Check out my earlier video on whether Buddhism is atheist: ruclips.net/video/QOQiZbAPtW4/видео.html Consider joining us on Patreon if you find benefit in these videos, and get fun extras like exclusive behind-the-scenes videos, audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂
Although I am an Atheist I feel an affinity with Buddhist Philosophy. Seemingly simple text at times requiring a pause breathe and think deeply approach. Simple yet profound, and thanks to you Doug you’ve increased my understanding of Buddhism, and safe to say a secular Buddhism. 😌🙏🏼 I am a lifelong student.
I started following your channel back in 2018. At that time I was going through a very hard time in my life and I guess was looking for guidance on how to approach what happened in my life and how to view it from a different angle. I grew up orthodox Christian but that religion never made sense to me. In fact any Abrahamic religion did not make sense to me and I couldn’t find any support or refuge in their teachings. So for a long time I was atheist/agnostic and enjoyed my life without any spirituality. But then when my life took a very sharp turn and I was completely lost I decided that I need to look for something that could relieve some of the pain and make some sense of what was going on with me and my life. I found your channel very helpful as introduction to Buddhism because it was coming from secular angle and at that time I was leaning more to a secular point of view. Now I’m leaning towards more traditional Buddhism after studying it for the past year and a half. I still have a lot to learn but I think I finally found a teaching that helps me and makes a positive impact on my life and I’m committed to studying it more and keeping it as an important part of my life. I don’t know if I have to call myself Buddhist but I know that out of all religions this teaching is the only one that I follow.
Lately ive been struggling because I am really drawn to Buddhism. I was reading a ton of books about Buddhism and meditating daily. The problem is I got scared. You see I am Catholic and a priest told me if I got too much into Buddhism I may need an exorcism. Also, I didn't want to break the first commandment. But to me, Buddha didn't claim to be a god. So studying him and even practicing Buddhism is like learning from a wise man the path of wisdom. But for me its hard not to study something and not "become" it. Like studying Buddhism I felt I should become a Buddhist. I know its crazy and my mind is still wrestling with these things. Thanks for your time and good teachings.
This is the exact question I had on the label “Buddhist” in regards to attachment! I’m a newcomer to all of this, and I really appreciate your videos since resources on a secular view tend to be a bit limited. :)
Mr. Doug, you have done it once again! Your words are always so nourishing. Thank you for that. There is not telling how many lives you touch with your gentle albeit firm, confident worlds.
An interesting video. From my perspective my life at the time, before I practised Buddhism, seemed in a few ways to align with some of the Buddhist ways of being and living in this world. In addition Stoicism also became part of my practices too. It was only after I had been practising meditation and mindfulness etc did I then find out that Buddhism was fundamentally what I was actually practising.
Interesting, thanks Mark. Yes Stoic and Buddhist approaches are quite similar in many respects. I have some earlier videos on Buddhism and Stoicism, including this one on a recent book: ruclips.net/video/lI83n5gE7yw/видео.html
Doug, I've watched a lot of your videos and have found your insights extremely helpful. This topic that you discussed here in something that has been on my mind for some time now, and is such quite relevant to me. thanks so much as always, especially for making an effort to read and write back to so many people.
It's also interesting to note that religious belonging has the characteristic of being "exclusivity" for Monotheistic religions. You can't be a Christian and Muslim at the same time. Whereas in the East, people have no problem of identifying themselves as "members" of several beliefs.
Yes, as an Asian I know if someone became a christian he or she will not worship any other gods, but traditionally people will worship all types of gods and in the final days a lot of people want to go to the Divine heaven by chanting only Amitabha
That's not really truth. Buddhism tend to ask exclusivity also. Generally, Buddhist families in Asia are not ok if their kids decide, for example, to follow Islam and Buddhism at the same time.
@@tiagocarioca That's because Islam is exclusive. Buddhist people in Thailand for example have no problem praying to Hindu gods, Buddhists in China can also visit Taoist and Confucian temples. It's the Abrahamic religions that prohibit this.
As a Christian pastor interested in mindfulness meditation and eastern thought in general, this video is very interesting. You hit the nail on the head mentioning other gods. Most (at least in the west) ignore or don’t know about Psalm 82 (called the divine council) in which the Hebrew God is seen as the sovereign president over ‘lesser gods.’ The theory usually is (in circles that even discuss it) is that these lesser deities are potentially the deities of the world religions (potentially angelic beings that rebelled against God and tried to become gods themselves). Thanks for your video!
I identify as a Buddhist (and Taoist as well) when people ask or when I feel it necessary in a discussion because it seems that language can assist to simplify any philosophical or religious ideas that a person may have. Another example would be a person who may identify as a nihilist, utilitarian, stoic, communist, capitalist, etc. I wonder. Is attaching to being free of labels just as harmful as attaching to labels? (Edited to fix grammar)
It certainly can be! The flip side of attachment is aversion, and it’s really no better. Labels have their uses, we simply have to see them for what they are and aim not to cling to them.
At a recent dharma talk, Jack Kornfield said something which stuck in my mind... "Don't become a Buddhist. Don't put your family through that. Become a Buddha."
Pure intelligent, not just accumulated knowledge. Buddha will surely proud of your works. Today's modern Buddhism is water down, corrupted, culturized versions in many levels. The main important thing is the original teachings of Buddha. Well done sir.
following my experience as a social and environmental scientist I can surely say that I can see many useful things in traditional theistic religions like the vedic tradition or christianity/islam, but the only philosophical systems that fully reciprocates my scientific knowledge are the Buddha-Dharma and Taoism. If these systems should be called "religion", and if there should be a need to carry them around "as a label" is of secondary importance, far better is to be a humble ambassador, because as the Buddha said: "you can be the candle that iluminates into the darkness, or the mirror that reflects it"
It has to some extent cleared my concept of belonging to Buddhist religion. What is the use of raft once you crossed the river ! It gave me food for thought. Thank you. I have been following your videos.
Thank you for another amazing video! Could you please make a video about Bön and its relation to the traditional Tibetan Buddhism? I have recently discovered Bön and I instantly felt that it is a path for me. On the other hand, the fact that it started a long time before Siddhartha was born makes me wonder about the differences and similarities between traditional schools and Bön.
My dear friend, could you perhaps do a talk on Sangye Menla, the Medicine Buddha? Perhaps a history of where he comes out of or a talk about the essence of the teachings
Another thought-provoking video Doug, thanks! Can I check what you mean by "western religions"? There are some pretty popular religions in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, India, Palestine etc - are these "western" according to your definition?? Seems to me that all religions share some common themes: studying historical texts, conforming to expected rituals, and the 'pay off' you mention e.g. join our religion and turn up to our ceremonies and pay your money - and in return you get eternal life. All without any evidence base, of course.
Yeah it was kind of a throwaway phrase, basically Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but as you note there are other religions that also fit the same structure.
I was just reading into Naraka. How does the concepts around it fit into the rest of Buddhist philosophy? Does such a cosmology bare much impact on a Buddhist?
If you mean the hell realms, I did an earlier video where I go into traditional early Buddhist cosmology here: ruclips.net/video/JEwQvlfMUf8/видео.html
Rabbi Tovia Singer translates that verse as "You shall have no other G-ds on my face." Since this is what the Hebrew literally says. And he puts forward the interpretation that this refers to that unity. The same one that is clear in "Shema Yisrael, Hashem elokenu Hashem echad."
A little correction. Whereas Romans themselves thought that religion came from "religare", bind together, modern experts think this is a wrong etymology because of the first long "e" in religion. It is more probable that the orign is from "rem ligare" bind a thing/animal, referring to sacrifice. Anyway, great video, as usual
Interesting Francisco, do you have a citation for that? Etymonline which usually is good has "religare" along with a few other related ones: www.etymonline.com/search?q=religion
@@DougsDharma I'm sorry, I quoted that etymology from memory and, after tracing back the origin, it is really not such a popular hypothesis as I remembered. Essentially, it is not clear what the origin is. The three main hypotheses are, in fact, "religare" already proposed by Lactantius, "relegere" (gather or re-read), proposed by Cicero and "rem ligare" as I said, mostly proposed by German etymologists, again based on the fact that the first "e" is sometimes (not always) pronounced long, not short as expected from religare or relegere. The explanation convinced me when I read it and I misremembered it as more accepted than it really is. Here is a reference for it, which in turn quotes one of the original proponents (Hock). I'm sorry but it is in German: bit.ly/3e5UXJ5
Anyway, your point still stands that the word has been widely understood as "binding" and, in this sense, related to "ob-ligare", "ob-ligatio" and that etymology, whether historical or not, does reflect an aspect of the western way to understand and live religion
@@FranciscoTornay Thank you, Francisco. This is a conversation I have had many times with atheist/agnostic Unitarian Universalist friends. The discussion of the various origins for the word religion still leave untouched two another salient questions. First, what are the subject and object of the binding? A person is bound to a contract. A load of logs is bound to a truck bed. We need to understand who/what is being bound to whom/what. Second, what is the nature of the binding? Is it a contract of equals? Is it a contract of suzerainty? Is it something else entirely? I've yet to see a scholarly treatment of those questions in regard to the history of this word.
Not necessarily, one doesn't have to force themselves to be a Buddhist. If one has an interest in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. Then learns the Dhamma and history of Buddha. Along with the qualities of the Buddha. And engages with the Sangha to ask questions about doubts and seeks the answers. Then one will automatically, become a Buddhist based on thier own wisodm if not already. The Buddha said this Dhamma (Buddha's Teachings is for the wise not for the unwise) The wise are those who have ambition to escape suffering and is following the Dhamma to understand the 4 Noble Truths and Dependent Origination. The Wise could be in the categories of the Lay Followers or the Sangha. One can Follow the Dhamma as an athiest. However it would be difficult to follow the Dhamma as a believer of a monothestic religion. Because the Dhamma cannot be mixed with those beliefs. However a person from a monothestic religion can use meditation for sure, as many do. Everyone should be doing meditation Yes Doug, after crossing over the flood of Samsara, one must leg go of the teachings. However one does need to generate the desire to follow this path, only at the Arahant stage is desire completely removed. Also clinging to wrong views needs to be removed to become a Sotapanna (Stream Enterer)
That's right Yasith, there are all kinds of subtleties here. In order to practice any path one needs to generate desire to do so, and it isn't good to leave the raft behind when one is in the middle of the river. But even so one can gain a lot of benefit just by following Buddhist practices without feeling oneself a Buddhist, as you note about meditation.
Thank you for this. After leaving Christianity, the idea of returning to rituals, group-think, and the smiling platitudes of a congregation really terrifies the living daylights out of me.
It isn't necessary, but I would urge people to clearly express their beliefs, if Buddhist, or Secular Buddhist, or Atheist or whatever, on their identity statements with organizations -- on their medical profile, for instance, or profile at a university or corporation. It is some comfort to know that should one's life end, it will be celebrated among like-minded individuals, and not hauled into a cathedral somewhere and offered to somebody's messiah.
This is true, though there are many forms of dharma in India. That's why the Buddha's teaching is known more specifically as the Buddha Dharma. Hard to get away from ...
hello doug. may i please speculate, and ask: does this video indicate some sort of acknowledgment of your personal movement away from a buddhist identity?
@@DougsDharma yes, i very much appreciated this talk about identities. how would you respond to an assertion that 'grasping' for an identity is a form of attachment.
Yes, Buddhists believe that one can will taje rebirth into 6 realms of samsara endlessly unless one attains nirvana. These six realms are: 1. Hells 2. Ghosts 3. Animals 4. Humans 5. Asuras 6. Devas( heavenly realms)
Hi Whale Cat, I have a video on some of my thoughts on rebirth here: ruclips.net/video/aBZNU-Vigz0/видео.html . Monks are people who have renounced the ordinary householder lifestyle in order to live celibate lives virtually without possessions in a monastery.
There are few words in pali canon that brings confusion. The words like Deva, Naga, etc. which would indicate inhuman existence makes us think that if there were beings that defies natural laws exist. The teaching given by buddha to devas in Mahamangal Sutta are the teachings which are applicable to humans so how could Devas be different than that of humans. There is a common saying in India that there are 33 crores devas in India. Just imagine when india got independence the population of India was 35 crores. Considering that every person would get one god for their their welfare this much was the amount of gods and that would cause more confusion. Dr. Ambedkar gave answer to it and told that they were the part of human society but especially of a very high status. They were not the beings having extraordinary power compared to humans. But extraordinary in social status. But confusion arises because in Vedic scriptures devas were treated as gods. And the same meaning were applied on humans who were called devas. Same is the case with Nagas. Nagas were the member of human community. The stories in pali canon were designed in such a way that shows supernatural existences but actually designed to make stories interesting.
It could be that these supernatural additions are there just to make the stories interesting, but it's not necessarily only for that reason. At any rate, as a secular practitioner I set these kinds of questions to one side.
According to Buddha, in my understanding, even gods ( super beings) can't refrain themselves from desires, emotion, joy , anger , etc. So they are just like human in many levels, they might want followers, worshipers, they might help their followers as much as they could, they might dislike or bias against non believers, as their timeline is different and usually have very long lifespan, they might themselves forget they will die one day too and they might think they are immortals. After you die, u might become a god according to your karma or you might become animals, human, ghosts, you might go to hell ( not eternal) . So even hell and heavens are not permanent, gods and devils are not permanent in Buddhism. But according to your karmas and the nature of samsara, you had/are/will inevitably happened/happening/will happen in all 31 realms. So the goal is not to become the gods , going to heaven, workshop gods to make life easier, etc. The final goal in Buddhism is to escape the wheel of birth and death ( samsara) and reached Nirvana ( greater than heaven with no more repeat birth and death circle, a place or realm outside of samsara, or the opposite of samsara). Final version of Nirvana ( in more than eternal fashion) is different from human life version of mini Nirvanas ( temp, sample ). Please do more videos sir.
Sure, you can be LGBTQ+ and be Buddhist. Some traditional believers are against such things but it’s not because of the dharma, and to my knowledge most modern groups they are very welcoming.
maybe you should do a video on how "secular buddhism" justifies not commiting suicide if there's no karma and rebirth. If there's no Karma, no rebirth, then the easiest way to get rid of suffering is through suicide. so I'd be very interested in how you'd explain this obvious contradiction.
As I say in the video, like most folks I tend to cling to existence, not to nonexistence. The point of Buddhist practice is to reach extinguishment of the taints through nonclinging. If belief in traditional rebirth helps you to achieve that aim, then great!
thanks for the clarification. I appreciate your videos BTW, especially the ones dealing with the history of Buddhism, which you present in an objective and comprehensive way. I just think there are some obvious contradictions within Secular Buddhism that are either glossed over or shrugged off by most who claim to be "Secular Buddhists". that's something worth looking into in more depth, I think. Best wishes.
There are no contradictions, brother/sister. If I am not mistaken, Buddha himself must have rejected the idea of suicide, as it is very similar to the idea of self mortification. He must have considered it an extreme view. Now, we secularists say that life is extremely valuable and should not be ended. It's as simple as that. Buddha would agree, coz he believed that life is rare ...
Well, I disagree with you. Many things that you described as Western are present in Buddhism also. Buddhism is heavily intertwined with national identity in Asia. In countries such as Thailand, the idea that a Thai should be a Buddhist is strong. In Myanmar, we have the link between Bamar nationality and Buddhism. Tibetan identity is strongly attached to Buddhism. I think westerners have a romantic idea about Buddhism because most of them never came to Asia. I live in Thailand for almost three years now and I have a good picture of how real Buddhism is. It is true that Buddhists are ok with incorporating gods from other religions (specially Hindu and Chinese gods), but it doesn't mean they identity themselves as Hindu or Chinese Worshipers. They incorporate these gods to fit in their own form of Buddhism, but they don't identity with that religions at all. Without this identification, they wouldn't contribute to the Buddhist institutions. The lack of this contribution would lead to Buddhism decline. We Westerners only met Buddhism because devoted Asian Buddhists maintain the Dhamma through their commitment (what you call a bond). This idea that we should not identity as Buddhists is dangerous because it promotes lack of interest in Buddhism. Without a formal commitment, people start thinking that being a Buddhist is not necessary, so they don't need to care about Buddhist institutions nor pay attention to the teachings. This phenomenon is making Buddhism decline in many places in Asia since the institutions are the ones who preserve the teachings. Of course it is not necessary for anyone to become a Buddhist to enjoy its benefits. But this is not the right question. The question is: Can Buddhism service without Lay People who doesn't identity themselves as Buddhists. Buddhism can only persists if committed people who identity as Buddhists keep the institutions that sustain the Dharma.
Check out my earlier video on whether Buddhism is atheist: ruclips.net/video/QOQiZbAPtW4/видео.html
Consider joining us on Patreon if you find benefit in these videos, and get fun extras like exclusive behind-the-scenes videos, audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂
Although I am an Atheist I feel an affinity with Buddhist Philosophy. Seemingly simple text at times requiring a pause breathe and think deeply approach. Simple yet profound, and thanks to you Doug you’ve increased my understanding of Buddhism, and safe to say a secular Buddhism. 😌🙏🏼 I am a lifelong student.
Great to hear Am Enrico, thanks for the comment! 🙏
Hint: Buddhism is an atheistic philosophy.
Although I am a Buddhist, I have been learning quite a lot by watching your videos.
Thanks for letting me know kmandandhar! 🙏🙂
I started following your channel back in 2018. At that time I was going through a very hard time in my life and I guess was looking for guidance on how to approach what happened in my life and how to view it from a different angle. I grew up orthodox Christian but that religion never made sense to me. In fact any Abrahamic religion did not make sense to me and I couldn’t find any support or refuge in their teachings. So for a long time I was atheist/agnostic and enjoyed my life without any spirituality. But then when my life took a very sharp turn and I was completely lost I decided that I need to look for something that could relieve some of the pain and make some sense of what was going on with me and my life. I found your channel very helpful as introduction to Buddhism because it was coming from secular angle and at that time I was leaning more to a secular point of view. Now I’m leaning towards more traditional Buddhism after studying it for the past year and a half. I still have a lot to learn but I think I finally found a teaching that helps me and makes a positive impact on my life and I’m committed to studying it more and keeping it as an important part of my life. I don’t know if I have to call myself Buddhist but I know that out of all religions this teaching is the only one that I follow.
Thanks Nill, that's great to hear. I hope it continues to be useful to you!
Lately ive been struggling because I am really drawn to Buddhism. I was reading a ton of books about Buddhism and meditating daily. The problem is I got scared. You see I am Catholic and a priest told me if I got too much into Buddhism I may need an exorcism. Also, I didn't want to break the first commandment. But to me, Buddha didn't claim to be a god. So studying him and even practicing Buddhism is like learning from a wise man the path of wisdom. But for me its hard not to study something and not "become" it. Like studying Buddhism I felt I should become a Buddhist. I know its crazy and my mind is still wrestling with these things. Thanks for your time and good teachings.
You're most welcome! All the best on your journey. 🙏
This is the exact question I had on the label “Buddhist” in regards to attachment! I’m a newcomer to all of this, and I really appreciate your videos since resources on a secular view tend to be a bit limited. :)
Yes it’s definitely something to be aware of! 🙂
Mr. Doug, you have done it once again! Your words are always so nourishing. Thank you for that. There is not telling how many lives you touch with your gentle albeit firm, confident worlds.
Very kind of you to say pain pixie, you're so welcome! 🙂🙏
An interesting video. From my perspective my life at the time, before I practised Buddhism, seemed in a few ways to align with some of the Buddhist ways of being and living in this world. In addition Stoicism also became part of my practices too. It was only after I had been practising meditation and mindfulness etc did I then find out that Buddhism was fundamentally what I was actually practising.
Interesting, thanks Mark. Yes Stoic and Buddhist approaches are quite similar in many respects. I have some earlier videos on Buddhism and Stoicism, including this one on a recent book: ruclips.net/video/lI83n5gE7yw/видео.html
@@DougsDharma fantastic, thank you!
Doug, I've watched a lot of your videos and have found your insights extremely helpful. This topic that you discussed here in something that has been on my mind for some time now, and is such quite relevant to me. thanks so much as always, especially for making an effort to read and write back to so many people.
Glad it was helpful Mark, you're very welcome!
Fantastic video, very clearly outlined overview of religious tendencies grounded in scholarly consensus.
Thanks Tormunn, glad you found it worthwhile.
It's also interesting to note that religious belonging has the characteristic of being "exclusivity" for Monotheistic religions. You can't be a Christian and Muslim at the same time. Whereas in the East, people have no problem of identifying themselves as "members" of several beliefs.
Yes that's right Christopher, thanks!
Yes, as an Asian I know if someone became a christian he or she will not worship any other gods, but traditionally people will worship all types of gods and in the final days a lot of people want to go to the Divine heaven by chanting only Amitabha
That's not really truth. Buddhism tend to ask exclusivity also. Generally, Buddhist families in Asia are not ok if their kids decide, for example, to follow Islam and Buddhism at the same time.
@@tiagocarioca That's because Islam is exclusive. Buddhist people in Thailand for example have no problem praying to Hindu gods, Buddhists in China can also visit Taoist and Confucian temples. It's the Abrahamic religions that prohibit this.
Well articulated account Doug, I appreciate you very much.
Glad it was helpful! 🙏
So happy to see your channel subscribers double within this past year. Been watching you for a year now!
Yay! Thank you Genghis Khan! 👍
As a Christian pastor interested in mindfulness meditation and eastern thought in general, this video is very interesting. You hit the nail on the head mentioning other gods. Most (at least in the west) ignore or don’t know about Psalm 82 (called the divine council) in which the Hebrew God is seen as the sovereign president over ‘lesser gods.’ The theory usually is (in circles that even discuss it) is that these lesser deities are potentially the deities of the world religions (potentially angelic beings that rebelled against God and tried to become gods themselves). Thanks for your video!
You're very welcome Jonathan, yes there is a lot of interesting material in the Bible that gets overlooked!
Wow Pastor, I didn't know that! 🕊️
So Mr Jonathan, are you believing of Christian God not The Supreme Being?
I identify as a Buddhist (and Taoist as well) when people ask or when I feel it necessary in a discussion because it seems that language can assist to simplify any philosophical or religious ideas that a person may have. Another example would be a person who may identify as a nihilist, utilitarian, stoic, communist, capitalist, etc.
I wonder. Is attaching to being free of labels just as harmful as attaching to labels?
(Edited to fix grammar)
It certainly can be! The flip side of attachment is aversion, and it’s really no better. Labels have their uses, we simply have to see them for what they are and aim not to cling to them.
At a recent dharma talk, Jack Kornfield said something which stuck in my mind... "Don't become a Buddhist. Don't put your family through that. Become a Buddha."
That's a tall order Tricia! 😄
I personally don't put myself through listening to Jack Kornfield lol!
Pure intelligent, not just accumulated knowledge. Buddha will surely proud of your works. Today's modern Buddhism is water down, corrupted, culturized versions in many levels. The main important thing is the original teachings of Buddha. Well done sir.
🙏😊
following my experience as a social and environmental scientist I can surely say that I can see many useful things in traditional theistic religions like the vedic tradition or christianity/islam, but the only philosophical systems that fully reciprocates my scientific knowledge are the Buddha-Dharma and Taoism. If these systems should be called "religion", and if there should be a need to carry them around "as a label" is of secondary importance, far better is to be a humble ambassador, because as the Buddha said: "you can be the candle that iluminates into the darkness, or the mirror that reflects it"
Thanks puma, though I'm not sure that's a "real Buddha quote" nevertheless it's a good one to keep in mind. Help bring light into the darkness.
It has to some extent cleared my concept of belonging to Buddhist religion. What is the use of raft once you crossed the river ! It gave me food for thought. Thank you. I have been following your videos.
You're very welcome Tom!
Thank you for another amazing video! Could you please make a video about Bön and its relation to the traditional Tibetan Buddhism? I have recently discovered Bön and I instantly felt that it is a path for me. On the other hand, the fact that it started a long time before Siddhartha was born makes me wonder about the differences and similarities between traditional schools and Bön.
Thanks for the suggestion Wonderla, I don't know enough about Bön to make a video, but if I do someday I'll consider it!
Your videos keep me going, sometimes. Thank you.
Glad you find them useful M Oel!
My dear friend, could you perhaps do a talk on Sangye Menla, the Medicine Buddha? Perhaps a history of where he comes out of or a talk about the essence of the teachings
Thanks Adrian, it's something I will keep in mind if I can find some good, scholarly resources on it.
Another thought-provoking video Doug, thanks! Can I check what you mean by "western religions"? There are some pretty popular religions in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, India, Palestine etc - are these "western" according to your definition?? Seems to me that all religions share some common themes: studying historical texts, conforming to expected rituals, and the 'pay off' you mention e.g. join our religion and turn up to our ceremonies and pay your money - and in return you get eternal life. All without any evidence base, of course.
Yeah it was kind of a throwaway phrase, basically Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but as you note there are other religions that also fit the same structure.
I was just reading into Naraka. How does the concepts around it fit into the rest of Buddhist philosophy? Does such a cosmology bare much impact on a Buddhist?
If you mean the hell realms, I did an earlier video where I go into traditional early Buddhist cosmology here: ruclips.net/video/JEwQvlfMUf8/видео.html
Rabbi Tovia Singer translates that verse as "You shall have no other G-ds on my face." Since this is what the Hebrew literally says. And he puts forward the interpretation that this refers to that unity. The same one that is clear in "Shema Yisrael, Hashem elokenu Hashem echad."
A little correction. Whereas Romans themselves thought that religion came from "religare", bind together, modern experts think this is a wrong etymology because of the first long "e" in religion. It is more probable that the orign is from "rem ligare" bind a thing/animal, referring to sacrifice. Anyway, great video, as usual
Interesting Francisco, do you have a citation for that? Etymonline which usually is good has "religare" along with a few other related ones: www.etymonline.com/search?q=religion
@@DougsDharma I'm sorry, I quoted that etymology from memory and, after tracing back the origin, it is really not such a popular hypothesis as I remembered. Essentially, it is not clear what the origin is. The three main hypotheses are, in fact, "religare" already proposed by Lactantius, "relegere" (gather or re-read), proposed by Cicero and "rem ligare" as I said, mostly proposed by German etymologists, again based on the fact that the first "e" is sometimes (not always) pronounced long, not short as expected from religare or relegere. The explanation convinced me when I read it and I misremembered it as more accepted than it really is. Here is a reference for it, which in turn quotes one of the original proponents (Hock). I'm sorry but it is in German: bit.ly/3e5UXJ5
Anyway, your point still stands that the word has been widely understood as "binding" and, in this sense, related to "ob-ligare", "ob-ligatio" and that etymology, whether historical or not, does reflect an aspect of the western way to understand and live religion
@@FranciscoTornay Thank you, Francisco. This is a conversation I have had many times with atheist/agnostic Unitarian Universalist friends. The discussion of the various origins for the word religion still leave untouched two another salient questions.
First, what are the subject and object of the binding? A person is bound to a contract. A load of logs is bound to a truck bed. We need to understand who/what is being bound to whom/what.
Second, what is the nature of the binding? Is it a contract of equals? Is it a contract of suzerainty? Is it something else entirely?
I've yet to see a scholarly treatment of those questions in regard to the history of this word.
I practice vipasaana meditation, which gives me lot of calm and my mind becomes optimistic 🙏😀
Glad to hear it!
@@DougsDharma thank you🙏❤️😀😊
Not necessarily, one doesn't have to force themselves to be a Buddhist.
If one has an interest in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. Then learns the Dhamma and history of Buddha. Along with the qualities of the Buddha. And engages with the Sangha to ask questions about doubts and seeks the answers. Then one will automatically, become a Buddhist based on thier own wisodm if not already. The Buddha said this Dhamma (Buddha's Teachings is for the wise not for the unwise) The wise are those who have ambition to escape suffering and is following the Dhamma to understand the 4 Noble Truths and Dependent Origination. The Wise could be in the categories of the Lay Followers or the Sangha.
One can Follow the Dhamma as an athiest. However it would be difficult to follow the Dhamma as a believer of a monothestic religion. Because the Dhamma cannot be mixed with those beliefs. However a person from a monothestic religion can use meditation for sure, as many do. Everyone should be doing meditation
Yes Doug, after crossing over the flood of Samsara, one must leg go of the teachings. However one does need to generate the desire to follow this path, only at the Arahant stage is desire completely removed. Also clinging to wrong views needs to be removed to become a Sotapanna (Stream Enterer)
That's right Yasith, there are all kinds of subtleties here. In order to practice any path one needs to generate desire to do so, and it isn't good to leave the raft behind when one is in the middle of the river. But even so one can gain a lot of benefit just by following Buddhist practices without feeling oneself a Buddhist, as you note about meditation.
Doug's Dharma yes, to an extent they can follow Buddhist practices. Even the 5 Lay Precepts 🙏🏽
Thank you for this. After leaving Christianity, the idea of returning to rituals, group-think, and the smiling platitudes of a congregation really terrifies the living daylights out of me.
Glad to help!
It isn't necessary, but I would urge people to clearly express their beliefs, if Buddhist, or Secular Buddhist, or Atheist or whatever, on their identity statements with organizations -- on their medical profile, for instance, or profile at a university or corporation. It is some comfort to know that should one's life end, it will be celebrated among like-minded individuals, and not hauled into a cathedral somewhere and offered to somebody's messiah.
🙏
What if people could be known as Dharmaist or Dhammaist, rather than Buddhist? Follow the teachings, not the man.
This is true, though there are many forms of dharma in India. That's why the Buddha's teaching is known more specifically as the Buddha Dharma. Hard to get away from ...
By my own personal experience I can tell that what the Buddha said was 100% true
That's great Santhush, thanks!
Thank you for your videos :)
My pleasure!
hello doug. may i please speculate, and ask: does this video indicate some sort of acknowledgment of your personal movement away from a buddhist identity?
Hi Gary, it's more an exploration of the varieties of such identities. My own feelings in the matter haven't changed significantly in recent years.
@@DougsDharma yes, i very much appreciated this talk about identities. how would you respond to an assertion that 'grasping' for an identity is a form of attachment.
@@GaryDean It's one of the most central forms of attachment I'd say.
I have a question. Do you believe in reincarnation? Also, what are monks? (Or munks, sorry I don't know which is the correct spelling)
Yes, Buddhists believe that one can will taje rebirth into 6 realms of samsara endlessly unless one attains nirvana.
These six realms are:
1. Hells
2. Ghosts
3. Animals
4. Humans
5. Asuras
6. Devas( heavenly realms)
Hi Whale Cat, I have a video on some of my thoughts on rebirth here: ruclips.net/video/aBZNU-Vigz0/видео.html . Monks are people who have renounced the ordinary householder lifestyle in order to live celibate lives virtually without possessions in a monastery.
There are few words in pali canon that brings confusion. The words like Deva, Naga, etc. which would indicate inhuman existence makes us think that if there were beings that defies natural laws exist.
The teaching given by buddha to devas in Mahamangal Sutta are the teachings which are applicable to humans so how could Devas be different than that of humans. There is a common saying in India that there are 33 crores devas in India. Just imagine when india got independence the population of India was 35 crores. Considering that every person would get one god for their their welfare this much was the amount of gods and that would cause more confusion.
Dr. Ambedkar gave answer to it and told that they were the part of human society but especially of a very high status. They were not the beings having extraordinary power compared to humans. But extraordinary in social status. But confusion arises because in Vedic scriptures devas were treated as gods. And the same meaning were applied on humans who were called devas.
Same is the case with Nagas. Nagas were the member of human community.
The stories in pali canon were designed in such a way that shows supernatural existences but actually designed to make stories interesting.
It could be that these supernatural additions are there just to make the stories interesting, but it's not necessarily only for that reason. At any rate, as a secular practitioner I set these kinds of questions to one side.
According to Buddha, in my understanding, even gods ( super beings) can't refrain themselves from desires, emotion, joy , anger , etc. So they are just like human in many levels, they might want followers, worshipers, they might help their followers as much as they could, they might dislike or bias against non believers, as their timeline is different and usually have very long lifespan, they might themselves forget they will die one day too and they might think they are immortals. After you die, u might become a god according to your karma or you might become animals, human, ghosts, you might go to hell ( not eternal) . So even hell and heavens are not permanent, gods and devils are not permanent in Buddhism. But according to your karmas and the nature of samsara, you had/are/will inevitably happened/happening/will happen in all 31 realms. So the goal is not to become the gods , going to heaven, workshop gods to make life easier, etc. The final goal in Buddhism is to escape the wheel of birth and death ( samsara) and reached Nirvana ( greater than heaven with no more repeat birth and death circle, a place or realm outside of samsara, or the opposite of samsara). Final version of Nirvana ( in more than eternal fashion) is different from human life version of mini Nirvanas ( temp, sample ). Please do more videos sir.
i have a question. can you be lgbtq+ and a buddhist? does buddhism go against it??
Sure, you can be LGBTQ+ and be Buddhist. Some traditional believers are against such things but it’s not because of the dharma, and to my knowledge most modern groups they are very welcoming.
Doug's Dharma okay, thank you!
maybe you should do a video on how "secular buddhism" justifies not commiting suicide if there's no karma and rebirth. If there's no Karma, no rebirth, then the easiest way to get rid of suffering is through suicide. so I'd be very interested in how you'd explain this obvious contradiction.
As I say in the video, like most folks I tend to cling to existence, not to nonexistence. The point of Buddhist practice is to reach extinguishment of the taints through nonclinging. If belief in traditional rebirth helps you to achieve that aim, then great!
thanks for the clarification. I appreciate your videos BTW, especially the ones dealing with the history of Buddhism, which you present in an objective and comprehensive way. I just think there are some obvious contradictions within Secular Buddhism that are either glossed over or shrugged off by most who claim to be "Secular Buddhists". that's something worth looking into in more depth, I think. Best wishes.
There are no contradictions, brother/sister. If I am not mistaken, Buddha himself must have rejected the idea of suicide, as it is very similar to the idea of self mortification. He must have considered it an extreme view. Now, we secularists say that life is extremely valuable and should not be ended. It's as simple as that. Buddha would agree, coz he believed that life is rare ...
I'm not good at joining things. And I'm good with that. 😏
Fair enough, no reason to join anything if you don't feel the need! 😀
Well, I disagree with you. Many things that you described as Western are present in Buddhism also.
Buddhism is heavily intertwined with national identity in Asia. In countries such as Thailand, the idea that a Thai should be a Buddhist is strong. In Myanmar, we have the link between Bamar nationality and Buddhism. Tibetan identity is strongly attached to Buddhism.
I think westerners have a romantic idea about Buddhism because most of them never came to Asia. I live in Thailand for almost three years now and I have a good picture of how real Buddhism is. It is true that Buddhists are ok with incorporating gods from other religions (specially Hindu and Chinese gods), but it doesn't mean they identity themselves as Hindu or Chinese Worshipers. They incorporate these gods to fit in their own form of Buddhism, but they don't identity with that religions at all.
Without this identification, they wouldn't contribute to the Buddhist institutions. The lack of this contribution would lead to Buddhism decline. We Westerners only met Buddhism because devoted Asian Buddhists maintain the Dhamma through their commitment (what you call a bond). This idea that we should not identity as Buddhists is dangerous because it promotes lack of interest in Buddhism. Without a formal commitment, people start thinking that being a Buddhist is not necessary, so they don't need to care about Buddhist institutions nor pay attention to the teachings. This phenomenon is making Buddhism decline in many places in Asia since the institutions are the ones who preserve the teachings.
Of course it is not necessary for anyone to become a Buddhist to enjoy its benefits. But this is not the right question. The question is: Can Buddhism service without Lay People who doesn't identity themselves as Buddhists. Buddhism can only persists if committed people who identity as Buddhists keep the institutions that sustain the Dharma.
Maybe so, but also I think we should keep in mind the point of practice, which is to lessen our craving and clinging to identities.
It is necessary to become Buddhist.
It restricte other religion like in India Hinduism for consuming Buddhism.
You don’t need to become Buddhist to spread the Buddha’s dharma, the Buddhist philosophy.
Becoming a Buddhist is like marriage. You can do without it, but everyone knows you aren't committed, including yourself and your partner.