Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Early Buddhist Metaphysics
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 июл 2024
- What did the Buddha have to say about key metaphysical topics such as what exists and how it is structured? I'll discuss this most basic aspect of philosophy and how the Buddha's views fit into some contemporary discussions of topics such as realism and non-realism.
📙 Check out my new book, A Handbook of Early Buddhist Wisdom, with a Foreword by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
🧡 If you find this material useful, check out my Patreon page and get fun benefits like exclusive videos, audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: / dougsseculardharma
🧡 You can also make donations through: paypal.me/dougsdharma
☸️ Free mini-course at the Online Dharma Institute: onlinedharma.org.
🎙Check out my podcast with Jon Aaron, Diggin' the Dharma: digginthedharma.com/
✅ Sutta mentioned:
suttacentral.net/sn22.94/en/s...
✅ My paper:
“Was the Buddha an Anti-Realist?” Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, 2015. www.academia.edu/19291978/Was...
Webpage: www.dougsdharma.com/
Facebook: / onlinedharmainstitute
Mastodon: mindly.social/@dougsdharma
Twitter: / dougsdharma
Thumbnail image courtesy of Zafer from Pixabay.
❤️ Thanks to Patreon Patrons:
Anonymous (2)
DunJing
John Oborne
Scarlett Farrow
Jimmy Maa
Debbie Mattison Fine Art
Steve H.
Ron Peat
Matthew Smith
JC
Shantha Wengappuli
Karma_CAC
Jorge Seguel
Christopher Apostolof
GailJM
Brett Merritt
David Bell
T Pham
VCR
Upayadhi
Andi and Erik
ATGuerrero686
Michael Scherrer
khobe schofield
Alex Perdomo
Benji Forsyth
Blaze Way
Sonny Flink
Steve Marlor
Joy L Lee
Andrew Tom
Anthony Tucker
Karlee R
Ethan M
Billy in Singapore
Olivia Otter
Carl Lennartson
xiao mao
Jeff Harvey
Andrew Ingrouille
Kenneth Grandchamp
Doug Fonner
Rene Gariepy
Russell Needham
Smoggyrob
Mac Roja
Bernardo
Clémence Ortega Douville
Kwan Alex
Scott Johnston
Richard J Beninger
Nathanael O. Arnquist
SaturnianMandala
Trin P
Letesa Isler
Dorien Izel
Robert Paterson
Jake Tobiason
Louvenia Ortega
Steve S.
Richard Rappuhn
Sarah Kress
Miri F Fairchild
John Aaron
Paul Niklewski
Kong Ing Kai
Dave Gorman
00:00 Intro
01:54 The Buddha on what exists
02:41 The case of “forms”
04:54 The mental aggregates
06:12 “Realms of existence”
08:25 Two key aspects to the structure of what exists
11:35 Karmic structure
13:13 Borderline topics in metaphysics
14:27 Realism or anti-realism? Historical options and influences
17:39 The Buddha’s pragmatism
21:29 Summary of early Buddhist metaphysics
Note: as an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Amazon links are affiliate links where I will earn a very small commission on purchases you make, at no additional cost to you. This goes a tiny way towards defraying the costs of making these videos. Thank you!
🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂
📙 You can find my book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
Thanks Doug! Do we actually know that the other realms were not actually intended to be taken in the same sense as the distinction between the human and animal realm? Could it be that the other realms were also speaking of 'realms of experience'? Are there any qualitative differences between the ways human/animal realms are distinguished that prove these two were of a different use of the word 'realm' (or whatever that is translated from of course)?
So thankful for the Buddha to have shared his insights back then and for Doug to talk about them.
🙏😊
Abhidhamma is very helpful to easily understand the deep teachings in Buddhism. Thank you so much.
Abhidhamma may give you knowledge but not a life with wisdom.
@siyovaxshen-sipad-zid-ana, Theravada Abhidhamma is the original Abhidhamma. Mahayana concepts developed after the establishment of Magadha empire.
@@marka2188, You don't know Abhidhamma. You can't explain deep teachings in Buddhism without using Abhidhamma.
@siyovaxshen-sipad-zid-ana, Mahayana Abhidharma doesn't contain all the ultimate elements mentioned in Theravada Abhidhamma. Also, Brahamanical influence could cause developing Mahayana texts after 320 BCE. A lot of Mahayana concepts don't align with Abhidhamma.
wow, almost 100k subs, this channel blew up quickly. I remember when it was just doug and like 5 of us.
I know!! 😄😄
As a person with a long-time fascination with Metaphysics, this video was delightful. Ultimately, I understand that an intellectual exploration of the foundations of reality isn't really the point of the practice, but I still can't help but find it to be quite important and interesting. I look forward to your Philosophy of Mind video in the future.
Thanks! 🙏
RUclips for some reason stopped to recommend to me your videos, some hours ago I noticed that and watched some videos of you... Now, suddenly I receive a notification and I'm probably the first person to comment 😂😂 The RUclips algorithm always trying to fool me
Well thanks for coming back and commenting! 😄
Brilliant lecture, Doug. I can appreciate remaining grounded in practice, but having a philosophical background myself, i do enjoy getting into these philosophical and theoretical presentations as well. Thank you 😊
Wonderful, glad to hear it! 😊
I like your way of explaing things! Not to complicated, but in the same time with quotes and tecnical terms. I'm very interested to Buddhism, althoug i can't really study it because of various life problem. Your videos are very unique! Thanks for sharing you knowledge!
You're very welcome, thanks for the comment! 🙏
this video reminds me of another amazing channel on youtube, centre place. who also post kind of similar subject matter but for philosophy/christianity (which, to my understanding, were very intertwined for a large part of history). so like middle ages philosophy and how thought changed throughout (and also a lot of purely christian lore videos lol but i didn't have much interest in those). they posted hour long lectures and at the time my mind was blown how that was just free on the internet.
now i find this channel and once again i'm blown away how all of this is just free. what a time to be alive.
It's pretty amazing what's available out there! 😄
You should read Johanne Bronkhorst's work on early Buddhism. His work is very intriguing and gives new perspective on early Buddhism.
Yes, I'm familiar with his work.
Great Respect to Dr.Dough.i love to learn Dharmma Englis h from you whom can explain very simple to understand for Thai ❤😊
So nice of you, it's my pleasure! 🙏
Wonderful video (as always 😅). I really appreciate the Buddha's pragmatic attitude. It would be healthy if we could apply such a stance to subjects of our time like climate, gender, covid, migration etc. That could be very helpful in order to reduce that quasi-religious dogmatism which dominates discussions around those topics.
Looking forward to the Philosophy of Mind...
🐱🙏
Yes, a pragmatic viewpoint is often most helpful. 😄
Buddha wasn't explicit but prima facie seems to me that he held to (substance dualist) realism. But being that he was not explicit, there was a widespread acceptance of idealism in the Madhyamaka, Yogacara, and various Mahayana traditions influenced by them.
The problem of universals is also an interesting niche issue, what is the ontology of those. Some philosophers of those idealist traditions are often said to have promoted nominalism in opposition to the Nyaya Hindu promotion of moderate realism, but when one reads more closely some of them seem to have not opposed moderate realism, but just the Nyaya theory of perception and how universals fit there. And there are various Buddhist philosophers who explicitly supported moderate realism, especially in the Gelug tradition, and it seems to be entailed by the views of the svabhava accepting early schools.
Being that the aggregates were mentioned here in talking about ontology, I have to do a pet peeve of mine and mention that it's incomplete to just enumerate the five aggregates. The first aggregate exhausts material existence (the first four elements of fire, earth, air, and water), but the other four, mental aggregates don't exhaust mental existence (the sixth element of consciousness), being that the Buddha in the Sutta mentions mental existence beyond the five aggregates, in one place he calls it simply the 'person' (puggala), in another 'unmanifested consciousness' (anidassana vinnana). Some Threvada traditions accept thsi on face value and call it simply the intellect (citta), and of course this view a fundamental mind which exists beyond the five aggregates is accepted in most Mahayana and Vajraya schools as. As it was in the majority of early Buddhism (apparently by all schools in the Mahasamghika branch, and also various schools of the Sthaviravada branch).
Thanks for your points, they are interesting. The Buddha never discussed such things as properties vs. substances (an Aristotelian distinction) nor properties as universals, so my inclination is not to ascribe to him any kind of substance view nor any view about universals. That said, the quasi-substantialist view he was most familiar with was the atman view of the early Upaniṣads, which was one of the main targets of his disagreement. Given that background I would assume he would not hold to any sort of substance view, more likely some kind of event-view or process-view. But again, these are too sophisticated to ascribe literally to early Buddhism. And yes, there are other ways of describing the mind in early Buddhism, but I don't see them as essentially different from the five aggregate view, just other ways to frame the same system. (Though indeed, as you point out in some later schools they took on greater ontological importance).
I think you misunderstand what the citta is. The intellect dies with the body, but the Pali nikayas say the thoroughly liberated citta is Nirvana. (Suvi mutta cittasa nibbanum, iirc, correct me if I'm thinking of a different quote) You can't liberate that which dies. In fact, the citta (same an nous in Greek), is that which is liberated through Disobjectification. It's basically the soul, not the intellect.
Original Buddhism is reformulated advaita vedanta. Also, there was early upanishad influence in regard to Atman, as the channel owner stated above this comment.
Could you please do a video on Buddhism and grief and loss?
Thanks for the suggestion, I have one on illness and death that might be of interest: ruclips.net/video/L2jTFPzKtK8/видео.html
Many thanks! I'm currently re-reading 'Buddhist Phenomenology' by Dan Lusthaus. The main focus is Yogachara, but It has some very nice introductory material on aggregates, realms etc. It's a bit too technical for me at times, but he seems to resist the western-style philosophical idealist interpretation of Yogachara.
Yes I think there are various interpretations of Yogacara, and scholarly disagreements over which is paramount. And the later schools do get very technical.
Thank you Doug for not putting the Buddha in any philosophical category! We do not come to the Buddha to get witty answers on philosophical quandaries. We come to the Buddha to uproot suffering and the root-causes of suffering. Nothing else. His “pragmatism” was based on the capabilities and capacities of the students he met along the way. His instructions and answers where always given with the intention to further the development of the particular person he happened to meet. His intention was not to be the sort of person that had figured out the all-encompassing answers to every philosophical question the world would throw at him. Instead, he was genuinely interested in the progress towards self-realization for all the people that he met rather than portraying himself as the all-knowing “professor”. I believe this is one of the key factors why the Buddha Dharma manage to penetrate and absorb all kinds of cultural barriers and managed to extend into the lives of people from vastly different backgrounds and inclinations in deeply meaningful ways. I also believe this is a major factor why the Buddha Dharma is still highly appreciated and practiced even today, more than 2500 years later!
Thank you Doug for putting this in a context that is both understandable and, in my opinion, in a correct perspective. 🙏
My pleasure, glad you found it worthwhile. 🙏😊
Hands up - I just glazed over until around minute 23:00 when I finally reconnected with the Buddha I know and understand. And on a personal level, having decided that Buddha’s core teachings do have merit, I’ll stick around and continue to listen, but I’ll leave the metaphysics to those who want or need to delve more deeply into what lies underneath the teachings.
I tend to study in German Idealism, im curious how Buddhism would relate to it, especially Hegel.
I surly find the Buddha interesting.
I don't know Hegel well enough to say ...
Sahajayogini Cinta uses the parable of the raft in her On Acquiring the Power of Tattva Through Bodily Expressions (my translation, not sure what the official one is), as a metaphor for crossing the ocean of samsara, wrestling to free oneself from the bindings caused by karma and previous lives, and the attachment of the embryo to the wall of the uterus -- all simultaneously. She also argues that (in her case) separating oneself from the world is not a ritual but a practical method for being able to withstand the pull of samsara as one's practice is refined.
The metaphor of crossing dangerous waters is also the origin of the name of Tara, whose name literally means, "to cross over". It's extremely old.
Besides consciousness, there are many metaphysical entities, like suffering, perception and forms, both impermanent and permanent, life and soul are also metaphysical. In modern era mathematician Penrose suggested it is base of "FAITH", also permanent and impermanent nature. Physics and metaphysics, which came first maybe difficult to pinpoint. Quantum Fields collapse to produce particles leading to life, consciousness, soul and faith are metaphysics, explaining reality along with physics. Buddha and his disciples believed in reincarnation, rebirth and there are stories of an Indian monk who went to China, where he met another monk, with whom he shared information that were verifiable and they agreed that it was decided in a previous life that they will again meet.
Very interesting thanks
Glad you enjoyed it! 🙏
There is nothing but the suffering seems real to those who are still deluded.
I think Buddha's teachings primarily revolve around the realm of phenomenology (not solipsism kind though)and less on metaphysics. Their emphasis lies not in defining the nature of the world because what/how the world is according to Buddha, doesn't change our sufferings, but the emphasis is rather in understanding how our perception of both ourselves and the world is and how we approach and respond to them because this dictates our experience of suffering. While the teachings do touch upon metaphysical truths, they do so only in so far as these truths have its relevance with our perception. For instance, concepts like non-self and emptiness are regarded as both metaphysical and phenomenological truths, illustrating the interconnectedness between the two perspectives. Hence, the reason Buddha remained silent on metaphysical queries-such as the finiteness or infinitude of the world and the post-death state of enlightened beings-is because of their lack of direct relevance in alleviating suffering. Thus, Buddhism can be characterized as having a phenomenological orientation.This approach avoids abstract intellectualism and metaphysics, showcasing Buddhism as a practical, pragmatic teaching.
Indeed, though even phenomenology has its metaphysics, a metaphysics of phenomena.
🙏🏼
🙏😊
It got me thinking when u mentioned " what if the Buddha was here with us today". What would the Buddha be like? I suppose just a person like the rest of us who makes mistakes albiet a really wise and understanding one. It seems like we put the Buddha up on such a high pedestal and treat his messages as having so much weight and significance. But does it really?
🙏
Thank you for sharing this knowledge and your insights! It's remarkable how relevant these teachings remain after all those years, although I feel that for ourselves we should imagine how we can understand and apply them with the scientific knowledge of today (the functioning of the brain, the existence of hallucinations, ). Always keeping with the "spirit" of the teaching.
Yes ideally so! 🙏
Hi Dr Smith,
Am I correct to say that implicit within the context of Early Buddhist Text’s ideas such as _dukkha, kamma_ and _anatta_ is a set of key metaphysical assumptions (by “assumptions” I do not mean that the assumptions cannot be defended rationally)? If I am correct in saying that, then what are those implicit key metaphysical assumptions in addition to
(a) the existence of other beings (ie they are not merely a construct of one’s mind),
(b) the reality of change (instead of change being merely an illusion),
(c) the existence of other realms?
Thanks.
Well to find such assumptions would take a lot of work!
@@DougsDharma 🙂👌🏼
I've heard some people say there is not the so-called "soul" in Buddhism. Is this true? May I ask?
Well it depends what you mean by "soul". If you mean an everlasting, unchanging personal essence, then there is no "soul" to be found in Buddhism.
I am a pali student and i want to do research in this field......can you suggest me few topics for research proposal?
That's up to you to discover! 😄
@@DougsDharma suggest some topics 😇......although i think to explore kathavathu book under abhidhamma pitaka......is it a good idea to proceed?
Am I looking at this page wrong or is the link to your lecture about the raft missing?
It should show up on the end screen as the video is finishing. But if for some reason it's not showing up, you can find it here: ruclips.net/video/4hDmFFXT_sg/видео.html
@@DougsDharma I got it and watched it again, thanks.
Too bad you didn't address Nanavira Thera, his book: Notes on the Dhamma, and its influence on contemporary Buddhism as some Western Theravada traditions are represented today. That was more or less a comparison and mutual construction of early Buddhism and Heidegger, Sartre, Kierkegaard, etc. i.e. pure phenomenology / And absolute contempt for schools of thought like that of Bertrand Russell aka Analytic philosophy.
Original Buddhism had as its goal the attainment of the buddha consciousness and the buddha body, of the last almost all the modern schools are ignorant in their teachings. The sutra relating to the Buddha body and its qualities is called the Adamantine body of the Buddha
There is no mention of such concepts in the early texts, they stem from later interpretations.
@@DougsDharma "Then the World-Honoured One said to Kasyapa: "O good man! The body of the Tathagata is one that is eternal, one that is indestructible, and one that is adamantine, one that is not sustained by various kinds of food. It is the Dharma-Body." Kasyapa said to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! We do not see such a body as you speak of. What we see is one which is non-eternal, destructible, of dust, one sustained by various kinds of food. How? In that you, the Tathagata, are now about to enter Nirvana." The Buddha said to Kasyapa: "Do not say that the body of the Tathagata is not strong, can easily be broken, and is the same as that of common mortals. O good man! Know that the body of the Tathagata is as indestructible as that which stands for countless billions of kalpas. It is neither the body of man or heaven, not one that fears, not one sustained by various kinds of food"
I think Adamantine body of the Buddha reflects in the Mahayana tradition, not with the Theravada. Correct me if I am wrong. I assume your reply to Doug comes from Mahayana Parinibbana Sutta, and there are many versions of the Parinibbana sutta. Sorry I am new to Buddhism.
@@timetoreason181 It is the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra. Teachings of the kayas is emphasized in Mahayana and especially vajrayana Buddhism
Even if buddha wanted to be pragmatic the audience he was trying to preach to were just in a different mindset than modern people. He had to replace gods with his own philosophical ideas so meta worlds must have been his solution to skirt around the God issue. Plus all the gods and goddesses from vedic pantheon which were added as buddhas subordinates in later centuries were just done to show buddhas victory over them and that he resides on even higher planes of existence than them. Even in today's times you have to add myths around people when they become famous in any fields 😂
Yellow, yellow.
"Who cares" is a great modernization of the mindset that I feel the Buddha is displaying sometimes haha
We are currently close to the Heavenly realm, you can say. If humanity doesn't destroy itself, we can progress to the top of the Heavenly realms. Once we approach the first heaven, we can only be killed if someone damages our head. If someone damages other parts of our bodies, we can repair it, as stated in the sutra. Doesn't this sound like robots!? And don't forget when Buddha says Future Buddha Maitreya or past Buddhas, they are only born in the human realm, which means the Iron Age or Bronze Age. Also, beings from these six realms come through the four gates of birth.
Actually, the concept of Metaphysics comes from the Father of Metaphysics, Parmenides. People later coined the term from Aristotle's writings regarding the subject matter of metaphysics. Metaphysics is not only concern with What Exists, but the original notion refers to what exists in and of itself outside of perception. Which is to say, by defintion (of the original concept which was what Aristotle was referring to) is UNOBSERVABLE. We can only know of it through Logic and Pure Reason as demonstrated by Parmenides (The Godfather of Western Philosophy, True Father of Logic, and Father of Metaphysics and Ontology). Much much later on, Kant echoed these same concepts as Noumenon and a priori deduction.
A lot of the problem with the West's approach to Buddhism, is that an awful lot of Western writing on Buddhism comes from our philosophers. Which were writing at a time when existentialism was in vogue. But they are also operating in a Christian background, with the Greek classical philosophers as a foundation of secular thinking.
The Christian and Greek classical frameworks do not map to Buddhism neatly. Buddhism is not a religion in the same way that Christianity or Islam are. Greek classical philosophy doesn't equate to Buddhist philosophy easily. There is the problem of self for starters.
I know I personally got a false start on Buddhism because the books on Buddhism available to me were all written by French and German authors who had studied at European universities. Their cynicism and over intellectualization of Buddhist thought seeps through the pages like coffee and cigarettes.
Yes, I think it's very important to get a deep dive into Buddhism before attempting to give it a philosophical interpretation so we don't make the mistake of assuming that it is identical to one or another Western philosophical viewpoint. That said, comparative philosophy is an interesting pursuit in its own right and there is no reason not to make comparisons. And yes, we can over-intellectualize Buddhism, but that over-intellectualization I'm afraid began perhaps a century or two after the Buddha's death and continued down the millennia in Buddhist schools down to the present day. It isn't the sole purview of Western interpreters.
No “re” birth without a Soul…Sorry 😂
Soul denier
Umm what is this suppose to mean now
@@miguelatkinson what do you think it means
there is the concept that our nāmas aren’t objectively real just as our rūpas are.
Lmao Doug and all the rest of these RUclips Buddhist are just a bunch of Nihilistic/Existentialist Atheists. Who can’t read Pali and don’t study original text they lack the mental fortitude.😂 The Buddha said my teaching are to be deemed “Bhramayana” or “Path to the Absolute” as in Path to Bhrama. I never hear Buddhist talk about Brahma.