact an empirical investigation just as rational as any scientific method used to observe physical events. Listening to music with all of your attention can still the mind as well, but if you are not observing the mind then you will not gain any self-knowledge but you will become a conneiseur of good music, which is fine.
Dawkins is unfamiliar with self knowledge. He has no interest in it or curiosity about it. His only interest is stubbornly asserting his own narrow, ignorant belief system and mocking or intimidating anyone who challenges it. He’s an utter bore.
Us Westerners are indeed too materialistic and suffer from our attachment to what we have and what we want to have. Meditating can help remove the attachment by reminding us all we have is our own breath, our own life but it takes discipline to regularly meditate and we are not used to the discipline required.
I wish this video was longer.
Full video in description section
@@thunderstruck2727 Ah, thank-you! :-)
So we get to see Dawkins stump him with reality.
- This monk has a gaze of total commitment. He couldn’t be more sure of himself.
I got sober in 2012 then I turned inward...I also was 43 now I continue to use esoteric philosophy to assist with my overall well-being. I learned much from it all...ive no words to say...hard to explain.
I don’t know what Dawkins said here that makes everyone take a side. They don’t even disagree?
Dawkins is sharing that he gets happiness from music, and that this doesn’t seem like coming “from within”. The Buddhist sees his point, but points out that it actually is!
Dawkins is deriving happiness from the sound of music, rhythm and melody, but the Buddhist is deriving happiness from the nature of music, impermanence and no-self. These are very different ways of engaging with music.
They're the same@@bike4aday
If they are the same then why can you see one and not the other?
the more I hear Dawkins speak, the more I hear his fundamentalism. his approach to science and understanding is not just skepticism, but cynicism.
Projection on your part.
I think Dawkins is brilliant when it comes to the understanding of our species and its origin, but I wouldn't go to him for advice about happiness and meaning. He is a hardcore scientific and logical person (imho) but buddhism goes beyond logic, and that's why he struggles to understand it.
@@jonrixbus listen to Sam Harris about Buddhism which he has studied closely over a long period. He demonstrates that even though Buddhist practices and meditation provide an excellent non theological spirituality, this is rooted in neurological phenomena.
@@peteconrad2077 Thank you for the tip. I totally agree.
@@peteconrad2077 The only time I would listen to anything S Harris has to say is if I was deaf.
He contains a terrible combination of arrogance and ignorance.
On almost any topic he has been proven wrong,his position on CV and Vs shows his inability to perceive reality and his neuroscience is basic at best.
When you spend time reading or doing things that you enjoy. That is also a form of meditation.
Humans have discovered two tools to understand reality beyond what we can “sense” with our sensory organs. One is mathematics. Science is based on top of it. Second is meditation.
Both math and meditation can take years of practice and learning. And you may still not get it.
Both should be approached with open mind and curiosity.
Eastern and Western people all grapple with the line between assertion and acceptance. In a snowstorm, any sensible person changes the environment to be more suitable. (e.g. fire and clothing) But how much will should one assert before becoming aggressive? Why and when to take a strong position -- in either direction? We all draw a line, and it's in different places for different groups. It seems to me that most Buddhism lies toward the accepting end of the spectrum. Is acceptance the same as passivity? Those are pretty nuanced words, to be discussed in a situation more august than RUclips.
He doesn't understand that you can't science experiential consciousness.
yes you can.
@@ivan5844 No you cant
@@ivan5844impossible. It’s the problem of quantum physics. David bohm accepted this.
Lots of people did scientific research about consciousness. Famous psychonauts such as Terence McKenna , Timothy Leary are just the two that come to mind but there are others .
We don't know we can't, we're finding out more ways to get closer to doing it as we speak. At the end of the day, we don't know what consciousness is, but science is getting more progress done in a hundred years than religions have done over thousands.
Meditation does work. You can separate problems in life and focus on goals.
You began, many years ago, as a real expert on your subject. Now you seem to be speaking about things of which you have no experience.
The last sentence, said by the monk, is gold.
Why do they have so many physical things:, bells, books, traditions
I think there's a difference in being materialistic, which we all are, and being overly materialistic.
What a pity there was only 3 minutes plus of this conversation..... I could have done with an hour of these two wonderful people in discussion.
Why is always the most superstitious form of Buddhism (Vajrayana) always given the limelight?
Thervada is the most purest and may I dare say the most rational form of Buddhism.
On the surface from an outside point of view Vajrayana seems the most superstitious. And it is true that a lot of practitioners are not monks and get hung up on the superstitious elements, much like lay people in theravada countries. However, from a meditation practice point of view, Vajrayana is just as valid as Theravada and has its own unique areas where it shines. This lama in the video represents the Gelugpa school, which shares your view to some extent, but doesn't totally dismiss Vajrayana. Tibetan Buddhism isn't just Vajrayana, but preserves the sutrayana teachings and practices as well. I must defend such traditions as Mahamudra and Dzogchen and the inner tantra yogas as being very amazingly rich and powerful insight traditions. Many outsiders who are exposed to Vajrayana see the Outer Tantra traditions, which I agree are very superstitious and place so much importance on proper ritual purity and so on. But these are lower tantras and not the supreme understanding of Vajrayana. The supreme understanding of Vajrayana are the inner tantras (and Mahamudra and Dzogchen) regarding the Nature of Mind and continuing in that recognition in all aspects of life while in Sahaja Samadhi.... Peace and Blessings and salutations to you Neil Pinto! Theravada is great as well! Much respect and admiration to all these teachings. Something for everybody!
+Vasu Srivastava yes Theravada is Buddha is frist teaching mahayana tradition Buddha is teach in rajgir and second teaching..if mahayana tradition Buddha is not teaching then Buddha is just simply human because 3th noble truth is very very explain in mahayana tradition
Now scientists are very interest mahayana tradition Buddha is teaching you read nalanda master like nagarjuna is book and some other nalanda master book then you find New thinking and idea....
Neil Pinto
Very true, Mahayana Buddhism is a brahmanized version of Buddha's teachings.
@@dawnfm00 ...hmmm. That means you are quite blank about Mahayana tradition. Feeling pity for you. 😍🙌
@@RadicallyGreen Best or worse can’t be generalised. What is best for you may not be best for me. There is no doubt about this fact that all traditions of Buddhism are superb and best. But which best suits you is your understanding of the tradition not just superficially, but in its core essence. For me without Pragya pramitas sutta, Buddhism is quite shallow.
Give over: attachment is commitment is love. We live in a material world those that lead others into “captivity” will walk into captivity. Don’t give your material goods to the temple.
Not sure how he can "half understand" this - but hey that's where he was at - any where everyone is at, is exactly where they are meant to be - May a seed of understanding from the creator be planted inside his heart, which will one day germinate into a beautiful loving peace for him. Amen 🙏
i also only half understand it. like the attachment to other people. why should we lose it. we are social beings. other people is what gives me meaning so why would i live a numb, detached, neutral life
@@VanoArts Because attachments to anything at all is harmful, it opens a door to desire, which is the source of perpetual sorrow in Buddhism. No one's asking you to go live in a desert away from humans, but you cannot be... as dependent as most people are today.
Frankly, I'm a little surprised it didn't make sense to Dawkins. I learnt of the principles of Buddhism in my early teens, and nothing had made more sense to me before.
@@twisted_nether373 i want to feel sorrow, i want to feel happiness, i want to feel sadness, i want to be a human, i am grateful that i can experience different emotions. so i guess i have to do exactly the opposite of what buddhists do. i want to love fully. imagine a mother who isnt attached to her child. what is this? should we just be psychopaths according to buddhism?
i understand if it is about material things. dont be attached to a car for example. that makes sense but for humans?
@@VanoArts I'm no expert, but according do buddhism, everything and everyone around is not gonna give you everlasting happiness since it can be taken away from you, so they detach from everything and meditate in order to escape suffering, but i can understand it's hard to grasp unless you have meditated deeply, and opened up new understanding of reality.
@@VanoArts Attachment is what causes numbness, indifference, suppressed emotions, etc. To detach means to embrace everything that comes and let go of everything that goes. It is the "unconditional" part of unconditional love!
Richard Dawkins on TIBETAN branch of Buddhism, it is more spiritual and related to rituals type of Buddhism
I love the way that most commenters appear to know intimately what Dawkins thinks and what his motivations and feelings are, in great detail.
👍 Magic, I'm happy you've found someting to love on YT comments.
@@dougaltolan3017 Irony lost on morons. lol
Well, he has hundreds of hours of his mind compiled on the internet, regarding a relatively limited number of subjects and detailed thoughts in each.
To me it seems fairly obvious that he isn't impressed by subjective experience and would much rather study and absorb the outside world as opposed to study and absorb the inner workings of his own mind. He's commented often on how the brain can deceive us as conscious observers.
That really isn't a stretch if you've listened to him much.
You can get into a meditative state by focusing intensly on an activity. No need to go anywhere.
India is beautiful. Dawkins is great.
No, he's not "great".He's an arrogant dogmatic materialist, who blindly believes that living beigs are just mere biological machines determined by their dna and natural selection. He lacks any sense of transcendence beyond matter.
@@buddhistphilosopher800 which is the truth
@@abhinavchauhan7864 I have to tell you *No*
@@buddhistphilosopher800 how ?
@@buddhistphilosopher800 Richard Dawkins is not a materialist. And virtually every intelligent person believes in evolution and that we are biological beings determined by our DNA. I do not understand why you would include the word "mere" in talking about the wonder of evolution. Saying that he does not believe in fantasy is hardly a criticism.
I'm surprised at Richard. He was informed that the pursuit of creative things was positive, but failed to recognise that meditation was also a creative pursuit.
And yet, to solve a problem mentally, is in itself, a meditative creative act.
And yet he failed to connect the dots.
Perplexing.
@@j.johnson3520 he seems to believe that meditation has its roots in religion, and as he opposes the latter, he must also oppose the former, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
If your mind is a mess, jumping everywhere and causing you serious problems it's hard to do anything. I suspect Richard D's mind is already pretty calm so he doesn't appreciate the value of meditating. Once you meditate your mind is much more calm and clear. And it's only with a clear mind that you can really appreciate music and science.
Yeah but meditation can be done without religious bs.
Infact it can be done in more effective way
@@ThoughtfulVoyager Yea I agree. A lot of Buddhists are secular
True
There is a peaceful feeling in deep mediation, Took a lot of tries but I have felt it.
Good for you. But the tradition of buddhism is kept alive by sacrificing underage boys on the altar. Under age ten boys are ordinated as monks and are brainwashed into celibate but peadophilia filled life because no post puberty fellows not enough agree to enter celibate monkhood. There something fundamentally rotten in all religions of the world
Dawkins is even against looking inwards and meditation 🤦♂️
Because no such thing exists, if “looking inwards” (whatever that means) had any benefits we would have evolved to do it naturally without putting any effort, like taking a shit
@@quantumpolariton122 Will to power leads to changes at a pace that is unmatched by any coevolving biology.
@@bryansmith915 for example?
@@quantumpolariton122anything that requires effort doesn't exist and has no benefits?
@@Rezzanine meditation has its effects in calming you and breathing exercise, nothing more
The shadows are delightful richard, but the true light is within your own hands and heart. God speed Roshi.
Richard didn’t get it
The Buddhist didn’t get it
Probably the most amicable talk Dawkins ever had with a religious person, hardly a debate. Dawkins is controversial for his rigid, aggressive debating style, on the other hand, it's always quite reciprocal, few of those who debate Dawkins are close to be so polite and calm as this monk.
Although Dawkins changed. After the stroke his head was never the same...
The scientific mind will always try to understand it, but there's nothing to understand. If you think you know you don't know. If you know you don't know, you know.
Buddhism is a religion more compatible with modern science but still includes elements of magical thinking in many if its forms.
This man has not helped the UK with his defiant atheist message. He and Hitchens have done a lot of damage and the religious void will be taken up by others
What do you mean by 'others'?
I like the advice Keith Richards gives Johnny Depp in the 3rd Pirates of the Caribbean movie (Keith playing Johnny's Jack Sparrow's character's dad): "It's not about living forever, Jackie - it's about living with yourself"
Buddhism is da master key 2 liberation
No it's not all religions are lies including those with better pr campaigns
@@sayavaya6722 buddhism isn't a religion
@@aden060 yes it is lol
@@Rainfizzle it isn't it's a philosophy literally no deities are worshipped
The same applies to adveita vedanta of Hinduism
@@aden060 you don’t need to worship a deity for it to be a religion. Scientology, Jainism, some forms of atheistic Satanism, even some forms of progressive Christianity and Judaism, and of course Buddhism are some examples. You act like nontheistic religions don’t exist. Google is free. Google literally says it is the world’s 4th largest RELIGION. 😂 Bing says it is a widespread Asian religion. Yahoo says it is an Indian religion. I can go on and on.
"It is a mistake to assume that everyone, no matter how irrational, can be reached intellectually " if only one knew the right words . " Everyone is not reachable because not everyone wants to be reached."
-Nathaniel Branden-
Dawkins is a legend in his own mind. With his bird's eye view, he's an expert on all things religious from afar.
Islam is the truth Alhamdulilah
''I sort of half understand that''' - the only time Dawkins has actually been honest with his views on religion, he's just an embarrassment in here. He hasn't got a clue about being introspective. The guy could start an argument in an empty room.
Definitely. I agree with many of his criticisms of religion. But God or no God, there is still a spiritual dimension to human life. Even Sam Harris admits this. I don't see what's so terrible about that.
Meditation for happiness, peace and tranquillity is a mere declaration against nature the way it is.
A FIGHT for a fleeting state of mind without closure
Or an escape for those who can’t deal with reality
What would you suggest as an alternative?
@@StClare_ an observation on the suchness (thatata) of things and events. No exclusions. Happiness doctrine is misleading. Happiness happen of itself so and not on demand. Natural state.
@@farrider3339Finally, amongst all the people in these comments espousing what they mistakenly understand the purpose of buddhist meditation to be - someone who actually understands what it in fact is!!
AND you didn't find it nessecary to attack Mr Dawkins in your explanation of dhamma !!
👍
The monks have security: a roof over their head, regular meals, a housekeeper for cooking, cleaning and laundry... They can be peaceful if someone else is dealing with life's daily tedium.
Yep, meditation means jackshitt if you still have to wash your dirty laundry
Exactly. Buddhists aren't exempt from the reality of the outside world as they like to claim.
You really know noting of the life of a monk. A housekeep/cook, seriously.
You think monks don’t cook, clean and wash clothes?
you clearly haven't lived with monks.
Amazing that mr Dawkins goes to all the trouble, seeking something he does not believe in. There's a message in all this.
Dawkins view on meditation is like saying that I am colour blind, but I am an expert on colouring. He really has no clue.
true, he has never done psychedelics, never meditated, never done any research into dreams or anything mystical because he is completely narrow minded
@@newdawnfades5725 correct he is simmiler to a littile child who has not reached adalence thinking he or she will never fancy the outher sex he is not worth lisning to i make fun o people who take the clown sericily
Dharamsala is such a magical place. I wish I could go back there.