Why I Am Not a Buddhist | Robert Wright & Evan Thompson [The Wright Show]
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- Evan’s new book, Why I Am Not a Buddhist 0:22
Evan’s critique of “Buddhist modernism” and “Buddhist exceptionalism” 11:15
Which of Buddhism’s major claims are naturalistic? 21:39
Is Buddhism fundamentally different than other religions? 35:30
Bob defends Buddhist insights into human psychology 41:39
Evan’s case against “neural Buddhism” 1:02:00
Does a clearer view of reality make you more equanimous? 1:14:38
All about nirvana 1:35:30
Debating evolutionary psychology 1:46:59
Evan: This book is friendly criticism 2:11:57
Robert Wright (Bloggingheads.tv, The Evolution of God, Nonzero, Why Buddhism Is True) and Evan Thompson (University of British Columbia, Waking, Dreaming, Being)
Recorded March 31, 2020
Join the conversation on MeaningofLife.tv: meaningoflife.t...
Subscribe to the podcast: meaningoflife.t...
Subscribe to the MeaningofLife.tv RUclips channel: goo.gl/J9BHA4
Follow us on Twitter: / meaninglifetv
Like us on Facebook: / meaningoflife.tv
![Secular Buddhism | Robert Wright & Stephen Batchelor [The Wright Show] (full conversation)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WYXm6vAxOMI/mqdefault.jpg)
I want to be like Robert Wright. He brings a guy on his show who criticized him big time. They have a wonderful discussion. Wright goes over two hours with him. He treats him more than fairly. He really is offering a different style of engagement. He does not just talk about mindful resistance. He seems to practice it. Honestly, he is a model for me.
Totally agree with your assessment David Stubblefield. Robert Wright is on my “must listen” list.
Agreed. It's great to see RW's lectures, and then watch him live them out. Don't see that enough in society.
Agreed. AND, I have the same plaid shirt from Kohl's.
I'd rather be like the other guy. The guy who put the smackdown on Bob.
It's honorable, Mr. Wright, that you'd have this interview with someone who clearly disagrees with you--you've done right by the concepts of integrity & exploration--it's joyous to see two people enter into an intense good-faith conversation.
Who do you think won?
Thank you! Truly one of the most inspiring conversations l have listened to! I have read both your books (Evan Thompson's Waking Dreaming Being, 2015; Robert Wright's Why Buddhism is True, 2017) and l assign them in some of my seminars (Science and Religion, Hinduism & Buddhism, etc.)
There's so much to comment on in this conversation, l scarcely know where to jump in, but for starters l'll point out that like Evan Thompson, my Ph.D. is in philosophy, and (again similar to Evan) my research is in philosophy of science (though specializing in physics, not neuroscience or cog. sci.) Though also like both Wright and Thompson, l've avidly practiced forms of meditation (Vipassana, for instance) since my teens, and l also have an M.T.S. (Emory U) specializing in systematic theology, historical theology, and cross-cultural theology (in particular Hinduism and Buddhism).
Okay so now that l got that out of the way, l'll start by saying (though l haven't read E. Thompson's Why l am not a Buddhist) l believe Thompson subtly straw mans "Buddhist modernism" in ways that overlook the religion's (as l see it) unique metaphysical, methodological, and epistemic characteristics (which l believe Wright is more charitable towards).
Suffice it to say, in early Buddhism, there is a profoundly naturalist and (a' la William James) "radically empirical" and pluralistic anti-essentialist ontology and modal actualism which was, to my knowledge, hitherto unprecedented. Indeed in the Dhammapitakka the Buddha exhorts his audience to have faith in nothing besides their own direct experience ("Experiment escorts us last, his pungent aroma allows no axiom an opportunity."- Emily Dickinson).
As a nastika darshana, certainly Buddhism undoubtedly was inspired and infused heavily especially by Sankhya-Yoga (the darshana Gotama Siddhartha, aka The Buddha, initially belonged to) so these anti-essentialist precepts and some of even the core ideas of Anatman (no-self) are found therein, as well as in Vedanta, as Evan Thompson pointed out.
However, as detailed accordingly in the Abidhamma, the Buddha offered a radically new methods (Vipassana) of contemplation qua personal transformation, which coupled with and complemented well his metaphysically agnostic positivism--rendering questions concerning substance, eternity, theism, etc., as The Indeterminates (e.g., the Poison Arrow Parable).
Indeed, philosophers like Owen Flanagan, when examining the Tripitaka of early Buddhism go so far as to consider this nastika darshana more along the lines of a normative psychology, then a "religion" conceived in the conventional sense.
To be sure, Evan Thompson is correct to point out "faith based" approaches in Buddhism (a most prominent being Pure Land) but those arrived at the scene far later, following the Council of Pataliputra which witnessed the schism between the more traditional strivas (elders) and the mahasamgika (greater assembly), to become the later Mahayana tradition which a majority of Buddhists practice.
I just mention this historical point because it also bolsters a modernist appreciation of Buddhism, from a historical perspective: Whereas most other "axial age" religions reach a kind of identity crisis, following rapid growth (witness the Councils of Chalcedon, Nicea in Christianity, the Umayyad Caliphate in Islam) in which a conservative orthodoxy constrains canon and dogma, the opposite occurred in the case of Buddhism. The progressives (anti-orthodoxy) won out, which is the core element of Mahayana: the doctrines of Sunyata (in a much more radical, relativist, and holistic way not found in the more conservative via negativa approach of early Buddhism), the Bodhisattva as the key normative and soteriological figure (displacing the Buddha), and most importantly, the doctrine of Uppaya or skilful means (making perennial innovation, sensitivity to context, an imperative).
So, yes, this is what l find unique about Buddhism, from a modernist and constructively postmodernist perspective (e.g., l consider as well the ongoing dialogue in Whiteheadean process philosophy, systems theory, and Buddhism, a' la Joanna Macy).
I certainly guard against a perennialist (and even worse, Eurocentrist) reductionist hermeneutics of Buddhism, for sure. In this regard, Evan Thompson's embodied cognitive science framework does well to foster some of Steven T. Katz's theses of the constitutive role that acculturation plays ("the cultural scaffolding," to quote from Thompson) when grappling with the semantics and methods of contemplation in Buddhist practice.
But l also think the discussion on embodied cognitive science and evolutionary psychology (like which tells a better story about mind-brain and self) may be a false dilemma. For instance, reading some of the latest writings of neuroscientist David Eagleman suggests a complementarity between some of the modular views of mind-brain chiseled by selective pressures, epigenetics, etc., aspects that evolutionary psychologists focus on, within a general dynamical systems integration view that embodied cognitive science emphasizes. In short, l'm thinking about the four blind men in a room debating about the nature of the elephant they're interacting with, to cite another parable in early lndian thought.
Thompson is to Buddhism what Bart Ehrman is to Christianity. He was immersed in it as a youth, studied it in College, did his graduate thesis on it, and went as far as he could before realizing it was a house of cards, constructed from hearsay upon hearsay hundreds of years after the founding figure left the earth. Kudos to Both of them for opening their eyes after massive doses of indoctrination. There are things(ideas, teachings, ethics) that can be derived beneficially from both traditions, once the mythologies are admitted as myths. Thompson is correctly trying to remove the rose colored glasses from western devotees of Buddhism. Hell, even the Dalai Lama is trying to cut the B.S. and encourage “secularism”. Thompson s clearly trying to revive the ideas his father espoused in forming a cosmopolitan philosophy, and rightly so.
Thompson and Ehrman are not comparable. The way that Thompson absorbed elements of the Buddhist philosophy in his life is clear, and he does keep many Buddhist beliefs and takes the position as something serious. Ehrman is not a philosophy student and the only things he can maintain from his past faith are basic things like compassion, which is not even exclusively christian. Ehrman doesn't look at Aquinas or Lulio like Thompson look at Nagarjuna.
Evan Thompson listens so patiently.
This conversation is golden!
What a feast of religion, philosophy, and science.
As always this show is a model of having sharp and deep disagreements while maintaining a spirit of respect and mutual appreciation.
David L. McMahan wrote a very informative study on Buddhist modernism: "The Making of Buddhist Modernism", Oxford University Press, 2008.
Evan Thompson brings forward some, i.m.o., really valuable, well founded arguments, arranged around a phenomenology of Buddhist modernism en gros and en détail; interesting talk, many thanks.
A very engaging dialogue discussing the concepts and categories of religion, philosophy, psychology and neuroscience and how these weave in and out of consciousness. Bravo to both voices.
Great debate. But. Much of the issue seems to be that Wright does not admit to be a Buddhist modernist. That's too much, for him. This was to me a great first intro to Thompson's book. But the debate is hampered by Wright's defence attitude.
I read the book, and Evan Thompson seems to have an intellectual-only understanding of Buddhism. Buddhist teachings mention three levels of wisdom - first there is intellectual understanding, then contemplating based on this understanding, and then most importantly experientially understanding of the teachings within meditation. In other words, ultimate reality concepts like ‘no self’ and enlightenment needs to be understood gradually and EXPERIENTIALLY, rather than being dismissed through intellectual arguments.
We also need to remember that the Buddha did not deny the self when considering ‘conventional reality’ - he even referred to himself as a person. When considering ultimate reality however he described the moment-to-moment manifestations that are constantly changing where an unchanging “I” cannot be found in any of these manifestations.
He also mentions a statement by Ven Nyanaponika and asks “How can bare attention reveal the mind if it also changes it?”- here, an ‘experiential understanding’ is needed to answer this: paying attention to a meditation object like the breath calms the mind (changes it), and seeing this process with bare attention is wisdom (reveals the mind). Also, when one is attentive, one may notice that an emotion such as anxiety has arisen - this observation (as well as any resulting insight into its changing nature) has the capacity to subside the anxiety - i.e., change the anxiety. All these observations 'reveal' the mind, promoting wisdom and understanding.
Additionally ‘faith’ in Buddhism is not blind faith- it can be compared to the ‘faith’ needed to take a course in a subject like astronomy. In Buddhism, as one sharpens one’s mindfulness ability, the more one will understand and one’s faith increases.
I could write more, but I think this is a very misleading book, especially considering that he seems to only have an intellectual understanding of Buddhism.
Listen to Thompson in the "Two Psychologists Four Beers" podcast. It's clear that he doesn't really understand the experiential component people are referring to with no self.
@@jsuth1111 True. I think he seems to think that scientific understandings are the only understandings that are correct.
@@metta1773 I'm not sure he thinks that scientific understanding are the only correct understandings, but it does seem like he doesn't have the relevant meditative experience to really grok what people are pointing to. I think there is a credible coherence with our scientific knowledge as Wright has written about and I've found Thompson's criticisms don't really interact substantially and tend towards a definitional morass. It's sort of unclear what Thompson is trying to accomplish because his arguments tend to boil down to things like "many people have different definitions of what a self is" which merely changes the subject.
Religious core vs. secular naturalist core. Interesting dialogue. From the view of a historical religious practitioner, or from a modernist scientific pragmatic naturalist viewpoint. The latter attempts to remove itself from historical and religious attachments, but is clearly at risk of creating its own.
The buddha dharma was not intended to be static, and yet many monastics cling to what was said versus was has been learned as a result of what was taught. The distinction is having heard what was said versus understood what was taught, and the subsequent ability to grow that understanding. The ethical-normative outputs of both 'approaches' encounter their own unique complications, and socially constructed attachments.
The external label of exceptionalism applies dualistic thinking, where religious and philosophical thought are instead interwined and arguably predate robust scientific methods. Application to the secular life may find certain understandings are more practical and relevant. Integration of a priori and a posteriori actions and reasoning is an appropriate application of dependent origination, but may struggle with differentiating one idea from another.
A psychology model that is integrally dependent with a saviour or god deity is arguably different from a model that is dependent on one's actions and choices. The former is more relevant to the supernatural and the latter with the natural as understood as immediate physical plane of existence.
Religious and sociological normative models/beliefs drive what is scientifically investigated. They are not independent. To take a dualistic approach rejects dependent origination as well as supports a belief in scientific exceptionalism without regard to the value it delivers to society. The methodology, values, and priorities that follows arguably distinguishes a scientific from a religious investigation. Noting, not all investigations are equal.
The social support or refutation of Buddhism is not a scientific position. Great discussion, but neither are proof of the validity or invalidity of buddhism.
A wonderful conversation between a kayaker and a seal. The seal doesn't need to be a Buddhist, he is a seal. The seal has arrived. He is home. Sarwa Mangalam!
We need to remember that the Buddha was not a Buddhist. His teachings are ultimately about the importance of not clinging to labels, views and opinions. The label “I am NOT a Buddhist” also represents a way of gaining identity and clinging. It can also be noted that the Buddha advised people not to *‘cling’* to the Buddhist teachings itself (as merely a belief) but to use it as “a raft to cross the river” (to reach enlightenment).
Couldn’t of said it better👏👏
The Buddha isn’t Buddhist either. He just didn’t write a book about not finding identity in not being Buddhist.
@@joanjett69697 If you check the Pali cannon (that many believe represent the earliest known teachings of the Buddha), you will see that several discourses talk about not clinging to views and opinions.
Yes sir! The Pali cannon remarks that lay people cling to material positions and ascetic people cling to ideologies and dogmas, and the Buddhist teachings warn against both.
@@TejasM14 Where do they warn against them?
Robert Wright is someone I'd rather have a conversation with. Not because I agree with what he says, but he's so much less combative and quick to anger!
Yes, that is very un-American. LOL.
Are you suggesting the other guy was angry or combative? He seemed cool and collected to me.
Didn't the Buddha himself encourage people to question everything he was saying? He himself was the ultimate rationalist
Critical historical sciences hold that we don`t really know much about the life and teachings of Shakyamuni. Most "re-constructions" are rather (and often even very fanciful) constructions or, to put it another way, "science fiction", if we grant some (proto-)scientic qualities to the religio-philosophical "stream system" of classic Buddhism with all it`s different (sometimes even antagonistic to each other) branches.
What the actual historical Gautama taught may be argued, but in part of the Pali Canon (i.e., Tipitaka) he is said to have done so. Specifically, you'll find the said encouragement in Kalama Sutta, i.e. Kesamutti Sutta. In it, the Buddha names ten sources whose claims should not be assumed as correct without proper investigation. Notice especially the tenth one:
1. Oral history
2. Tradition
3. News or rumors
4. Scriptures
5. Suppositions
6. Axioms
7. Common sense
8. One's own opinions
or preconceptions
9. Experts
10. Authorities or one's own teacher
Confirmation through one's own investigation is encouraged and dismissing any errors one finds along the way.
Kalama Sutta, 'So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" - then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.
"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' - then you should enter & remain in them."'
@@incollectio I fully agree incollectio. These guidelines clearly demonstrate that there is no need to blindly follow some ‘view’ on embodied cognition. Anyhow, Evan mentioned that there are *deep, profound and unique insights* in Buddhism (@ 48:20) - I think this contradicts his “Buddhist exceptionalism” argument - so, I am not too sure what he is saying!
That's not rationalism, necessarily. And I doubt Buddha was an absolute skeptic or cynic.
Christianity has *lots* of techniques to get you away from the biases: Psalms, Prayers, Meditations, Contemplation, Prostration, Genuflection, Sign of the Cross, Kneeling, Lectio Divina, Scriptural Study, Sacraments, Iconography, Song, Chanting, etc to name a number of common ones.
Definitely. What’s interesting is that Buddhism does it without the belief in a beloved absolute divinity.
By the 50 Minute mark, those who have not read *Why I Am Not a Buddhist* might think that the book is a critique of Robert Wright's book *Why Buddhism is True*. It's really not. It has been over a year since I've read WIANAB, but I do not recall it really dwelling on Bob's book at all.
I think the conflict between embodied cognition and evolutionary psychology is over played here and to a large extent is resolved. Embodied cognition may also be defined from the perspective of evolutionary psychologists. Evolutionary psychologists view emotion as an important self-regulatory aspect of embodied cognition, and emotion as a motivator towards goal-relevant action. Emotion helps drive adaptive behavior. We are still in the process of uncovering evolution and what is important is that we correct and build the understanding as we discover new findings.
I'll just take the opportunity again to point out that the unpopular, nevertheless true, ambition of Buddhism is to bring existence to an end for all sentient beings. That's what nibbana is, and what all the practices are in aid of. To end the craving/grasping force forever that brings about a new sentient being upon your death. So many want Buddhism to be more comforting than this, but I'm afraid it isn't.
I would argue that's an assertion that's unproven. Most Buddhists believe life has no beginning and no end, traditionally. Schopenhauer very much misunderstood that aspect of Buddhism.
@@Magnulus76 "In Nibbāna there are no such things as nāma or citta or cetasika which can be met with in Sense-Sphere of Form-Sphere. It naturally follows that mind and matter that belong to the 31 planes of existence are totally absent in Nibbāna. But some would like to advance an unusual proposition that after the parinibbāna of Buddha and his Arahats, they acquire a special kind of mind and matter in Nibbāna. Such an extraordinary way of thinking may appeal to those who cannot do away with atta or ego.
With regard to this proposition a learned Sayādaw reasoned that if there is a special kind of mind and matter in Nibbāna, there must also be a special kind of rebirth which gives rise to a special kind of old age, disease and death which in turn bring about a special kind of sorrow, lamentation, suffering, distress and despair. When the teachings explicitly say cessation, it will be an impropriety to go beyond it and formulate the idea of a special kind of existence. Extinction points to nothing but nothingness. Nibbāna, which is not involved in nāma and rūpa, cannot be made to get involved either in this world or in other worlds.
" THE NATURE OF NIBBĀNA by THE VENERABLE MAHASĪ SAYĀDAW
I sometimes think of Buddhism as a very clever trick to get us to accept not only our own death but also the eventual annihilation of the universe.
Great conversation!
loving it especially around the 1h mark.
value & science in regards to buddhism
What a brilliant conversation. Both participants so respectful of one another despite having some different opinions.
I found that Wright kept interrupting Thompson. So the threads of the question he raises (interesting and valuable in their own right) keep getting lost. In the end the basis of the debate is what “scientific” might mean. And there for what work it might be expected to do. It is referred to as objective measurement but this is left untouched. Thompson’s caricature of the meaning of “selflessness” as “disidentification with the body and mind” is open to challenge. This is because it is viewing selflessness as an behaviourally-achieved state and thus a procedural outcome. Yet all Buddhist tenets agree that selflessness is simply the existing nature of the person - in this case. Things are already always empty. Buddhism is not repudiating a self in the sense of ordinary everyday agency. I wake, I sleep, I listen to this program….that science can’t locate a governing CEO running the shop is not the same as not being able to find a self-existent substantially existent self of person.
Bob *always* talks about Natural Selection as a character who *does* or *designs* things. When people push back, he always puts it in "scare quotes," but the quotes don't do anything to change the rhetorical effect of the grammar, which implies a telos and intent.
20:00 Bob equivocates about how he wasn't technically saying what Thompson alleges him to have said, which is of course *technically* true, which is why Bob is a clever writer. Yet his ENTIRE BOOK functions based on observations of those "core ideas" whether or not he wants to characterize them as being essential to Buddhism, so much so that he was willing to let the book have the word BUDDHISM in it's title, suggesting that it's at least possible to read him that way. After all, he did not call the book *Why Western (and Some Select Asian) Buddhism is True* or *Why Buddhist Modernism is True*, qualifying introductory note be damned.
It's cool how they can say "the eliminating of the taints" and not crack a smile
1:21:36
...Which I think rather tainted the discussion.
This Chat should have been titled "Why Neither Robert Wright Nor Evan Thompson Are Buddhists."
Lol. Good one
Buddhism without rebirth:
Four Noble Truths
1. There is dissatisfaction/suffering.
2. Craving for continued existence and comfort is the cause of dissatisfaction/suffering.
3. Death is the end of dissatisfaction/suffering.
4. All Buddhas are dead.
This is what epic battles in science truly look like 😯
Evan seems to have mostly studied Zen Buddhism, and that is probably why he does not seem to have good appreciation for the detailed Buddhist theoretical aspects that are presented in early Buddhist teachings (the Theravada Buddhist tradition). Also, simply intellectually studying the teachings and verbalizing them are of no use. It is through the PRACTICE (through the development of mindfulness, etc., and observing *subjective experience* ) that one can clearly understand the teachings and SEE FOR THEMSELVES how the teachings make perfect sense. Also *faith* in Buddhism is not blind faith - it is faith that comes through practice, contemplation and understandings. For example, Buddhist teachings describe how the present moment (which is constantly changing) is experienced either through the five senses or as thoughts, whereas the past and the future are experienced only as thoughts in the present moment. Evan also seemed to talk about happiness and its meaning in terms of the practice - here too, it is important to separate *hedonic happiness* and *eudemonic happiness* which are too different types of happiness that are ultimately tied to conventional and ultimate realities (that I mentioned in my other comment). Also Evan mentioned abandoning clinging somewhat negatively - however, one should realize that such abandoning is *not* done forcefully, but through understanding and wisdom (for example, seeing that all hedonic pleasures are fleeting and are conditioned, etc).
The researches of E. Thompson and others (-> Verala, Rosch, et. al.) touch on all these fields of "conscious being" (or the "conditio humana") you mention, as far as I know.
Thereby, they attempt some intersubjective/objective "triangulation", that is, to work out a synopsis, respectively synthesis, by juxtaposing different first-person-perspectives (-> "subjective experience" etc.) and third-person-perspectives (-> "objective observations" etc.), to use their terminology.
Critical research on Buddhism (which tries to bring "emic" and "etic" perspectives together) has now already a longer tradition. It deals with questions, like:
1) How much construction lies in deconstruction (-> sociologist Niklas Luhmann once said: "You cannot not communicate!", -> "deconditioning" at the same time means "redonditioning", etc.)?
2) How valid and/or reliable are "direct evidences" (like satori-experiences, in the case of Zen)?
3) How can different concepts of time (respectively self, reality, consciousness, etc.) in diverse (human) cultures be adequately described, analysed, and (comparatively) interpretated?
Example: Many Buddhists hold to the only-here-and-now paradigm. Yet, already in the middle ages Hinduists criticized the Buddhist view as being unable, if taken seriously and consequently, to account for any duration. Current time-studies also tend to see the "only now" as rather a one-dimensional, in some ways reductionist concept.
So there is much room for further studies and discussions (like the one initiated by John Vervaeke with his YT-series on the "Meaning Crisis").
All what you have written (e.g. things like intersubjective/objective "triangulation," bringing "emic" and "etic" perspectives together, time-studies, studying ‘embodied cognition,’ etc.) and all the questions you have listed involve third person analyses. In my other comment, I clearly explained the importance of _separating_ *conventional* and *ultimate realities* because these two represent very different types of understandings that should never be mixed.
Buddhist teachings (which are interested in ultimate realities) are NOT about arguing and understanding but about contemplating and understanding - because arguing involves clinging to one’s own views and opinions. For example, any critical opinions of subjective experience being one-dimensional and that it is a reductionist concept, etc (what you wrote) represents personal views. Buddhist teachings go beyond views and opinions because when considering subjective experience, there is nothing outside of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touch sensations and thinking, and these happen _one at a time_ as a fast flowing stream (often refereed to as “the stream of consciousness”) - this process happens so fast that very sharp mindfulness is needed to understand the moment-by-moment manifestation of the mind stream (involving past, present and future experienced moments). I would also say that, although third person analysis may have various practical applications (and therefore such analyses can be helpful in the conventional world), such analyses is _not at all superior,_ because objective reality is nothing but agreed upon subjective experiences.
@@mindfulmoments4956 your argument is very well understood, I would say, even inside older "Western" traditions, where, e.g., one 17th century German philosopher - was it F. Schleiermacher or W. Schlegel -, already contemplated/meditated about the mystic/miraculous/transcendental (non-)state of consciousness before the basic subject-object divide.
Or take the arguments of the so called "negative theology", born out of lived experiences and religious practices - not to speak of other (often dangerously daring) "psychonauts".
Insofar the claim of Buddhist exceptionalism (like: "Only a Buddha can understand another Buddha!") seems not really justified in its claim of exclusivity.
And that is, what Evan Thompson, rightly, i.m.o., put forward as a point of criticism regarding certain factions inside the "big house the Buddha(s)" - and, indeed, these tend to exclude/foreclose any possibility of dialogue.
But why, then, any talk of Pratyekabuddhas, and so forth?
Is there not the big danger of becoming locked inside the frame of a radical solipsism inherent in such "neuronal programming"?
Why then exist (sic!) for us (sic!) Buddhist institutions, which operate vastly inside the realm of language in the broadest sense (-> sermons, scriptures, mantras/mudras, mandalas, ritual-linguistic performances, etc.) if the "other" is "totaliter aliter"?
Why has the Zen-school (-> Master Dôgen`s voluminous works) produced so many scriptures to communicate non-communicability at all?
Such questions (or psychic disharmonies) can obviously produce a considerable "doubt mass", can`t they?
Of course, this all presupposes the "reality principle", which is strong among humankind - and probably for some good, valuable reasons.
That`s about how I see the whole matter currently.
Diane thank you for your skillful comment. Well done. 🙏🏽
@@mindfulmoments4956 To get back to the point of Evans, how is that really different from any other religion based on personal experience (and there are many, even in Christian sects)? His point is that couching it in scientific terms is really part of a mythological Buddhism that did not exist prior to modernity.
A whole lot of this has to be with the title of Bob's book. I think he knew this title went well beyond what he did in the book and the controversy around this outrageous title would bring attention to the to book. Not saying this is good or bad. It just seems like it had to have been a somewhat conscious strategy
Robert, thank you for this video. Please get a pop shield for your mic though!
What attracted me to Buddhism and "why I am a Buddhist" was seeing firsthand in certain individuals the result of years of meditation. Their emphasis on wisdom, compassion and working directly with one's thoughts, emotions, appearances etc., I had never heard before in my upbringing. In this timeless tradition, we are encouraged to drop all credentials, reference points and labels, even the term "Buddhism" to recognize the way things are. Dr. Thompson's opinions, gentle as they may be, seem way too intellectual and full of such reference points.
It really doesn't matter if the historic Buddha was a scientist or the dates, places and names are accurate or not. Is addressing our primal attachments, aversions and bewilderment relevant today? The core teachings of Buddhism have always been there and still very much alive and taught. If you read ancient Indian and Tibetan texts that predate Chritstian influence and compare them with more contemporary writings, it's the same message. The notion that the real meaning of Emptiness, the hallmark of Buddhist teachings, inexpressible and beyond intellect could be equated with exceptionalism is absurd. Sure, we humans can fall into partisan traps, but that's what the Dharma is always warning about.
Uhhh... you're really not hearing what he's saying. Buddhism is a religion, not objective truth, not science. It's riddled with religious notions. That's what he means by "Buddhist exceptionalism", the idea that Buddhism isn't a religion fundamentally. And it's wrong.
If a religion has taught you "the way things are", then you are an adherent of that religion.
It's interesting you say that, because one of the main things that eventually caused me to move away from buddhism - after roughly three decades that included long retreats and periods spent living in monasteries and buddhist retreat centres - was that I couldn't help noticing that the majority of the innumerable monks, nuns, and other full-time buddhist teachers I got to know - people who had all spent multiple decades doing multiple hours of meditation every day - seemed to have very little to show for it. In fact, most of them seemed to be dogmatic, intellectually complacent, egocentric, and in some cases quite narcissistic.
And while meditation has certainly been helpful for me, in hindsight I would say that developing critical thinking skills, learning about a variety of different philosophical teachings and about contemporary scientific knowledge (e.g., cognitive and evolutionary psychology) and having a commitment to not becoming dogmatic or joining a "belief tribe" has been alot more helpful to me.
Secondly, you say "in this timeless tradition, we are encouraged to drop all credentials" - if by "timeless tradition" you mean one unified and unchanging tradition, then I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the history and evolution of the innumerable therevada, mahayana, and vajrayana traditions. You will find that they are all characterised by debates, disagreements, offshoot sects, etc. The mahayana and vajrayana traditions actually contradict some of the therevadan teachings, and in the case of vajrayana/tibetan traditions, I would personally say that it isn't even still "buddhism" in any meaningful sense.
And as for "dropping all credentials" - another thing that put me off was observing how the monks and nuns would almost invariably use the authority of their position to exploit and disrespect lay people. If you don't know what I mean, just go to Thailand, Tibet, or any number of other buddhist countries, and observe how the Religious hierarchy operates outside of affluent western countries.
I get the impression that you're someone who's read some books about buddhism (rather than actually studying the sutras) and dabbled in meditation, but hasn't really gotten an accurate understanding of what it is, or spent much time living with full time buddhist teachers.
Love this show, especially how they interact with each other..
The Protestant influence of modernity is not unique to Buddhist modernism, but occurs in many religions as they confront a post-colonial world so heavily influenced by the legacy of modern science and the spirit of individualism underlying modern globalist capitalism.
The problem with Thompson's argument of naturalism shouldn't apply to Buddhism's ideas is bogus. As long as buddhist arguments aren't drawing from "god did it", as long as we can examine the proposition and test it, that all falls under naturalistic explanations. I don't see any issues with it. Its a sort of Buddhist exceptionalism/exoticisms, ironically, that claims to be against as well. We don't do this with Plato or Aristotle or Newton or Liebnez or any non-Atheistic western philosophers/scientists/etc.
brilliant chaps
Great conversation. I just wonder if the ultimate stakes of their disagreement is whether or not Modern Buddhism (Or what I would call the mindfulness movement) should use the word Buddhism or not. This is not trivial. For instance, it is in issue in implementing mindfulness in schools as well. Anyway, they seem to agree about a lot. If someone claimed there were significant overlaps or connections between certain ideas found in Buddhism and scientific research would there still be a dispute? Maybe. Maybe not. Another related question is what is gained by using the word Buddhism or using it in a way that claim to represent some or all of Buddhism? What does it get you? .It does seem to invite some unnecessary baggage. Wright's book does want to claim that having a more true (or objective?) perspective helps eliminate suffering and brings a kind of enlightenment. He may need Buddhism to make those metaphysical moves, as naturalism alone might end up with questions about the naturalistic fallacy. In other words, maybe Wright cannot lead with naturalism and get where he want to go? But then again, I have bought his other books, but not read them yet and my understanding is that he wants to get things from naturalism like teleology and this involves a is kind of unique view of naturalism.
If this sort of thing you should read/listen to the entire text of Thomas Ligotti's book The Conspiracy Against The Human Race. 'Pessimist' philosophy explored in hilarious and erudite breadth and depth. Audiobook is on RUclips
If this sort of thing INTERESTS you, that is...
Audiobook: ruclips.net/video/1RD10h7rORA/видео.html
In reference to 42:00, I would invite Wright to read book XIV of The City of God by St. Augustine :)
With all due respect as a Theravada Buddhist Evan Thompson references a Buddhism I’ve never heard of. As he apparently understands Buddhism I would not only agree with him I doubt it would have survived 2550 years in the form he shares.
It's peoples' attachment to things that are impermanent that causes suffering. To relieve the suffering you have to detach yourself from things that are impermanent. isn't that the way it's supposed to go? Did they say that ? Their description at about the 34:00 mark or so seems a bit lacking.
39:00 -- Christianity has that in abundance, esp. in the Eastern fathers, which of course have been lost on most western ears.
Sort of. Buddhism seems to lay it out more clearly in a way that's more consonant with some modernist psychologies. Also, the iconclastic tendency of Zen makes some of those psychological insights more useful.
Very nice!
Around the 50 minute mark, RW explicitly refers to "core buddhist ideas" and not the core ideas of the naturalistic strand of Buddhism. So what was he claiming to do in the book? I am confused.
The Navy's "mental toughness" training for SEALs way back in 2008 and possibly earlier (I was there in 2008), included the psychology of stoic philosophy AND the neuroscience of meditation and mindfulness. Why one or the other? Reasoning has it's place and so does the psychological trick of meditation in stressful circumstances. It's interesting that this is the first I've heard from civilians of this controversy... It wasn't controversial while I was there.
The polar thinking of "only mind" (idealism) versus "only matter" (materialism) forms, i.m.o., an important "meme" in the history of mankind, nearly an universal one - as well as the "synergetic" (utililtarism) approach that you mention, of course. Often it is identified with Cartesian thinking, but this, i.m.o., does not do justice to the breadth and depth of René Descartes philosophy. If you pay due attention, you can find this "meme" salient all around the place, I would say.
What Wright is emphasizing "Reason is forever the slave to the passions" might be out of step with a certain take on Aquinas's emphasis on Christian psychology, but it's certainly in keeping with a more Franciscan approach to spirituality (and in many ways, Franciscans gave birth to modern science, precisely because they divorced the magisterial place of reason from theology). I mean, there are alot of Christian psychologies that aren't rationalistic. They just might not be familiar to somebody who thinks Aquinas is the begining and end of Christian theology.
It's interesting that they don't bring Zen Buddhism into the discussion. I understand the Zen does away with all the supernatural and metaphysical aspects of "traditional" Buddhism.
It doesn't "do away" with them.
It just neither affirms nor denies them, and essentially says that focusing on whether or not they're true is a waste of time and effort.
Indeed....thanks for clarifying.
Anatman doesn't have anything to do directly with "equal worth and respect". Lots of Buddhist cultures have been horribly inegalitarian.
I think Evan just needs a hug...
I think it's really admirable that Bob wants to be Philosophical coherent. I worry that to be both a journalist and a(n analytic) philosopher is a tall order for a single Sapien.
His denial that the three characteristics are not amenable to naturalistic evaluation is a crock of crap! Impermanence (anicca) is clearly something that is seen, and fully accepted by science/naturalism. Duhkha shouldn't be translated as merely suffering anyway as the Buddha included "suffering" as one manifestation OF duhkha (along with losing what you love, getting what you don't, pain, injury, illness, aging and death) so understood as stress, and the fact that there is no phenomena that is fully, ultimately, absolutely satisfying is amenable to naturalist understanding. Finally, anatta is the very reality science opens to us if we understand what science is telling us!
How in the world can he say rebirth is not easily naturalized?! The rebirth of egoic delusion or appropriative grasping happens even multiple times within one day of living life, not to mention a week, a month, a year or a decade. Rebirth is one of the easiest ideas to psychologize and thus naturalize. Not sure how one does not see that.
This conversation does not mention a very important point.
Everything we talk about regarding the world around us including all of science (whether it is studying the brain, about ‘embodied cognition,’ studying evolution, cognitive science, or studying genes) operate in what is known as the *conventional reality,* which is about gathering _knowledge and information._ Now, another type of knowing is referred to as *ultimate reality* : this takes into consideration that we understand the whole world and the universe (any theories, including the brain and even consciousness) as a *result* of our consciousness. Buddhist teachings analyze ‘consciousness’ (i.e., sense impressions and mental phenomena that are constantly changing - which represent subjective experience) in great detail, considering its moment-by-moment manifestation. Such understandings include how we have only one thought moment at a time, how each experience (whether it is a sensory experience or a thought) is fleeting, how our thoughts are conditioned by the past, etc.
The mind-stream happens in everyone all the time whether one is eating, exercising, listening to this talk, commenting on it, etc. - it happened in Robert and Evan as they were speaking (as sounds, sights, thoughts, etc.,), but now those experiences can only come to them as thoughts. It is important to note here that even when we study something like cognitive science, the mind stream (subjective experience) operates moment by moment. In other words, *conventional reality* and *ultimate reality* represent very different ways of understanding the world. It should also be noted that this mind stream is affected by attachments we have (like how Robert described regarding eating or talking to someone) - in other words, both _perceptions_ and _feelings_ as well as our _volition_ is influenced by our attachments. Speaking of attachments, we have five types: one can read about these in the article titled "Theoretical Foundations to Guide Mindfulness Meditation: A Path to Wisdom" published in the journal _Current Psychology_ [volume 38 (3)]
See e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da
@@johng4609 I looked at the page. What is the point you are trying to make? By the way, Wikipedia pages are not always accurate.
@@mindfulmoments4956 Diane Thanks Diane -- as you mentioned how Buddhist teachings address mental and sensory perceptions in detail, I linked to the page about dependent origination in order to point to some key parts of those teachings. That Wikipedia page is generally accurate, although I can't vouch for every detail there
@@johng4609 So, I assume you are agreeing with my comment - if so, there is no problem! Thanks!
2 arrows missing in mid air…
The world would be a better place if politicians who disagree with each other argue the same way. Or maybe the world would have to be a better place first before politicians could argue with each other like that, chicken or egg, etc. Still: great conversation!
What about Nichiren Buddhism? Does either book look at this, including SGI which has spread from 20th Century post war Japan to the West and elsewhere? EDIT - I searched MeaningofLife youtube vids but the result was a vid about how smart ppl end up in cults! Hmmf. I may not be the most intelligent but SGI is for 'ordinary people' - no one's pushed it onto me and I don't even need to formally join to attend a meeting.
I find the TienTai philophy/psychology incorporated into Nichiren Buddhism very helpful for accepting/managing emotions [the 10 life states from 'Hell' to Compassionate Action/[Buddhisatva' - with Enlighted Buddha at the top, as compassion, courage and wisdom influencing all other states; and our various senses & mental processes].
Thus chanting with this philosophy [rather than 'mindfulness meditation'] is not a magical incantation, but both clears the mind and with learning/understanding of the philosophy, strengthens resolve to live a constructive life at whatever level. Have there been any scientific studies on chanting v meditation?
Whether we think we are Self or Selfless are just different ways of looking at our lives as part of the whole universal shebang arent they? Nichiren teaches that Buddhism is the middle way (neither Self or Non Self) and the Lotus Sutra is the last development. But who knows?! And I'm no expert or even[yet?] a signed up member! Personally, I don't believe in reincarnation but karma as cause/effect seems only logical.
And if chanting helps make better 'causes' in a purposeful life, it's not a question of belief any more than any other psychology/philosophical practice eg stoicism. More a commitment and to misquote Shakyamuni Buddha - suck it n see!
I think if there were a spectrum of Bob to Evan, I'd be smack dab in the middle.
Keep going.
1:05:30
nonsense.
emergence theory means precisely that observation of the base of emergence necessitates observation of its emergent properties. if the stated emergent property is not observed upon observing its base of emergence they either do not exist as emergent properties or the asserted base is not the actual base of their emergence.
55:48 This argument is fallacious. The fact that concepts X are context sensitive does not imply that empirical research into them is irrelevant. Folk psychological concepts such as belief and desire are context sensitive in the same ways, but using them in a cognitive scientific context is still scientific. The business of cognitive science is largely the project of tracing the connection between neurophysiological states and our folk psychological terms. So, what Thompson is trying to say (I think) is just that Buddhist concepts are so embedded in a context that is so different from our own that we can't really translate their language into our own and do cognitive science using those translations. But, if that is the claim, then it's almost certainly false. There are common ways to define Buddhist terminology, dukka is suffering, etc., that seem to capture, with some caveats, the original meanings well enough. In so far as we can do cog sci on suffering, those finding are going to be relevant to what Buddhists say about dukka to the degree to which the translations are good.
would love to see a panel discussion with you two and Sam Harris.
I think Rob hates Harris. Which is interesting in itself considering Rob's dharma. Why the aversion Rob? I like Sam, but I gotta says his talks on selflessness amount to gibberish. I think it's telling that he and Evan haven't spoken.
I absolutely can't dispel the notion that Bob is characterizing Christianity from the vantage of someone who was raised in a protestant, "fundamentalist" home. He never really seems to talk about it with the vibe of an Ortho-Catholic Christian.
This dude is the worst host. He talks more than his guest and he constantly interrupts him.
I have been reading the Buddha's teachings and nowhere yet have I found any suggestion that I should believe in rebirth in order to practice or to reach any presented goals. As far as I know I don't need to believe anything, or have hope for anything in particular to happen. I have no idea what texts you guys are reading. Suffering is not a value judgement, you need to look into the meaning of Dukkha, bro.
If suffering is neutral why liberate yourself from it?
@@Bhuyakasha yes, exactly. That is the attitude one must eventually have.
Thompson's dismissal of evolutionary psychology isn't very persuasive. Most of his criticisms here didn't actually engage with the main connections Wright has made with Buddhism and naturalism. And Thompson's attempt to equate Thomas Aquinas philosophy as relevantly compatible with modern psychology is disingenuous.
The contributions of the "old schools" to modern psychology should not be understimated, in my opinion, as is often done. They produced some valuable insides into the human psyche, which can be revealed by deeper hermeneutical studies (via re-wording, re-framing, etc.).
Take only, for example, the debates on "nominalism" (Duns Scotus et. al.) which contributed to a logico-philosophical clarification of the relation between "only mind"- and "only matter"-attitudes (-> H. Bergson, "attention à la vie"), and influenced (proto-)scientific developments in the Renaissance-period and later (-> see, as ilustration, for example, Dr. John Vervaeke´s reconstruction of a kind of "philosophie perennis" with special relation to the current "meaning crisis" in his YT-lectures on this topic).
Did you forget to comment on the recent scenario in Myanmar?
EPIC DIALOGUE SIRS
I'm afraid this book (why I am not a buddhist) is completely irrelevant for people who don't need a label
and Evan Thompson should definitely read more about the scope of naturalism befor he decides that the things he calls the core of buddhism are not naturalistic en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
Why? Can you elaborate?
@@eyebee-sea4444 things are impermanent - check, impermanence is suffering - check, suffering is non-self (I'd rather say - lack of suffering equals realisation of lack of self, but ok) liberation is elimination of suffering - check. I would of course argue as to the core, but anyway - where's the not naturalistic element in it? since when can't naturalism deal with well being? since when can it not decide what is suffering and what is the lack of suffering?
That's hard to tell, because the definition of Naturalism is not unambiguous. Often it is used synonymous with Scientific, and I think that's what he is doing here. At 35:05 he says: "The idea of liberation from suffering, that's not a scientific idea."
@@eyebee-sea4444 Id say science does quite a lot to deliver humans from suffering. like what do we have antibioics for? or dishwashers... :)
Could you not simply split the difference. One could say that Buddhism as is practiced among whites is just a heretical version or different sect of Buddhism. Being schismatic is a fairly common part of all religions.
How can Thompson assert that Christians (for instance) have been "naturalizing" their religion when it's core fundament is the divinity of Jesus? He is making a false equivalency here.
Because they have been.
@@PiceaSitchensis, in what way? How do you naturalize divinity? The fundamental basis of Christianity is the supernatural. I am unaware of any major Christian denomination denying Jesus as divine/god.
@@pobsa56 "Cultural Christians." Even Dawkins admit being one, that softy, probably cause he's old and getting Biden's disease
I don't trust anyone who drinks out of a jam jar.
lmaoooooo
This guy blew me away with how little he understands Buddhism. I was hoping to feel challenged.
Exactly. His books should have been titled "Why I am not a modern/western Buddhist". These teachings of Hinduism/Buddhism/Christianity/.. are not for intellectual arguments but to be implemented in life (meditation) for experiential finding.
Why do you think this?
Nonsense
@Jaedn Howlar. This is such a classic case of the lack of knowledge of the truths
Cope
Bob seems to conflate "Brain" with "Mind."
1:54:20 Thompson erroneously assumes the function of the brain is predominantly a result of cultural influences, rather than of genetic changes. This only makes sense if he still believes in the outdated 'blank slate' model of the mind.
Why on earth wouldn't the function of the mind be significantly dependent on the hardware? He provides no evidence to the contrary. If there wasn't a close causal relationship between the hardware and the function, then when you did brain scans on different people, you wouldn't find that the same part of the brain always had the same function - they would be randomly located in different people. And maybe people from different cultures would have different layouts (emotions in the top left, logic in the middle, sight in the bottom left etc.) to people from different cultures.
u seem happily clueless of the fact there are normal ppl missing majority of their brain, that the neural correlate of consciousness remains unfindable, and that the visual cortex for example is rewired ceases functioning from visual stimulus and functions from tactile stimulus only instead.
@@5piles No, I am not happily clueless about that. However, you appear to be happily clueless that you are disagreeing with something that I didn't say. Did I say that brain function is only influenced by the hardware? No. Did I say that the brain hardware doesn't have any malleability? No.
What did I say?
I said that the function of the brain is not PREDOMINANTLY a result of cultural influences, and that it is PREDOMINANTLY a function of genetics/hardware.
Are you clueless about what PREDOMINANTLY means? It means 'mostly', which by definition means 'not totally', which means that cultural influences have SOME influence.
If you believe that sight is predominantly influenced by cultural factors, then please explain to me why is the visual cortex always in the same place in the human brain? If the human brain is just a great big blank slate, and different parts don't contain different 'hardware', then why don't 50% of people process visual input at the front to the brain instead of the back? Please help me answer this question because I'm currently clueless about it.
@@lau-guerreiro i didnt say sight is based predominantly on culture. i said just what i said, namely that the visual cortex has nothing to do with sight since it can easily be made to function only with tactile stimulus. and the brain is neither a blank slate nor is it necessary for normally functioning ppl missing majority of their brain.
@@5piles So why is the visual cortex always at the back of the brain and never at front or side?
@@lau-guerreiro some fully functional ppl are indeed missing half a brain ie. one of their hemispheres. some are missing up to 90% solid brain matter but at most such ppl display 90 to 95 iq. why cells propagate and grow how they do is not well understood but thats a matter of biology not so much neuroscience. also whats most interesting is not any of this but why the visual cortex brain activity starts to use finger activity instead of using eye activity if you blindfold ppl for 2weeks. they must feel like real dumbshyts calling it the visual cortex all these decades huh.
Criticism is a good thing when its directed for growth and development. Its a bad thing when its just patronising and insults. The bible criticises human beings, for the greater good. It says we need to ask God for forgiveness and rely on His grace and mercy to overflow in our lives. Spirituality is grace and supplication. Jesus Christ is not a theologian or just an inspirational speaker, He is the be all - end all to all life and everything about it. From God to the devil to human nature, to spiritual beings. The bible has all the answers.
Rob Wright’s knowledge of monotheistic religious traditions is astonishingly poor
Can you be more specific?
Michael Lee. He grew up southern Baptist, went to Texas Christian University and is a professor of Science and Religion at Union Theological Seminary, New York. I think he’s undoubtedly more knowledgeable than you ascribe.
@@Sampsonoff You do realise that monotheistic traditions- Judaism, Christianity, Islam, amongst others- are incredibly rich and diverse traditions? The fact that he was raised Southern Baptist only goes to prove my point: Baptists tend to be fundamentalists and fundamentalism is a late modern phenomena which is by no means characteristic of Christianity at all. He appears to know almost nothing about the Orthodox and Catholic and Anglican traditions, which makes up by far the majority of Christians both now and historically. Listen to his conversation with Professor David B Hart (a Christian scholar in the Orthodox tradition) and you will see how little he knows. The Desert Fathers (6th century) were engaged in forms of mindfulness and mediation long before Buddhism came to the West. Then there is the Hesychia (stillness or rest) associated with Mount Athos (but by no means unique to that monastic tradition). The Christian tradition is as profound as it is ancient: Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Gregory of Nyssa, etc., are some of the greatest minds in the history of the world. By the way, Wright said that Aquinas is "most famous for proofs for the existence of God": (1) they are not "proofs" but "arguments"; (2) and they comprise two pages of the Summa Theologiae, which is a multi-volume book, so its not even very important in his corpus! So, yes, he knows very little about monotheistic traditions.
Michael Lee. Perhaps you’re right and his understanding isn’t a deep as yours. Congratulations.
It’s worth noting, however, that Robert isn’t a theologian and his published works are not in the monotheistic domain. He platforms theologians in the traditions you listed which is interesting. But I’m not religious so I’m happy he doesn’t delve into that stuff too much.
How conversant are you in the various international relations frameworks? Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. I totally enjoy Robert’s show and am thankful for the range of perspectives he platforms. Perhaps you’d be better served listening to podcasts more specific to monotheism 🤷♂️
@@Sampsonoff he wrote a book called "The evolution of God"...............
Man what are you doing. Why didn’t you use the best weapon in your arsenal’. The evolutionary psychology. You could explain the suffering, the impermanence and the idea of no cell if you used what’s the know. I don’t know what was going on
Nazim Yacoub Can you try clarifying your point? I don’t fully understand
I'm guessing you are making a joke regarding evolutionary psychology and its rather poor attempt to explain everything.
Bob's notion of "Salvation" in Christianity is very post-Enlightenment fundamentalist Protestant.
Livin celibate all day chsnting mantras or sitting in silence gotta be the last escape from reality. Poor guys just create another reality state and call this one false
I've read that there's no word for "Buddhism" in Tibet. They call it the "Science of the mind."
The term "Buddhism" is rather a neo-logism, coined after the newer encounters of the "East" with the "West" (-> Portugese seafarers etc.).
Two of the key-phrases were, inside the Sinitic oecumene, e.g., the "Buddha-teachings" (c. fójiào) of the "Buddha-school/family" (c. fójia), and the "Law" (c. fâ, j. hô, skr. dharma, dharmâ, Dharma).
As E. Thompson mentioned, many Buddhist modernists use(d) this terminology to propagate the rather exclusivist, exeptionalist view of Buddhism (sic!) being the one and only "religion" (-> again: equivocations and problems of the definition of the term) that was from the beginning(s) (-> concepts of a multiverse etc.) truely scientific (with a specific stress on "mind matters").
@@gunterappoldt3037 --
Yes, it isn't a religion like Judaism, Christianity or Islam. I've been interested in eastern "religions" since I was 17 (I'm now 68).
From the time I was a child, I always wanted to know "the Ultimate Reality" regarding religion, philosophy, science. I went to a Catholic grade-school for eight years. When I was about nine, I looked up into the clouds and thought about what the nuns said -- that if I'm good, I'll go to heaven, where I'll be happy forever. But my very next thought was, "But then I'd be bored." I was on the right track. Brahma "gets bored" (so to speak) when it realizes it is all that there is an empties (like in "Buddhist" thought) into everything else (the Maya, the ten-thousand things).
In 1971, at the age of 19, I serendipitously (it wasn't a conscious effort) had an experience that could be called "Satori," or "mokshe" (whatever you want to call it).
Throughout the years I've amused myself by thinking of analogies to this Ultimate Reality, what the Taoists called, "That which can't be named."
"This Is It" (the title of Alan Watts' collection of essays) are the English words that come closest, I think. But the Tao can't name itself.
@@Unfamous_Buddha most probably satori-ish experiences are not as rare as is usually supposed. I personally found especially the Daoist classics very inspiring, yet the basic riddle (and often doubt) remains.
@@gunterappoldt3037 --
Regarding riddle and doubt, this from Max Planck: "Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."
I think the analogy here is that no matter how hard you try, the effort is as futile as trying to taste your own tongue or bite your own teeth.
@@Unfamous_Buddha and yet, wherefrom stems this inside, why is there something and not nothing (Martin Heidegger)?
the jump to non corporeality
I find Buddhism ok as a theory. But the spiritual abstractions of Buddhism are not very clear. Also, its hard to make relational community based on Buddhism. Most eastern practices are ok but they are very introspective. They tend to be effective in getting rid of distractions, focus etc. It is good in itself but to me the Western tradition of Christianity has more powerful concepts in bringing communities together and more emphasis on the way being verbal and communicative, rather than just vague esoterism. When Jesus says, my yoke is easy and my burden is light, its a very specific injunction to follow Him. Its a personal relationship with the Most High God. Getting rid of the ego doesn't require practices that 'transcend' oneself. The Bible is very explicit that we cannot reach God by ritualistic processes. The Lamb of God is the only one in Christianity that is required. So the ego is always there, just that the spirituality of Christianity is a spirituality by faith. This is very important and is absent from Buddhism. Its central concept of love reaches out and reaches deep to touch us. Buddhism has very different goals and they are not universal enough to connect large communities.
Buddhism is deeply faith based as well. Just different. Whereas a Christian sits in prayer for refuge in God, a Buddhist simply refrains from greed and aversion, thereby taking refuge in that wholesome space of safety. Same experiential result but different framework. Christianity uses the iconography of a beloved divinity to help endure the pressure of not acting out of greed or aversion. Buddhism just sees it for what it is, on that level. By not acting out of greed or aversion one finds themselves confronted with a painful feeling, and it takes faith to endure that.
Debate with Jay Dyer.
Cudnt care less whicjbgiy thinks he is right
Thompson on Evolutionary Psychology:
(1) We know the selective pressures in the Pleistocene epoch.
(2) They're the same selective pressures as today. The cognitive architecture is the same today.
(3) We can investigate and understand cognitive function purely in terms of treating the brain as a modular system.
Thompson, put down Stephan Jay Gould, and go speak to an actual evolutionary psychologist.
Evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience anyways
@@vincepopart7557 That's what they say in the humanities!
@@BlackBeltMonkeySong That's also what they say in evolutionary biology!
@@vincepopart7557 Only those who ready Gould and Lewenton!!!
@@BlackBeltMonkeySong So 100% of biologists...good try.
evan has tunnel vision
Evan Thompson you do not study thoroughly about Buddhism,science .You study wishy washy to earn money.I can point out how Buddhism is scientific.How can you say three characteristics,4 noble truths, law of karma,conditionality,about matter ,mind,all or none law,the importance of nutrition.Meditation nowadays are become business and abuse by greedy persons.Most of people does not know the meaning of meditation.People are inclined to be cheated because people like easy way.Poor man you even do not know about love.I know your level of wisdom.You are far away .I better leave you here because primary school student will not understand university level.you need time to grow and mature.wish you the best.
Robert Wright doesn't understand Buddhism.
There are forty gazillion Buddhisms.
@@frankfeldman6657 Like saying there are forty gazillion Yahwehs
What's Buddhism? My answer is the teachings of impermanent and "Life is Suffering" you dont have to believe that you just observed !!😂😂😂