Buddhism helped me connect with my emotions in such a visceral way and I feel them so much more intensely now, but they don't rule my life anywhere as much as they did in the past, when I felt numb all the time. In the same way that the quote at the beginning has misunderstood neuroscience, so many of us in the west have misunderstood Buddhism, picking and choosing which bits of the religion we like and dislike and often practicing without formal training. That's bound to have negative consequences when Buddhist teachings are so subtle and so commonly misunderstood. Realizing that you are not 'the self' does not produce an absence of meaning, it's the complete opposite, literally feels like a giant weight you've been carrying all your life has been lifted, and I only had a glimpse. Everyone who taught me was filled with passion and life, not some kind of numb zombie. I think for anyone looking to learn that should be a real red flag.
as a former student of (especially intercultural) philosophy I usually really enjoy your videos but I feel quite disoriented and worried about this one to be frank. I do appreciate some of the points you made like especially the one at the end with community over "enlightenment" and I share your general concern about the rising movement of "modern spirtuality" and "enlightenment" ideas. However I found you to be brutally oversimplifying in this video. It is one thing to criticize new age gurus but another to put them at one with the very philosophically rich and diverse tradition of Buddhism and Buddhas Teachings. I do not mean to say that your points are not valid but I think it is really important to take non-western traditions really philosophically seriously and engage with them in a respectful and meaningful manner, not falling in the trap of oversimplifying huge body of thought and experience which in my humble view is the same mistake many new age gurus (like eckhart tolle etc.) are making. For example Community or Sangha is a major major factor in buddhist thinking, many buddhist traditions are not about a singular world-denunciation at all (that is a path reserved to a few like you said). I mean what even is spirituality? Like yeah meditation won't solve all our problems but it isn't a devilish force either, I feel kind of tired of this false comparison and like I said oversimplfication of complex, rich, diverse non-europeans traditions like Buddhism, who have their problems but also so much beautiful and life-enriching to offer. Feeling kinda sad you seemed to strengthen this (in my view) problematic way of talking and thinking about buddhist culture. Cheers.
@@deemgai2727 yes I think so, I would like to tell you about my favourite Zen Koan which illustrates this point rather drastically: There was an old woman in China who had supported a monk for over twenty years. She had built a little hut for him and fed him while he was meditating. Finally she wondered just what progress he had made in all this time. To find out, she obtained the help of a girl rich in desire. “Go and embrace him,” she told her, “and then ask him suddenly: ‘What now?'” The girl called upon the monk and without much ado caressed him, asking him what he was going to do about it. “An old tree grows on a cold rock in winter,” replied the monk somewhat poetically. “Nowhere is there any warmth.” The girl returned and related what he had said. "To think I fed that fellow for twenty years!” exclaimed the old woman in anger. “He showed no consideration for your needs, no disposition to explain your condition. He need not have responded to passion, but at least he should have evidenced some compassion.” She at once went to the hut of the monk and burned it down.
If you don't mind, what could be possibly be missed from the buddhist tradition that could help the average joe in his day to day life that wasn't mentioned in this video? Because he did say that he doesn't deny that yoga and meditation are beneficial. To me the thing is, we can learn to sit with our thoughts and do yoga without having to suscribe to a religious like cult and we don't need buddhism to have community.
Happy to see this comment after leaving a similar one of my own. I appreciate you using your intercultural knowledge to take a similar approach even further. It might be a good time to say, too: If we want to criticize the notion of ‘universalizing spiritual discourse’, as was done in the ‘Who It’s Really For’ section: we should perhaps likewise consider the dangers of making harmful generalizations on, or publicly misrepresenting, religious philosophies that do not align with our own.
To all of you who answered this: As I see it the interconnectedness doctrin in Buddhism isn't just about feeling connected to everything else. It is also a part of the argument for emptiness and that nothing has an independent existence. That this can be dangerous for people who don't have a, in a completely western sense, developed sense of self, an ego if you will, is obvious (and empirically investigated, and admitted by some sane buddhists). For those who tread on that path with stable identities it could be quite rewarding. In fact, a stable sense of self is probably a precondition for coming out intact or better. (Hence the survivalship bias mentioned.) For those that don't - and these are often people with personality disorders - it's anyone's guess. Sadly, the old trick of "it may get worse before it gets better" gaslights many to continue despite getting more disoriented. I think The living philosophy knows this, but everything can't fit into a short video.
Meditation helped reduce my panic disorder and anxiety disorders. I stopped fighting it, and now it comes and goes without much trouble. Idk if that counts as non-attatchment but it works and I'm going to keep doing it.
Oh no. Stop fighting panic disorder and anxiety or stopped fighting it only help you that far. One day, you need to go deeper to deal with the real cause. It not about letting go or stopped fighting anymore. One day, it about facing your anxiety. You must truly suffer to overcome that anxiety by heroic way. And through suffer our soul was cleaned. That mean you need to hug your anxiety by your whole body and kiss it, letting go or stopped fighting will not enough. Meditation will not enough. One must pick up the sword and fight. I speaked from my experience.
I agree with many points you make. I was an avid practitioner of Buddhism. Almost my whole childhood was plagued by destructive abuse of alcohol, physical and psychical violence which traumatized me. Coming up into my twenties I had couple bad depression periods and that made me quest for a way to repair myself. After immersing myself into gurusphere I've found that buddhism fitted me best. So I started to practice it. There really wasn't any places related to that where I could seek knowledge so I had to put a lot of effort into learning on my own. This particular way suited me well and felt kinda natural. Few years of learning how meditate, getting more hours into that, studying suttas and so on. Eventually I`ve found one particular teaching which emphasized studying on your own and I dove into it. Following it rigorously (almost like in a retreat style) for a few months I`ve started to feel that I was getting somewhere and the effort was changing me. I`ve felt joyous without reason almost all the time, I`ve walked with clouds under my feet, the need for external pleasures dropped a lot. At the same time I`ve attacked my ego as hard as I could and at some point it felt that I was starting to dismantle it. And there was where things started to get weird to say the least. Everyday mundane things like work, friends, goals in life started to appear less in value and almost meaningless. I felt there was no point in pursuing those as they were impermanent, unsatisfactory. That kinda prompted a small doubt in what I was doing to myself , but found reassurance in the teaching and continued with it. After some of more ego dismantling all of a sudden I`ve came to a place that felt very unstable. Like my psyche became fragile and if I would to continue it would change me in a way that felt scarry. It felt that I could lose myself, my healthy common sense. I`ve backed off from all that almost immediately. After some months I was back to my normal, hurting and sad self, feeling better in being this way and remembering that scarry unstable moment. Eventually I`ve sorted my mental health through western approach. Went to a doctor, got sent to a psychologist which diagnosed me with chronic depression and adhd, then onto psychiatrist whom prescribed me meds and those made me stable enough to start therapy. Through therapy I`ve seen and understood my experiences and integrated them. Thou still I`m not fully healed, but I`ve come a long way and I am myself. I don`t feel the need to destroy my ego and enter nirvana leaving all this earthly bs behind. Life is good as it is. Oh, and after buddhism phase I went onward into healing through psychedelics. I had a huge breakthrough using them, but again, without professional help and know how to integrate it into my life it was just barely helpful. Thanks for the video, It`s great and I would like to learn to think like that as well.
I began reading about buddhism recently and watching some videos. I even attended a meeting at a local buddhist center, but i've been finding it to be a very confusing view about the world. Just like you said you began losing interest in friends, work and other things, the ideas of buddhism makes me feel like theres no value in life, since the only goal that exists is to attain nirvana.
Depression and ADHD is a hellish combo… meditation can help up to a certain point but that’s it, afterwards it becomes more problematic than helpful in my experience.
> guru: desire is the source of suffering. one must stop desiring > me : and how to we do that, great sage ? > why of course, by desiring to not desire
I appreciate that you've had a go in critiquing this orientation to life and speaking into a topic that many find difficult. However i feel like your view is not a mature and all ecconpasing view but an intellectually embelished opinion based on a limited experince with this path yourself. Its a path thats dangerous to the structures in the mind that get dismantled, including the belief structures that think they 'know' what life is and philosophise about it. A true path to enlightenment is a doing away with ideology and a total embrace with life. Thanks for sharing your view, a nice watch and some good points.
I like the antidote to this. In the words of Jean Luc Marion ‘the courage to be affected’. As turner prize winner Grayson Perry says, he discovered from dealing with his past, if you want to empty yourself of the bad feelings, you don’t get to keep the positive ones.
It’s true you can’t seperate the feelings as “positive” and “negative” and have only the positive ones. This is a very shallow and mechanistic approach. The problem is not the so called negative feelings, it’s how we react to them.
@memesmojo5622 I thought nirvana was nonexistence, breaking free from samsara? Something like reincarnating into the Pure Land and chilling there isn’t enlightenment, I thought.
Of course, the story of Buddha is he had a wife, a child, wealth, status (being a prince) and yet realised there was no lasting happiness in samsara. Obviously the miseries of life tend to drive people to spirituality, especially when their sorrows aren't so trivial that they can be easily consoled with the help and assistance of friends and family. In Buddha's case it was the problem of suffering and impermanence itself (old age, sickness and death). Such a problem required a more radical solution i would venture. Years ago i had a teacher in Mumbai, the same one as Leonard Cohen had before he re-entered life. He used to call spiritual people miserable seekers haha. Well, yeah, seeking tends to be more miserable than the regular.. the end of seeking is happiness, but its true you have to go through hell for that. I can vouch for it personally. But if you've come to the end of seeking and are no longer miserable, fulfilled and don't even fear death itself. Then surely one can return to their life in samsara and live like everyone else. That's my view anyway.
@@prboddingtonmaybe it was the prospect of changing nappies and not the sorrows of samsara that drove him into the forest haha I try not to be too judgemental of him, having left my own partner and 18 months old child to run off to meditate in Rishikesh. I came back though and am in my daughters life.
@@prboddingtonlots of assumptions and stories carried along for 2500 years by adoring disciples. Take these stories with a grain of salt. I meditate using the vipassana technics and look at Buddhist teachings in their usefulness also helping me to be more loving to others, myself and this world. It’s a very good mind map, very useful to explore your mind, feelings and emotions. Don’t get hang up on the stories and metaphysics.
As a Buddhist I'd like to throw my two cents in. It seems you're under the impression that we all throw away and actively discourage finding pleasure in anything when its just not that simple. The Buddha himself was incredibly ascetic before his enlightenment, actively harming his own body in search of enlightenment. But after actually attaining enlightenment he renounced this as unnecessary and just as bad as attachment to pleasure, this is to say he found the middle path. As Buddhists we don't fight pleasure or actively harm ourselves, we do allow ourselves to seek some things. The problem with pleasure isn't only that it's temporary, though that is a problem, the main problem is that its unsatisfactory. There is never enough of a good thing and we poison our happiness trying to chase it. The idea is to be happy and satisfied with what is rather than angry with what isn't and this is so often mistaken by others as pessimistic. The "razor" in this analogy isn't just the loss, it's the hunger and stress of the searching. We shouldn't deny ourselves pleasure and we should take happiness in what we do have, but in turn we shouldn't devote our lives to seeking something that is both unsatisfying and temporary. Everything is temporary, both suffering and happiness, but every positive action we make has long lasting good effect for everyone.
It's called the middle way for a reason. He is attacking a caricature, he seems somewhat uninformed about Buddhism. Jhanas are reputedly providing you with pleasure (you can achieve sukkha, which is the opposite of dukkha). Just freeing yourself from your attachments does bring you peace and relief (not to dissimilar to the relief you get from satisfying an urge). Also, Western perspective on Buddhism is biased by the over emphasis on meditation, which is only a small part of Buddhism. The noble eightfold path which is the basis of good practice in Buddhism contains mostly a moral code that does make your life simpler.
Indeed. The three jewels includes Sangha - community, so I'm not sure what version of Buddhism he met, but isolating yourself permanently is not part of the middle way. Serving others is a big part of Buddhism.
I think the answer is somewhere at the 19th minute where he said "Buddhism and Hinduism AS IT IS imported to the west". I don't know for sure what this is but I've seen the phenomenon of "non duality trolls" who go around dropping Alan watts quotes or saying crap like "why bother, just discover that you are in fact already enlightened", even at channels that AREN'T talking about non duality. They don't realise how inanely easy it is to *conceptually* understand non duality and how similar they are acting to those "accept Jesus and be saved" trolls. They're just larping at being spiritual while denying that most dharma traditions do in fact emphasize community works. Enlightenment is certainly an internal thing, but it impossible to tell if *other people* are enlightened or not. That's why as long as we care to know whom we deal with, actions speak louder than words. I'd rather trust an illiterate simpleton who has funded hospitals and schools than a bum who's just good at stroking his beard and dispensing jargon. We all need to be aware that the world of wishy washy abstract thoughts is a favourite playground of beginner narcissists. A simulation where they can achieve maximum results (your views and likes) with minimum effort (dropping "wise" quotes). I think even the most basic insta belfie chick worked much harder to get her views.
As someone conned for some time into the spiritual path by very questionable individuals, I needed to see this. Spiritualism struck me as paralyzing to personal agency in a way that reduced people to passive subjects in existence and every time I would bring that up the response would always be some jargon hogwash about how I wasn't truly aligned. Thanks
11:50 universalising spiritual discourse. At last a coherent articulation of what's wrong with mainstream fake spiritual teachings. The way i like to think if it: if you can talked into believing that your (ego) experience in the here and now is maya an illusion you have much to learm of your self
I also pursued spirituality/enlightenment in the escapist way that you describe very accurately and clearly here. But modern life, which undermines healthy relationships, turns pretty much everything-work, sports, art, entertainment, shopping, etc-even family life-into an escape because when having genuinely good relationships is out of reach, life becomes too painful to face, so we all seek some sort of escape. So although you’re right that pursuing healthy relationships would be a better alternative for most of the westerners who are seeking enlightenment, healthy relationships is exactly what our way of life makes very difficult. That’s what’s driving people to pursue spirituality and other escapes in the first place. In contrast, in the traditional societies where enlightenment spiritualities mostly arise, but where people still have genuinely healthy relationships (before they too get westernized), people don’t pursue spirituality as an escape. When we have healthy relationships, we generally have a healthy approach to all the rest of life too. That’s what’s missing in the modernized, westernized world. But yes, spirituality can be an especially self-deceptive escape, so it’s good you’re helping people see that.
I like Plum Village Buddhism (a Vietnamese I think for of Buddhism). When we meditate we just do mindfulness, focus on the feelings and motion, notice them, let them flow. We have sharing St the end of the meditation. Many people shed a tear remembering or realising painful truths. If feels like a self therapy session in a support group. Even though I am still not a believer, spiritual or Buddhist I see great value in it.
I think you should do more research on Early Buddhism. The Buddha taught in the Upaddha Sutta friendship was an integral part of the spiritual life. If you are losing your feelings towards your loved ones then you are not doing it right. Metta (loving-kindness). Is an important part of buddhism. The Buddha said it was just as important as Insight Meditation. I personally use my love for my children as a source of metta during meditation. I feel like your experience is mostly with Hinduism and Tibetan Buddhism (which is a form of Buddhism that takes a lot of things from Hinduism). I agree that the rapid enlightenment approach that they take is dangerous. I'm personally more a fan of Theravada and Early Buddhism. It's much less guru centric.
It seems some people may have missed the point here. I don't see this as a refutation of Buddhism as a whole, but a challenge to the concept of "enlightenment", which is basically the ultimate goal of Buddhism. And I agree. When I turned to spirituality during my darkest depression many years ago, I became obsessed with the notion that I could achieve some pinnacle state where nothing could affect me. I almost went crazy chasing that. After several years and lots of seeking in many different directions, I've come to believe not only is enlightenment a fairytale, it's not even something I or most other people would want anyway. Yes, when you are suffering greatly and are desperate to end the suffering, it seems acceptable to sacrifice joy as well and just exist in a nuetral state, but once that cloud has passed and you think more rationally, you realize how bleek an existence that would be. Ultimately, it falls into the same category of spiritual bypassing as a lot of "new age" stuff, despite it being ancient. So many "spiritual" people are in a rush to transcend. But if you truly believe we are spiritual beings having a physical experience, then certainly there must be a reason why we came here. Why would you dishonor that by trying to escape?
Any path that leads towards physical in-action, emotional hedonism and intelectual m*st*urbat*0n is definitely FALSE. You won't realize who you are through rationalism, you can't see yourself, only others can. You can see your arms and hands so you can work and you can see your legs and feet so you can walk. Your own idea of who you are will never be accurate, only others can say who you actually are, how they are experiencing you. At the END of your live you can look back, contemplate your fruits and realize who you were, who you are. Who you are is about FACTS not sensations or feeling or visions or thoughts.
But that's the thing, he is treating Enlightenment as Asceticism, as if it was the point of Buddhism, when it's literally the other way around. One of the core ideas of Buddhism is that extremes are bad, so if you focus too much on detachment you build a life of numbness, and if you focus too much on pleasure seeking you build a life of eternal suffering from craving. That's literally the whole point of Buddhism, the middle way, that only with, you guessed it, "LOVE", and "COMPASSION" to all living things that we can be enlightened. That means loving your family and spending time with them, loving your neighbors and inviting them to your home, loving animals and avoiding hurting them as much as possible, and yet, knowing that all things are ephemeral. Being ephemeral to Buddhism, actually, is what makes things beautiful, because they have meaning in their existence. I can't see how those teachings are detrimental to One's well being.
Seeing your story it seems to me that you guys that live in America ( I suppose you are American or European, I'm sorry if it's not the case) are presented with the most shallow version of Buddhism that exists. The Buddha itself never abandoned his life in search of transcendence, he abandoned the shallowness of his former life, searching for a more fulfilling one. Interestingly enough, he turned to a teacher and built a community, so it is essential to Buddhism the connection with other people and generosity, things that are complete opposites of both pleasure seeking and asceticism. When you seek only to fulfill your desires, you focus solely on you in detriment of others well being. If you focus only on asceticism you don't even acknowledge the existence of others, and put your ego above everything.
@MarceloSilva-oq8mk That's true about the middle way. And yes, I'm American so point taken there, although to be fair, mostly I learned on my own, but I also did learn under monks at a Vietnamese monastery. Nonetheless, Buddhism is still centered around the cessation of suffering and The Buddha is lauded as the first to have done so. Since the whole religion (religion might be the wrong term) is centered around him, it's safe to say that is what followers are directed towards as the ultimate way to be. And correct me if I'm wrong, but he did give up everything, right? He refused to eat more than a grain of rice. And he decided to sit under the Bodhi tree and refused to move until he ultimately attained enlightenment.
@@WILD__THINGS He was an ascetic first, but he abandoned that life as he thought it was too extreme to being able to achieve true Enlightenment. Actually, after a maiden confused him as a spirit and gave him a food offering, having eaten that offering he felt revitalized and got to that conclusion. When he sit at the foot of the bodhi tree, he already had abandoned asceticism, so he just sat there to meditate until his enlightenment. We don't know exactly the time it took or if he ate or not, probably he did, so that extremism isn't core to his teachings.
Great video! I agree that the way spirituality is often practiced is counterproductive and practices like non-attachment can contradictingly lead to false attachments to concepts like „enlightenment“ if done the wrong way. That said i feel like that same as with every other philosophy, religion or literally everything else in life there are still some truths that can be recognized in spirituality. Especially now that much of spiritual teachings can be proven by neuroscience. For example the discovery of the default mode network and Problem solving network of the brain. The first one is active everytime we think about ourselves and has basically all the characteristics that are described as the „ego“ in buddhism. Neuroscience has found that the longer this is active the more depressed we get but with practices like meditation you can shut it off. Important to note here is that its not only meditation that can do this but any activity or problem that demands your full attention. This just goes to show that spiritual practices are not the only correct way but can definitely be for some. For me the biggest game changer in life the lesson i found in spirituality that you are not your thoughts but the the consciousness being aware of it. For many people in the west the biggest cause or amplifier of problems like anxiety and depression is overthinking. But who could blame us? „I think therefore i am“ is all we know. But with all the thinking and thinking and thinking our whole reality gets replaced with the thought of it. But by not identifying with our thoughts and just observing them, being conscious, you can much easier break behavioral patterns that lead you into unnecessary suffering. Quieting the mind, reducing thought to a more effective problem solving tool and observing myself and reality as it truly is has truly brought immense joy to my life. Also, great hair :)
When we look with and look without .. we can then find the middle way. We are not all outside of the body with the senses nor are we all within without sense!Our human experience beyond the animal body, we, the imaginative being can read with our senses .. then looking beyond the object we get to understand how the object was created. A tree from a seed, a wooden chair from the tree. We must use Buddha as a tool, use his life experience as a guided meditation. Use the world we see.. use the world we close off from in sleep as dreams or meditation with breath as an exercise to understand the inner working of ourself even more and with the Mind Science of Buddhism we simply find our true self. The Zodiac is another very creative way to understand that we are all same same (Thai phrase) but different. We are the atoms of the universe, we are temporary as droplet of rain. It’s more about accepting than the searching sometimes… the balancing of the duality with the meaning it means as we see both sides of the coin together in imaginative thought or with our own cellular memory ✨🙏🏻✨🕉️✨☯️✨🌌✨
I reason the same way. (I guess that disqualified me in the "Become a Budha-race"). Still, a certain level of awareness and self discipline has to be developed ON TIME and by everyone, rather than just going through life in search of honey and the rasors that come with it. At one point of life, a realization of your own mortality strikes hard. Then you either become infantile, or you make some changes in life, which make more sense, or most likely- a bit of both...
Well done, totally agree. I studied and followed Buddhism for years and came to the conclusion that it was in many ways actually inducing depression and disassociation in people. Luckily for me in a way, I had a long history not just of depression but also of dissociative states so recognised it. There is also the problem of how hierarchical and cult-like many Buddhist groups are, spotting who is most Enlightened etc. I remember being taught one Tibetan buddhist mediation where we were meant to visualise walking through a valley composed entirely of human bones to cut our attachment to life. But when in profound depression, I had literally had precisely this vision as an utterly horrific nightmare. I've also seen too many examples of people involved in such outfits to have serial relationships dumping partners with ease and. moving on to the next all with the excuse 'non-attachment'. Like framing being a a*hole as spiritual enlightenment.
@@prboddington I was invited to stay with someone some months ago and they have some teacher who's apparently a 'rimpoche' in the the dzogchen linage. I always wondered what the appeal of these titles in Tibetan Buddhism were, because it never appealed to me. It seems Tibetan culture itself is like that, It was basically a theocracy before the Chinese came. Also, if ones guru is especially confirmed or special then one can feel some of that specialness and certainty I guess. So I need a rimpoche as guru and not just some guy at the fruit shop... To me such titles are just things that people give to each other. Like in zen they had official certificates of satori.. The zen monk Ikkyu famously burned his.. but in his old age he did end up an Abbott of a famous monastery (probably because he was confirmed by his teacher) something that apparently surprised him having spend most of his life after "satori' writing poetry, making music and having relationships with women 😅
My understanding of buddhism is that the intention for meditation is important for that very reason you describe. Non-attachment without the intention of wanting to reduce "unnecessary suffering" is simply being dead, just as described in the video. I once read a paper in my psych class. It was a review about the effects of meditation with the title "can the be too much of a good thing?". It addressed the hype and looked for negative findings. long story short, one of the findings was that meditations like emptiness meditation where oyu focus on your senses have bad effects for people that have the tendency towards dissociation. Other meditation should be used then (or completle different methods). They recommended taking individual aspects into account and only using meditation as a whole package (mindfullness, empathy, non judgement etc) I can find you the article if you want.
@Rithmy my understanding is that the kind of meditation most commonly used by Buddhists is just one of the 112 techniques recounted in Vijñāna-bhairava-tantra. Of course, more techniques have been developed in Tibet. The term Zen itself derived from Chen which itself derived from Dhyan (meditation), That's how meditation focused it became. When I was involved in Buddhist practice I found they were quite method obsessed or meditation obsessed. True. . Buddha was trained mostly in yogic ascetic paths. There is a story that he finally came to his simple sitting technique because he remembered it from his childhood, but I think it's probably just a story to indicate the ancient nature of yogic techniques predating Buddha Most of my training is in Advaita Vedanta apart from a stint of some years practising 'Buddhist meditation' mostly of the Thai Buddhist variety which is a simple technique of sitting and letting everything 'be as it is'. In Advaita Vedanta any meditation techniques are consciously lifted from the yoga schools and so on. It's not their primary focus. If you look into the yoga schools such as Patanjali yoga sutras, it's ultimate goal is Nirvikalpa Samadhi or complete absorption in the pure unchanging awareness (without vikalpas) vikalpa means changing phenomena. As an aside, Advaita Vedanta tends to take a student from identification with the content of consciousness to identification as the objectless pure unchanging awareness (identification not just going in and out of some state) simply by a path of discrimination between the seer and the seen or the subject and the object... and finally collapsing the distinctions between subject and object into non duality. It doesn't stay in some disassociated phase or enlightened dualism like you might find in the sankya schools of yoga and so on. Some Buddhists tend to fall in that category too, making a distinction between samsara and nirvana.. so stay in meditation as much as possible and away from samsara.. Non dual Buddhist schools say nirvana and samsara are one.. Advaita Vedanta says Consciousness alone is. It adds up to much the same.. It will be interesting to hear OPs views too.
@@Dovahkiin0117 Like Alan Watts who came from a Christian background. It's interesting they say even Christian mystics go through a dark night of the soul where they doubt everything and like the character in Bergman's The Seventh Seal they want to know, not just believe. Conventional religion demands belief, it doesn't give a pathway for questioning and Knowledge.. And as Watts points out, there is even a taboo against knowing yourself. Jesus made the apparently outrageous claim that "my father and I are one" and he was taken to task for it by the Pharisees and since Jesus (in dualistic Christianity), such a pronouncement is still considered blasphemy, for anyone apart from Jesus 😄 Whereas something like Advaita Vedanta starts with the mahavakyas such as Tat Tvam Asi and Ahaṁ Brahmāsmi great statements of indentiy with ultimate reality..
Listen to the hummingbird Whose wings you cannot see Listen to the hummingbird Don’t listen to me Listen to the butterfly Whose days but number three Listen to the butterfly Don’t listen to me Listen to the mind of God Which doesn’t need to be Listen to the mind of God Don’t listen to me Listen to the hummingbird Whose wings you cannot see Listen to the hummingbird Don’t listen to me - Leonard Cohen
What a brilliant, insightful and truthful video, thank you. This will be such a useful video to help explain to my Buddhist friends why I left Buddhism for Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
I found this video to be very interesting. Thank you for sharing! Since 16 (25 now), I have encountered spiritual teachings, mainly from Eckhart Tolle (The Power of Now). However, my experience was and is vastly different. I, however, do not know it all. There are many things I do not understand yet and probably never will, so I wanted to see your video so I could see another perspective. Thank you for that! I very rarely comment on videos, but at the moment I am going through a very bad experience as one of my beloved pets is going to die, so I am writing to receive a response, I am writing to be understood and be countered by someone who has a better understanding. I am writing because even though it seems like just pixels on the screen, we are all here, and we are not alone. And now I'm probably rambling...ha-ha! Sorry! Any religion and any spiritual teachings since inception most likely was stained by the fault interpretations and understanding of its followers. It surely seems to have happened in Christianity, of which I belong, probably to Muslims, though I do not know almost anything about them so I do not know, and most likely to Buddhism as well, with which I am a little more familiar. What we all can probably agree upon is that people throughout the times have used such teachings for their own petty gains, talking about things as if they understand them, as if they knew what they were talking about, but instead they were simply after something. Be it influence, possessions, money or whatever. I am not acquainted with the book that you used as an example, but it would not surprise me that whoever wrote it, does not understand some things themselves, or, if they do, they may have expressed them faulty. Who knows. I don't. The first point if I remember correctly was about detachment from desire. The way I see it is the following: Of course we want things in life and of course we feel for others and for other things. Enlightenment is not a thing, "Buddha describes it as 'the end of suffering'. What is left when there is no more suffering? The Buddha is silent on that, and his silence implies that you need to find it out for yourself." - Eckhart Tolle. What that means is that much of our suffering is unnecessary and is self-made, by our own minds which wish to identify with different things. With possessions, specific relationships, status and so on. Of course, you can go and find a loving partner, you can achieve whatever you want to achieve, but you do not need to be so attached to it that your attachment becomes monstruous. Like a drunk partner accusing his spouse of cheating continuously, he too loves her, but his loved has been transformed into something grotesque. I can love my partner of four years deeply, I love my pet deeply and I love my family and I respect and cherish life. I can do all that and I can feel sad now that may pet will most likely be soon gone, I am sad and I have cried, but at the same time I can understand that whatever is now is as it is and accept it, more like try to accept it. Of course, if there is something I could do to change the situation I would and I have on many occasions. "Detachment" is not a good term, it is more like acceptance. Acceptance of what you feel, acceptance of what it is, changing what it is if you can and so desire, loving and accepting. What about hating others? In this state you cannot hate because you simply see their unconsciousness, their life being run by their mind, which is a wonderful tool that now has gone rogue and is controlling their master. You cannot hate them, but just pity them, however, if you need to act to stop them from doing something evil, or speak up, or fight, you will, I would, because the conscious thing is not to accept evil, but to prevent and put and end to it, in whatever form. So 'detachment' is not a good word, it is more like acceptance, but you can feel and it is ok to feel everything that you feel. In this state, and it has been my experience, you love more because your mind is not cluttered, does not put shades onto your reality with different weird and erroneous interpretations. You are more yourself than you ever have been, not some lifeless, emotionless drone, that is not right, that is nonsense, that is not enlightenment. I am sorry if it didn't make sense what I have said above, I am not in the best state right now so I am not very coherent. The point is, you can love, you can care and protect and achieve, all without making an identity out of it, without making it into something monstruous. That's dysfunction, that's too much. Like I read somewhere: "You have too much of a willful will, you think whatever you don't do, doesn't happen." - Zen in the art of Archery. 'Too much' is what most people do, but nothing, not caring at all and being detached completely is just as erroneous, they are 2 sides of the same coin. Both nonsense. Your level of consciousness and awareness is what determines the quality of your existence, not how long you can sit with your eyes closed, not how much you can 'not care'. On the contrary, you do care, you care more than you ever did, but only for what truly matters, because you're more yourself than you've ever been probably, and all without making an identity out of it, all without becoming insane. This was in relation with the point about the father who was too detached about their children, which is also a horrible thing. I don't know man. After I came back from a recent vacation I experience about a month of almost constant total ease with life, a period of heightened consciousness. Everything I did came with ease, I was not stuck in my mind all the time and that made everything I said also be said consciously, people noticed in some sense, even though they didn't tell me, I know they could feel it. I performed greatly at my work, at the sport I practice. My relationships improved, all without trying that much, just being and doing consciously. Now it is like a flickering light bubble, I feel it drifting away if I allow it. But in that month I never stopped loving or caring about my loved ones, I never stopped loving or caring about life and nature and existence. I was less sad however, for knowing it is all in God's plan and image, all with a purpose, all consciousness, made bad events much easier to deal with, like much easier, but you cannot not be sad when death for a loved one, including a pet, comes, I cannot not be sad, I cannot be happy, but I can feel somewhat at peace. Does that mean I am detached? No, it means I accept what it is, that I honor my beloved pet, that I love it so much I have done everything I could and I know it is not the end for the energy within him that we call life, I don't want it to be the end, I cannot grasp it intellectually, but I somehow kinda know it is not the end. Who knows, I may delude myself. Is that enlightenment? I asked myself that some times. With such a clear mind good and interesting ideas come more easily, as if from nowhere. I don't know if it is, it may be. But intellectually it cannot be grasped, it must be lived. Jessus said " you will know the truth and the truth will make you free", from what? From unnecessary suffering perhaps, but that hasn't made me an emotionless robot. This month was probably the best consistent period of my life, despite all the bullshit. I never felt less human, never felt as if I do not care, on the contrary, I care more than I ever did. There is nothing to seek, because true power is already within you, not anywhere else. Not in this comment section or any book, not outside you. Sorry for the rambling, if anyone wants to talk around here I will try to answer with a more clear response, as I said, I am not in the best state at the moment, not as focused and conscious as I was in that past month. Thanks!
After a few weeks of the algorithm giving me Buddhism videos, I'm glad it gave me the Nietzsche and Buddhism video you made a year ago and then I clicked on this one. Gave me a good mental reset about my goals and reality. Thank you so much.
Great video. Reminds me of the work Pleuromatica by Gabriel Catren. In that work, you'd also find refutations of Monism, Enlightenment culture, and Non-Attachment which is all very modern right now. Emerson's oversoul, the house on the side of Mount Vesuvius, Huxley's conception of infinite chaos unfolding like a sea upon which we sail, self-reliance, tempered alliances with the world's many characters, it's all so well balanced and I think you'd find a value in that work.
Thanks. This is interesting. Psychology also suggests that internal validation (isolation) is healthy. I keep seeing parallels between religion and psychology. I wonder if they are competing to meet our emotional/psychological needs. Don't settle. We got this. Let's go!
I was getting depressed because I felt like I have no purpose in life and nothing really matters... I listened to Guru Sadhguru, on a old video on purpose, he said the reality of modern life is we are stuck in psychological and intellectual thinking, which traps us from just simply living. I agree that this is so, but with my Christian background it is ingrained in me to find meaningful purpose in my life. I think this is the purpose of philosophy and the act of finding your meaning. What I'm left with is, we are here to experience life, and so to keep things interesting I try to do something new as much as I can. It's up to me to create a purpose. That is where I am at philosophically at the moment. I like to use everything as tool in my belt when I need it. If I need to detach then I will. If I need to try I will. If God has something for me then I usually say yes, usually what I don't want to hear, but lately it's been getting better ☺ I have had multiple encounters with God, but that is really not for me to share. Do your own seeking...
Always enjoy your videos. I have no issues with criticizing gurus, religions and philosophy traditions yet I feel Eastern religions, philosophies get a rough deal as they are criticized mostly on their different Western version or on retreats that ppl have had in Asia, which most of these retreats are set up for Westerners and are pumping out the same Western friendly version of the religion, philosophy. Criticizing this way would be akin to criticizing Christianity solely on the Christianity that is being preached, propagated in China. You would get a very different taste of Christianity to its Western version. Maybe an interesting future video would be to highlight the difference in Eastern Buddhism,Taoism to their Western versions.
As far as I know, one of the fundamental metaphysical concepts in Buddhism is Interdependent Origination, which actually encourages the sense of community and empathy. But overall, I think I get your point, since in the West I've met people who read a bit of Buddhism and preach it. Those people, in particular, use Buddhism to justify their actions such as lack of responsibility, specially emotional. I even got hurt by one, she'd always hide herself behind the phrase "everything is constantly flowing, so don't compare today-me with yesterday-me". Her "yesterday-me" was literally two weeks before that. I see the point of this video is the simplification of such a complex philosophy. On the other hand, I don't see how bestsellers self-help books could explain anything complex and not-oversimplify philosophical concepts. They're there just to make noise and to be sold.
I was originally critical of this video, but when I honestly considered it, I realised that I am a deeply spirtual person who is not seeking enlightenment. Neither would I ever subscribe to a religion (which i view as programmes for the mind). I also base any religious belief I do have on science. The Quantum field of subjectivity (for example) suggests a monism to me (oneness). I use spirituality to aid my physical realm goals and can only ever describe myself as an Alchemist. This realm matters, even though it is scientifically proven to be illusory (maya). I think the quest is about appreciating the physical realm and all experience in it. This video gave me clarity. I would add that the findings of many studies on mediation run contrary to the anecdotes presented here, and non-attachment is a great tool in the seekers spiritual tool box. As for Jed he seems to be simply repeating Ultimate Zen Buddhist teachings and presenting them as his own, (no-self and Mu/ (nothingness). Which is somewhat ironic if he wants to criticise religion. This is a thought provoking video and I believe you would enhance your content by tethering your philosophy to science as opposed to anecdotes.
This was quite thought-provoking. I am a spiritual aspirant, and I can recognize how in some ways I do use it as a form of avoidance. That is hard to accept, but hearing it described in this video, I can no longer pretend no one would be wary of what I am doing.
Well, interesting video BUT…. I’ve been doing meditation retreats for decades in both the Buddhist and Advaita traditions. I’ve found it has profoundly deepened my life, given me great balance in relationships, and given me a wonderful community of wise, interesting people who have enriched my life. I’ve had one deep enlightenment experience that I cherish as the crown jewel of my life even though it’s mostly just a memory now. I still enjoy many worldly things but see them with a wiser perspective. I wouldn’t choose any other life path. It can be arduous and challenging at times but deeply enriching, healing and meaningful throughout. To each his own I guess.
Every kind of philosophy, spiritual or not, can be toxic if you take the arguments superficially. You are under the influence of Nietzsche, whose understanding of Buddhism was very limited and superficial, because during his lifetime the academic research on Buddhism and other Asian spiritual traditions was not sufficient. (Remember, later Nietzsche’s philosophy was also appropriated by the Nazis to be reduced to such a toxic ideology. Also if you take the “teachings” of some popular Mc Mindfulness gurus and similar con men/women, you will be misleaded. Buddhist teachers don’t recommend a person to become a recluse or an ascetic and avoid community. In fact that’s not even possible for the majority of the people. You can be a lay person and a buddhist. You can still live life fully with pleasure and pain, but knowing both are subject to change can make your life less existentially dreadful.
Western buddhism is a thing and yes, it is mostly a joke. To differentiate real buddhism or real yoga from their shallow westernized versions you have to really explore them through direct experience with teachers from a direct lineage and original texts. Otherwise its all just modern western self help. There are no short cuts. I think also, this youtuber is biased toward western philosophy, which is underrated these days. People from the west ought to know their own philosophical traditions. I find that a real engagement with western philosophy is a better antidote to modern consumerism than a false engagement with a watered down version of "buddhism".
I started early on the eastern path. I agree that somebody shouldn’t meditate as a form of escape, which is definitely something I’ve done. But I do utilize the wisdom of ancient traditions to lend a golden glow amongst seemingly infinite choices. The main difference is I’m more focused on people now. It’s painful but rewarding, and there’s always the hope that I’ll get better at it
It’s what western culture (and by that I mean U.S. culture) has done with Eastern and ancient philosophies. I’m totally with the presenter here. I’ve seen how a bastardization of another culture’s expression has led to wokeness and cancel culture. It was all too totally predictable even by the early ‘80s. And it’s only gotten worse. We’re not all in trauma and we don’t all need healing and wellness bullshit. But perfectionism is the U.S. belief system, which has had the rest of western culture by the balls since WWII. Thanks for the video. I recommend Choygam Trungpa Rimpoche’s “Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism.” He had it right decades ago, but sadly died of alcoholism. RIP.
Yes, there is no one size fits all. Also, meditation neednt be a discipline. You do it because you dig it and feel like doing it because you think it will benefit you in how you feel. I would personally sheer away from all gurús, cults and religions. Btw, it was Karl Marx who rightly said "religión is the opium of the people ", not Nietsche.
The Mingyur Rinpoche quote seems pretty clear to me, and accurate. I think I understand it, a necessary preliminary, perhaps, to experiencing it. As for realising it, seeing it as the inescapable and satisfactory fact of the matter, well, who knows? I may get there. In the meantime hold everything very lightly. Don’t get hung up on any particular teaching, and if you don’t find it helpful leave it on one side, as the Buddha said. Sometimes things ping into understanding later on. And like Epicurus said, enjoy, notice the enjoyable, it’s everywhere, but chasing after it is a mug’s game.
Awesome! Excellent work as always. I’d been largely off from Yt for a while, so it was quite refreshing to see this new video from your channel pop up in my feed just now (hello after a year or so! Haha) I’ll pull up your other stuff I’ve missed soon. The content of this particular video called to mine, Buber’s I and Thou for some reason, possibly because I just read him recently. ✌️😄
There must be some misunderstanding here? You don’t have to practice Buddhist practices. You know that, right? Buddha Dharma is for those that have understood that the source to all dissatisfactions and sufferings is rooted in the temporary ignorance of the mind. That kind of person can easily progress into the essential principles of the teachings and draw great benefit from them. Doubts will inevitably arise along the way but venting ones doubts publicly will be of no help but quite possibly be of harm to oneself and ones own relationship with ones own primordial wisdom, in the long run. Doubts arise naturally when newborn insights collide with ingrained mental habits. More practice, patience and study will eventually clear up doubts and it is transformed into genuine insights. That’s how we grow as practitioners on the spiritual path.
A lot of people are simply missing the point…we can still seek a fix or salvation in something helpful and genuine…it becomes an addiction to constant striving for betterment, change, while at the same time an inability to be satisfied with who we are right now. This new industry has muddied the waters-constantly offering up new information and insights like the diet industry… I think the points are: just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s pure and beyond criticism, it’s how we can treat seeking enlightenment in the same way as drug seeking… And there are a massive amount of online gurus out there who profit from our insatiable need for answers, clarity, and salvation
I find it interesting that you debated the goal of the Buddhist path without mentioning rebirth. The goal of the practice is to end rebirth and it only makes sense in that context. If you remove this component, the whole thing obviously collapses. The Buddha saw for himself that we have been roaming around for an indiscernable amount of time. Most of that time spent as lower forms of existence. The blood we have shed could fill the world's oceans many times over, as he famously declared. Same for our tears. When I was 19, someone tried to kidnap me. I narrowly escaped that sicko. Who knows, I might have ended up in his basement, being tied and tortured. It could have happened and I would have been powerless to avoid it. My mother got brain cancer at age 50. She was a vibrant healthy active woman. She watched everything she saw as hers (body, intellect, senses) slowly collapse until her death 3 years later while semi-unconscious and no longer able to communicate. This can happen to us at any moment: major accident, drowning, burning alive, being tortured, stroke, etc. This is what the buddha encourages us to realise: our sense of control over our faculties is an illusion because they rest on a larger foundation of non-control. Everything is impermanent, not because it's constantly changing or whatever along those lines but because it can abruptly cease. In fact it will abruptly cease, we just don't know how or when. To the west, east, south, north, there is a mountain headed our way and about to crush us. Now if this existence is all there will ever be to us, then it does make sense to lick the honey razor with your loved ones and make the best out of it. I fully agree and, if that is the case, Buddhism is a dangerous trap. However, if the Buddha is right, then the effort to reach extinguishment starts to make more sense because we have no idea what unimaginable horrors await us in future existences (have you ever watched hyenas turning on a member of their pack?). Naturally, no one knows for sure what happens once we die. We just don't know. If we lean towards a materialistic perspective, then we should listen to you. We should look at it as the glass half full. Definitely. If we lean towards cyclical existence, then we should listen to the Buddha. To me, there is evidence of both perspective. Science pushes a materialistic perspective and teaches that our ego is the result of processes happening in the brain. Once the brain is dead, we cease to exist. This kind of makes sense and definitive proof of other theories have yet to be found. However, there are NDE's and other disturbing accounts of subjective experience continuing after brain death. Who knows? Personally, I CHOOSE to believe in rebirth because it is the best option out of all possibilities in my mind and because of such anecdotal stories. So for me, the Buddha's teaching makes sense, however radical and antisocial. The Buddha never hid how radical his teaching is anyways. For example, he stated that anyone harboring the smallest thought of ill-will towards highway robbers sawing their limbs apart is not a true disciple of his. Now if that isn't extreme...
Well, Nietzsche is a little dangerous, too. I guess that the West, especially now, is already too atomized to take any community spirit for granted. Buddhism makes sense in context, but people really should understand what they're getting into. The Christian tradition can also be faulted for promoting monastic virtues to the laity. Yoga is different from Buddhism, at least if one is equipped to explore the various forms and not simply spoonfed a single program. That tradition has a variety of spiritual paths and a broad range of internal philosophies. One thing I never recommended is repression. You just need to be accountable with yourself. If you believe that you understand how to attain fulfillment, then by all means, go for it. At worst, you could change your mind when you're ready. Enlightenment is just like the dawn.
Meditation helped me greatly with rumination. I am both blessed and cursed by thought and those racing over the speed of thought feel particularly harsh. They can take on this half-life, latching onto emotions and looping infinitely. It becomes hard to notice those moments when those thoughts take over and meditation can be a great practice for noticing. It’s been a huge relief. However, behind every relief for life’s ailments can potentially lurk an ideology, that can twist up the baby inside the bathwater. With spirituality, this can be even more nefarious at times because enlightenment appears as such a net positive, that its potential toxicity can be obfuscated more easily. I enjoyed your video tremendously because it shows a tension implicit in every revelation. How to judge the truth content against the viability of ones surrounding reality? That means both the value of an ultimate truth to the mysteries of existence and the utility of suffering. Those of us who have glanced behind the curtain are neither immune to being dealt another less visible curtain nor to needing one altogether. Therefore non-attachment may simply be attachment to non-attachment, which is at its core just another idea. Making the cutting pain go away, and just licking the honey, flies in the face of all we can learn about our experience. As you said, the true spiritual path is reserved for the few. People tend to look for shortcuts and that is where misconceptions or misleadings can happen. The concept of nirvana or bliss is such a case. Nothing can be bliss but it is the somethingness of that nothing that we can experience. By the abscence of something we can contour our experiences but that doesn’t mean we denounce experience itself. I think that people seek relief from a meaningless, boring or agonizing life by feeling themselves less because it suggests that whatever pain they felt will go away. It turns out, not feeling anything is the worst feeling of all. I’ve always been rather spirituality inclined but I also know that means I can be self-deceived - seeing patterns of meaning where there may not be any. That made me want to see the difference that makes a difference. I feel that my spirituality is at the core about connections. Connections between people, other beings, matter, events, experiences and ideas. I discovered metta loving-kindness meditation and am enjoying it greatly. I feel the glowing ricochet of being with others in my meditation. Thanks for your thought-provoking videos. This one challenged me a little more than the others because it is the pool of ideologies that I am most vulnerable to. To paraphrase you, vulnerability is how we get to feel close to ourselves and therefore to others, which may just be how we’re designed to be.
@@wspolnotahim Here is for example Alan Watts during his lecture called Mind over Mind: And then somebody comes along and says: ... "Well, as I said, they are all equally revelations of the divine. And in seeing this, of course, I am much more tolerant than you are." ... You see how that game is going to work? I could take this position. Supposing you regard me as some sort of a guru--and you know how gurus hate each other. They are always putting each other down. And I could say: ... "Well, I do not put other gurus down." ... See? That outwits all of them. We are always doing that. We are always finding a way to be one up, and by the most incredibly subtle means.
@@wspolnotahim apologies then 😊 I misinterpreted your question as you asking if it was Krishnamurti who expressed the quoted line. To which I responded by sharing a line by Watts where something similar was said.
This reminds me of when I was roped into Stoicism as a teenager and got very emotionally numb from the constanr practice of non-attachment. I felt happy because... Hey look Marcus, I made it! But could not actually feel the happiness and denounced it as soon as it arose. Looking back, it was a sad way to experience life and I'm glad I grew past it for my own good.
Then just like he misunderstood buddhism I think you sadly misunderstood stoicism 🙏 Just like any other philosophy or tool, it can be quite dangerous if not grasp correctly (●'◡'●)
Regarding meditation, yes, it has the effect of making you so calm & detached that you don't feel extreme emotions. That is actually why it works for stress and psychological issues. But, in my personal experience, the effect is only maybe an hour or so. Maybe people who do it regularly get greater benefit. But, invariably, in psychological patients, they are incapable of even doing it. My point is meditation's effect of flattening your emotional reaction is actually beneficial because it prevents the situation from spiraling out of control. But, as far as negative effects are considered, I have never felt any nor have I seen anyone complaint of such emotions except that their expectations were not met and resulted in frustration. Most important of all, no master in meditation has been able to effectively communicate to their student as to what is the path and the state that is to be achieved, so that the student knows that his is on the right path. Does it need to invoke a God or a mantra or a sound or is just simply nothing? I have actually fallen asleep in many of my meditation sessions. I don't find any difference in meditation while lying down or sitting in a bus seat or seating in an asana [actually I found asanas more uncomfortable]. Sometimes, the mind is just wandering and sometimes it becomes more alert and focusses on nothing. But, did not find any benefits than mentioned above and the path was always varied once enter into meditation. But, I would like to add a disclaimer that I am more of a SIGMA and hence, since childhood, even before learning meditation or learning about Bhagvad Gita, as a Hindu, I have always sort of been aloof and detached.
"Most important of all, no master in meditation has been able to effectively communicate to their student as to what is the path and the state that is to be achieved, so that the student knows that his is on the right path." - Thats such a unspecific claim that its impossible to not be right. THere are many text that try to decipher it and there are many approaches to it. You may not find it "effective", yet there is as some sort of progress, which is an effect. But on the other hand you are also completly right when say that they don't offer a "path". Depending on what path means to you. The thing with it is that (at least form my sources) i often heard that only the methodology is given. The path is something you discover yourself. Like you. You tried it out. You are not conviced. And thats ok. I like to read those books the most that specified that i have to make sure of it myself and that all the text in there is just proposal based on a flawed mind that strives for seeing more of the "truth of their being".
@@Rithmy Partly agree with you and hence, I found regular exercise far more useful than meditation or yoga. Sports are even better. In fact, sports are where I have achieved what laymen described as "THE ZONE". My guess is that that is what meditation is supposed to achieve but the descriptions given do not describe "THE ZONE". But, it happens randomly. No specific degree of stress or focus. It sometimes happens even when I am trying to solve a medical case or search for an answer academically. I go on for hours together to find the answer and don't feel tired at all. Of course, smoking is there to fight the diurnal rhythm mandated sleep.
@@maheshdocherla Do you mean flow experience? Psychologists kinda try to define it. There are many studys on hoe beneficial it is and i find it very similar to the meditation state. Tbh i would not simply recommend meditation to random people. I would recommend the basics. Sleep, eat, exercise, socialize. Master those and most non clinical problems will seem either manageable or can be helped with. Of course its not easy to do that in a capitalistic world but thats another things.
@@Rithmy I have read about flow experience a long time ago but I remember concluding that my experience was different. IN fact, the ZONE experience is quite different from what I achieve in actual meditation that I described in my first comment. In meditation, there is an emotional flatness and the fixed point when you get to that stage is a bit difficult to come out of. Whereas in sports etc, the emotions actually drive the ZONE even further and you are fully functional to your utmost limit. Also, the success rate is far higher to achieve the ZONE. No need to do anything special, no procedure. Just an aim and the adrenaline to push it. You can also be multi-tasking in the ZONE, I have done it while preparing for my research publications about 15 yrs ago. I have heard many sportspersons like cricketer Tendulkar and others describe. Hence, overall my conclusion is that this is the better one because it is associated with productivity rather than meditation which is basically an unknown entity.
@@maheshdocherla Really sounds like flow or hyperfocus to me. I would really like to hear more from how you describe it, but i feel like its kinda hard to communicate and listen over text to text. Personally i like meditation (or sometimes i just call it sitting or "do nothing" time as i have no *real* buddhist attachment), exactly because it lacks productivity. For me it also has the effect of I am sure we know best what nurtures us best.
Wow, I suppose that measured dopamine-fueled escapes are what we are truly after in life. That could also explain the mutual friendship bonds we so need throughout our lives. THANKS for simplifying this for me, as it needed to be brought forth in my consciousness!
10:00 life is temporary. "Who wants to live forever"? It is right it should be so Man was made for Joy & Woe And when this we rightly know Thro the World we safely go Joy & Woe are woven fine A Clothing for the soul divine Under every grief & pine Runs a joy with silken twine
I can agree with the idea that being a person a part of the material world, connection to the world, having groundedness and part of it is important aspect of the human experience. My own "spiritual path" if I can call it that, has been to open myself more to life and experiences, but not be overwhelmed and destroyed by them. So the result of what I've gone through is the complete opposite of what you're mentioning here. But then again, I am interpreting it in my own terms.
There are some very good points here that I completely agree with, but I’d like to suggest a more nuanced view of all of this. I don’t know much about Buddhism beyond a superficial level, but the impression I got was that most of the criticisms were directed at the people I’ve heard Sam Harris call “concentration junkies”. Basically, people who get hooked on the good feelings provided by concentration practices and forsake most other things. A very interesting practice that I think aligns better with the South Park guy’s philosophy is that of Mindfulness (I found out recently what the difference is between Right Concentration and Right Mindfulness in the Dharmachakra), and by that I mean the sort of open-attention mindfulness practices that Sam Harris most advocates for, as well as the metta practices for remedying the lack of emotional connection to others when that is the case. As I said, I don’t know much about Buddhism, but a tradition that I discovered more recently and that I think is overall a lot more well-rounded is Vedanta. It basically recognizes that people come in all different shapes and sizes and thus there is no one-path-fits-all. It focuses more on the four core yogas: Bhakti, Karma, Rāja (the kind of concentration practices very often associated with Buddhism) and Jnāna yogas. Vedanta advocates for the idea that you may take any of those approaches or a combination thereof, but that usually the most recommended is to engage in all four practices while having them be directed by the one you’re the most naturally drawn to. So that way you’re not avoiding practices that are difficult for you just because they’re uncomfortable, and you’re also getting the benefits of practicing something you’re actually interested in, and using that to frame and motivate the other practices that are healthy but that maybe you’re not so fond of, so that things balance themselves out in the end. If anyone who hasn’t heard of this approach, I highly recommend checking out the New York Vedanta Society YT channel, where Swami Sarvapriyananda goes very in depth and into the nuances of these concepts and practices, according to the teachings of Swami Vivekananda and Śri Rāmakrishna. Personally I really like to balance Vedanta with the humanist psychology of Maslow (his original works, not the “pyramid” people associate with him but is actually not his) and Carl Rogers, for the more developmental side of things. The book “Transcend: The New Science of Self-Actualization” by Scott Barry Kaufman has been absolutely great for me. Also John Vervaeke’s philosophical approach to Cognitive Science in his YT lecture series “Awakening from the Meaning Crisis” is the wonderful glue that ties all of this together with science and philosophy. Hope this can help somebody 😁
Does Buddhist ontology teach that we are atomized individuals? I'm not anything resembling an expert on these matters, but I thought that Buddhism placed a big emphasis on community (Sangha), taught the middle way (rather than attachment and avoidance), and rejected the very notion of an atomized, cartesian ego as being anything other than an illusion... Again, I'm nothing remotely like an expert on this stuff. I've stayed mostly within western philosophy and western religion, but I don't recall Buddhist teachings being about an atomized ego rejecting relationality. I think modern westerners are just so drenched in so called "enlightenment" values of materialism, atomism, cartesian dualism, substance ontology, etc. that it's next to impossible for most of us to even conceive of something different. Buddhism existed long before the lunatic asylum known as modernity came into existence, and I imagine it will be around long after modernity is good and dead.
Hi I'm a Buddhist and have studied a few texts so I may be able to answer this but first can you explain what you mean by "atomized individuals" and "Cartesian ego"?
I think he’s making a distinction between the stated beliefs and implications of actual practice in terms of individualism. “Engaged” schools are rather new and I don’t think the Sangha actually plays a role in most Buddhists lives, much more of a nebulous concept than say a church of England parish. More that Buddhists are congregationally structured in western terms, which like in the west also tends to be atomizing outside already existing strong family and community structures.
@@spelcheak I would agree on some parts but it's important to understand that the sangha does play a very important role in practice. But yeah more or less you rely on yourself with the aid of your sangha rather than being a part of a group.
@@infernocore9517 My understanding of atomised individuals is that it refers to a view of the self that says everyone as independent, isolated individuals - essentially the philosophical assumption underpinning individualism. This is in contrast to the “relational” self that is common in a number of Eastern philosophies (and some Western). Cartesian ego is similar, which emphasises mind/body dualism as well as a strong distinction between the subject and object, de-emphasising the view that all things are interconnected.
Ive been a Buddhist for 30 years! Your opinion is the same I had when my GF told me about her ex that was a Buddhist. I got jealous of hearing how kind and respectful he was , so I decided to find everything negative about Buddhism to convince her he was full of s&#^#. Now..The more I tried to find faults, the more Buddhist I became 😂 Now I feel completely aligned with it, but still living normally and being depressed as fuck, while loving life ❤ So I think you should continue what you do, but please dig deeper than you've done !Read the suttas and maybe even interview an experiences munk or two from each tradition? ❤❤ Keep us poated!
Thank you for this video. I struggle with this central Buddhist notion. I am beginning to trust my own instincts. I have struggled with how love, joy and compassion can be negative aspects of our experience of existence. It’s seems the middle way is always the easiest to lose. We will suffer and maybe wisdom is to understand that it can’t be avoided, to lean into joyous connection instead. My pragmatist values of truth make buying a nihilist view that my joy is wrong feel like a valid critique of Dissociative philosophy. Impermanence seems a reason to embrace love and engagement, not spurn it. One can be both be a construct and an actor in a minor true relationship with the moment of reality. I think of Job. This was impactful. I thank you. 😊
Fantastic video! I wholeheartedly agree. You see these types of spiritual/social panacea everywhere. _The path to happiness is this!_ They have found one thing that clicked with them and then claim it's for anyone. One true aspect of happiness/justice/meaning or whatever and now it's an ideology or a way of life. Buddhism claims to have an answer to a problem that almost nobody that isn't a Buddhist acknowledges as such: attachment to desires. How many people are there that consider this a problem other than addicts? Who can really say that desiring to become a doctor, scientist, lawyer, teacher, traveler, a life of intellectual pursuit, watching movies or series or simply have sex regularly is really a bad thing? Everything in moderation. Having no possessions or attachment to anything is not a good way of life.
I feel you did not engage with the subject in a fair manner. How can one even begin to speak of the Buddhist path without stressing one of its three pillars, Sanga, which is after all community that involves connection, compassion and love? Your discussion is too one-sided and reductionist. You speak of the dangers of the Buddhist/ Yoga path as if the path that you seem to advocate does not often produce hideous outcomes. (Read any newspaper for ample examples.) Nonethelss, you make some excellent points here and have often produced some brilliant work. Your intelligence, sincerity and empathy seem to me to beyond question.
In the words of Alan Watts "Their are no perpetual state's" we're here to experience and share in each others pain and happiness, in the words of Bill Hicks " we are all one consciousness experiencing life SUBJECTIVELY " meditation should only be used medicinely, life is predetermined book but we're still reading the book in real time. The point of meditating on a mountain top is the self realisations of what your missing out on at the base of the mountain, Happiness, sadness, pain, suffering...your missing out on Living Life. 🙏🙏🙏.
There have always been insoluble aporia surrounding tanha (desire/craving), not the least of which must be the impetus to transcend the same in order to attain Buddhist salvation - nirvana, whatever the frittata that is, for what is that impetus itself, if not another desire? Life depends on consumption - I mean literally we have to eat to continue to live - so this existential condition of existence itself is grounded in appetition-satisfaction, which writes large the role of desire in all psychological reality. Of course, if you have no wish to live, then you may always self-immolate, noting of course that this too constitutes a desire. The standard Buddhist strategy to answer this conundrum is to qualify the demonisation of desire, that is, appetition-satisfaction, in a move that effectively collapses it as one of the most rudimentary of Buddhist principles, the aforementioned fourth noble truth.
The stoics make the same point as you do, yes nothing lasts forever, yes death and transformation are inevitable, but they embrace this and live their lives with more realistic expectations, just like you said
I think you can have both (or sort of middle ground): self-reliance, acceptance of some sort of solitude and loss (if that happens) and ability to still feel joy in some things if they are really something you life emotional pallet isn't very wide, and feelings may not be that intense, but it's the thing that keeps me sane and I wouldn't like being more "normal". the things are somehow related to my core values are still joyful, the bad parts of life can be annoying, irritating, but not that deep to the point of intense anger or sadness, etc.
I feel like this might be a misunderstanding of buddhism? I don't know much about buddhism, but my sense is that it's actually trying to have you end the desire to end desire. NOT merely end desire. That's why there is the addage 'first there was a mountain, then there wasn't, then there was' It's not about abandoning life, it's about fleeing INTO life. The mistake we make is pursuing things believing that once attained it will end out pursuit of things. Buddhism teaches us to accept that the pursuit never ends, and so in understanding this, we pursue things with a different attitude. No longer do we pursue something like love in hopes that it will secure us for eternity. We pursue it for it's own sake, well aware that it's impermanent. And BECAUSE it's impermanent, there is a necessary pain that comes with it. It only need that we get out of our own way, because we are already configured for all of this. Because of dependent origination, everything is simultaneously instrumentally and intrinsically valuable. This means that everything is an instrument towards it's own intrinsic worth, that is what makes it intrinsically worthy. It exists both for it's own sake and that of another object, and same with that object too. In essence, reality is a perfect system that inherently yields pleasure, meaning ect.
I feel like maybe just a little bit of detachment or spiritualism can help you be like butters and appreciate the emotions/experiences that you go through, such as sadness over a breakup, or the temporary pain of jogging for example. but I agree that full Buddhist enlightenment is maybe not good. Note: I don't currently have very good personal relationships so take my advice with salt. I don't know what Buddhist enlightenment is that well, but it feels like to me to be to be the pursuit of being nothing (esp since existence comes from connection with others arguably), when (to me) we will already be nothing when we die and eventually fade out of memory (to Buddhists we will be reincarnated over and over again, i don't think one perspective is necessarily more true than another), so I think we should pursue living life in the deepest/best way, and/or helping others do so, while we/they can.
“Buddhist enlightenment is (…) the pursuit of being nothing (esp since existence comes from connection with others.” No. But one aspect of Buddhist enlightenment is to understand and live according to the fact that you are not a “thing” in itself and ultimately you are nothing without the connection or interaction with other beings. You seem to be partially enlightened. Congrats! 😄
follow the way of the heart, use meditation and mindfulness to connect to your emotions and the emotions of others, this too is a spiritual path and one based on empathy and connection and the unity of being.
The confusion really comes from thinking of Buddha as a philosopher, proposing ideas that will make one live better. But that is such a dim picture of the whole thing. It's not a contest of ideas it's about the truth and our own direct experience. A lot this ways based upon a perverted understanding of the Dhamma. But his point are still valid as this is the understanding a lot of people carry. But ultimately it was a huge strawman it doesn't remotely aling with what the Buddha meant by "Suffering" or the middle way
Interesting thougts ..in most Himalayan buddhist monastery Meditation is not practiced everyday...it rare and partice by special few.....there is more to monastic life then just meditation. I love the sense of community, experience all range of emotions and co habits with others..its a daily compassiinate effort to managed one emotions and thoughts without the risk of becoming numb.......also shared resources to minimise the pressure on global environmental health. I think the westerns interest and academic and neurosience and neo liberal interest to extract the juice of meditation to optimise the human profamance to the level of robots is ruining it for everyone...😅
Nice to see someone else talking about how asceticism is self-defeating, destructive garbage. It’s also very popular in western religion, as if the way to get closer to God is to reject the life He supposedly gave us. Love the new format, btw 👍
I went through a phase of “deep spiritual exploration” between ages 15 and 23. It definitely hindered my social development and decreased my enjoyment of life. I can’t identify any lasting positive effects.
@@Roxar96 agreed. But the “right way” was not available. The only choices seemed to be the dominant religious bullshit, wannabe hippie mumbo jumbo, or try to interrupt the often conflicting literature. Still not sure what the “right way” is and I’m too old and tired to keep searching.
I agree Buddhism is bad, but the overall idea is a real one. It's true that those external pleasures are transient, so you don't want to focus on them overall as a strategy. What you want is sustainable activities and it's what being religious is about. Meditation obviously is sustainable if you like it. But there is a whole range of sustainable activities that can be done with externals. It depends on your situation. It's no different than people that want solar energy instead of fossil fuel. It just makes sense overall long term. Obviously, the problem is some people take it as a fix for their own issues but the reason they have those issues in the first place is because they do care about any externals. It definitively won't fix them, just give the impression of it. I think you are right in the end, that it is only for some people. I know other people are the source of all my problems so for me it makes a lot of sense but you have to give up on things like money, fame, sex and all those things which is obviously not for everybody. If people don't make that realization, it's pointless to go through with it, but they could take it easy on those things because "loneliness" is actually people that want those and can't do it, not those that don't want them. So having lower expectations works for everybody, but the extent of it will vary. Buddhism and religious life in general are just too extreme because they basically seek death while a true spiritual path is I believe to enjoy the small things.
Mh, the deep dive into life through vulnerability, is what i call the spiritual path. Semantic... i do agree that wanting to be a spiritual person is avaoidiance of your needs. But i also feel like we are not evalutating the spiritual paths at their right value opposing, living life fully and detatchement. Becaus the consequence of detatchement is basically, living life fully, plesure and pain and everything. In my understanding of them, taken wholly, these spiritual teachings tell us you don't need to intelectualise everything. You can and do have direct expérience of it. Detachement is not holding what you think of the world to be true. Your relationships are not the way you think they are, they are the way they are. Just as your thoughts are. Not what you think of them but them. And the external aspect of it all is, to my mind, that it is a placé where we tend to believe that what we think is true. And as we are decieved and this thought is prouven false. We realise our thoughts are not 100% true. It doesent give you lasting plesure, nor pain. It only changes the way you relate, and so the way you Will be able to interact with the world. Because, knowing thoughts are not à viable source of truth about the world, you go to your senses and the direct perception of it all. Including your thoughts and emotions. And you live from that place. You are so to say brought back to your origin. Living, percieving, right here right now everything that can be lived. Both the good and the bad, just living it. To me dionisys and buddha are one and the same person. With a différent face though. Have à good Day! Thank you for the video.
Thats very interesting. People may pursue spirituality for the wrong reasons and too much of anything can be harmful. But I think spirituality is a very desirable part of life if you don't neglect your humanity. "Be in the world, but not of it".
Not all Buddhism teaches you that you can achieve enlightenment through your own actions. In fact very few actually do really teach that. They often teach that you should be moral/devout so you have a good rebirth, instead. Many Pure Land Buddhists and non-meditating Theravada Buddhists generally believe you can’t achieve enlightenment in this life, while numerous other groups teach that everyone already is enlightened anyway and as such need to start acting like it (Japanese sects, in particular). Still other groups insist it will take essentially millions of years of rebirths to achieve. Buddhism is not a religion of gurus and cult leaders for the most part. In the west it is new so there are more suspect groups since it’s still considered very weird. Most Buddhist monks and priests are very much by-the-book. It’s in Zen, especially Rinzai-and Tibetan Buddhism where you tend to find more devotion to specific teachings of a living teacher, and that can easily become culty.
yes the spiritual path isn't chosen, it find you, and you will be emersed in it, and it can't be ran away from, same as I cant run away from my life in spiritual non attachment spiritual bypassing. I don't think its a bad thing to recognize desires as temporary and feel less fulfillment towards them. This can happen on its own, and not feeling as strongly about something or not feeling anything at all might just occur one day.
There seems to be two main philosophies. The transcendent philosophy wants to escape this world and this life, so they create the concept of a higher eternal world to escape into. The immanent philosophy focuses on this life in this world, for them the idea that life is meaningless merely because it is temporary would seem plain absurd. Transcendent philosophy might be not fully nihilistic, but it creates the breeding ground for nihilism, then if you accept that life has only meaning in eternity, but realizes that there is no eternal world beyond, then nihilism will be the conclusion.
i like the immanent philosophy more (if i understood you right). Its more about finding "Heaven on earth" instead of waiting for heaven after *death/ascension*. That life holds no meaning actually motivates to give it meaning in that aspect. I find it closly related to existantial philosophy..
A lot to unpack there , but I think there is something essentially avoidant and nihilist in Buddhist belief , advocated as liberation - no self , no aim , no form - extinguish all notions - but it is a life that is far from abundant. ( Not to decry the benefits of detachment ).The desire for pleasure and power , and material things is definitely a losers game . Life requires some meaning for fulfilment , I believe - and a common valid shared meaning is right conduct , right thinking ie righteousness . A moral compass is essential ( not for moral imbeciles / psychopaths ) . Of course , it is all a matter of individual choice ,and then being authentic to that choice . Meister Eckhart said ‘ We should not so much ask what we should do ,as rather who we should be .’ Food for thought . Thanks .
This video felt like it called me out ngl. I do hate my life and I'm a pessimist towards everything in general and I think I won't change that, but still, this was a good critique, I guess. The weird thing is that... I do want something that would allow me to find permanent satisfaction, but the while idea of abandoning all desire never sat right with me anyway, the "it feels human to feel sadness/other emotions" like that is something that I understand and I've thought about despite everything. It's weird but it feels like an existence where there's no sadness ever is worse than one where it exists a bit, it does strangely enough give a meaning and in fact it can be weirdly addictive. I'm looking for a middle ground I guess, neither "abandon everything to reach X state" or "things are fine the way they are". I think I just got off topic during this comment but I've written too much and don't want to delete it. I probably just missed the point like I tend to do, but welp.
![Kodak Black - Versatile 4 [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VcP_1Ua__vY/mqdefault.jpg)
Buddhism helped me connect with my emotions in such a visceral way and I feel them so much more intensely now, but they don't rule my life anywhere as much as they did in the past, when I felt numb all the time. In the same way that the quote at the beginning has misunderstood neuroscience, so many of us in the west have misunderstood Buddhism, picking and choosing which bits of the religion we like and dislike and often practicing without formal training. That's bound to have negative consequences when Buddhist teachings are so subtle and so commonly misunderstood. Realizing that you are not 'the self' does not produce an absence of meaning, it's the complete opposite, literally feels like a giant weight you've been carrying all your life has been lifted, and I only had a glimpse. Everyone who taught me was filled with passion and life, not some kind of numb zombie. I think for anyone looking to learn that should be a real red flag.
as a former student of (especially intercultural) philosophy I usually really enjoy your videos but I feel quite disoriented and worried about this one to be frank. I do appreciate some of the points you made like especially the one at the end with community over "enlightenment" and I share your general concern about the rising movement of "modern spirtuality" and "enlightenment" ideas. However I found you to be brutally oversimplifying in this video. It is one thing to criticize new age gurus but another to put them at one with the very philosophically rich and diverse tradition of Buddhism and Buddhas Teachings. I do not mean to say that your points are not valid but I think it is really important to take non-western traditions really philosophically seriously and engage with them in a respectful and meaningful manner, not falling in the trap of oversimplifying huge body of thought and experience which in my humble view is the same mistake many new age gurus (like eckhart tolle etc.) are making. For example Community or Sangha is a major major factor in buddhist thinking, many buddhist traditions are not about a singular world-denunciation at all (that is a path reserved to a few like you said). I mean what even is spirituality? Like yeah meditation won't solve all our problems but it isn't a devilish force either, I feel kind of tired of this false comparison and like I said oversimplfication of complex, rich, diverse non-europeans traditions like Buddhism, who have their problems but also so much beautiful and life-enriching to offer. Feeling kinda sad you seemed to strengthen this (in my view) problematic way of talking and thinking about buddhist culture. Cheers.
@@deemgai2727 yes I think so, I would like to tell you about my favourite Zen Koan which illustrates this point rather drastically:
There was an old woman in China who had supported a monk for over twenty years. She had built a little hut for him and fed him while he was meditating. Finally she wondered just what progress he had made in all this time.
To find out, she obtained the help of a girl rich in desire. “Go and embrace him,” she told her, “and then ask him suddenly: ‘What now?'”
The girl called upon the monk and without much ado caressed him, asking him what he was going to do about it.
“An old tree grows on a cold rock in winter,” replied the monk somewhat poetically. “Nowhere is there any warmth.”
The girl returned and related what he had said.
"To think I fed that fellow for twenty years!” exclaimed the old woman in anger. “He showed no consideration for your needs, no disposition to explain your condition. He need not have responded to passion, but at least he should have evidenced some compassion.”
She at once went to the hut of the monk and burned it down.
Yes, I agree. Well said.
If you don't mind, what could be possibly be missed from the buddhist tradition that could help the average joe in his day to day life that wasn't mentioned in this video? Because he did say that he doesn't deny that yoga and meditation are beneficial. To me the thing is, we can learn to sit with our thoughts and do yoga without having to suscribe to a religious like cult and we don't need buddhism to have community.
Happy to see this comment after leaving a similar one of my own. I appreciate you using your intercultural knowledge to take a similar approach even further. It might be a good time to say, too: If we want to criticize the notion of ‘universalizing spiritual discourse’, as was done in the ‘Who It’s Really For’ section: we should perhaps likewise consider the dangers of making harmful generalizations on, or publicly misrepresenting, religious philosophies that do not align with our own.
To all of you who answered this: As I see it the interconnectedness doctrin in Buddhism isn't just about feeling connected to everything else. It is also a part of the argument for emptiness and that nothing has an independent existence. That this can be dangerous for people who don't have a, in a completely western sense, developed sense of self, an ego if you will, is obvious (and empirically investigated, and admitted by some sane buddhists). For those who tread on that path with stable identities it could be quite rewarding. In fact, a stable sense of self is probably a precondition for coming out intact or better. (Hence the survivalship bias mentioned.) For those that don't - and these are often people with personality disorders - it's anyone's guess. Sadly, the old trick of "it may get worse before it gets better" gaslights many to continue despite getting more disoriented. I think The living philosophy knows this, but everything can't fit into a short video.
Meditation helped reduce my panic disorder and anxiety disorders. I stopped fighting it, and now it comes and goes without much trouble. Idk if that counts as non-attatchment but it works and I'm going to keep doing it.
The intellectual speaking here misinterprets Buddhism as nihilistic. He simply doesn't understand the teachings.
Oh no. Stop fighting panic disorder and anxiety or stopped fighting it only help you that far. One day, you need to go deeper to deal with the real cause. It not about letting go or stopped fighting anymore. One day, it about facing your anxiety. You must truly suffer to overcome that anxiety by heroic way. And through suffer our soul was cleaned. That mean you need to hug your anxiety by your whole body and kiss it, letting go or stopped fighting will not enough. Meditation will not enough. One must pick up the sword and fight. I speaked from my experience.
I agree with many points you make. I was an avid practitioner of Buddhism. Almost my whole childhood was plagued by destructive abuse of alcohol, physical and psychical violence which traumatized me. Coming up into my twenties I had couple bad depression periods and that made me quest for a way to repair myself. After immersing myself into gurusphere I've found that buddhism fitted me best. So I started to practice it. There really wasn't any places related to that where I could seek knowledge so I had to put a lot of effort into learning on my own. This particular way suited me well and felt kinda natural. Few years of learning how meditate, getting more hours into that, studying suttas and so on. Eventually I`ve found one particular teaching which emphasized studying on your own and I dove into it. Following it rigorously (almost like in a retreat style) for a few months I`ve started to feel that I was getting somewhere and the effort was changing me. I`ve felt joyous without reason almost all the time, I`ve walked with clouds under my feet, the need for external pleasures dropped a lot. At the same time I`ve attacked my ego as hard as I could and at some point it felt that I was starting to dismantle it. And there was where things started to get weird to say the least. Everyday mundane things like work, friends, goals in life started to appear less in value and almost meaningless. I felt there was no point in pursuing those as they were impermanent, unsatisfactory. That kinda prompted a small doubt in what I was doing to myself , but found reassurance in the teaching and continued with it. After some of more ego dismantling all of a sudden I`ve came to a place that felt very unstable. Like my psyche became fragile and if I would to continue it would change me in a way that felt scarry. It felt that I could lose myself, my healthy common sense. I`ve backed off from all that almost immediately. After some months I was back to my normal, hurting and sad self, feeling better in being this way and remembering that scarry unstable moment. Eventually I`ve sorted my mental health through western approach. Went to a doctor, got sent to a psychologist which diagnosed me with chronic depression and adhd, then onto psychiatrist whom prescribed me meds and those made me stable enough to start therapy. Through therapy I`ve seen and understood my experiences and integrated them. Thou still I`m not fully healed, but I`ve come a long way and I am myself. I don`t feel the need to destroy my ego and enter nirvana leaving all this earthly bs behind. Life is good as it is. Oh, and after buddhism phase I went onward into healing through psychedelics. I had a huge breakthrough using them, but again, without professional help and know how to integrate it into my life it was just barely helpful. Thanks for the video, It`s great and I would like to learn to think like that as well.
I began reading about buddhism recently and watching some videos. I even attended a meeting at a local buddhist center, but i've been finding it to be a very confusing view about the world. Just like you said you began losing interest in friends, work and other things, the ideas of buddhism makes me feel like theres no value in life, since the only goal that exists is to attain nirvana.
Depression and ADHD is a hellish combo… meditation can help up to a certain point but that’s it, afterwards it becomes more problematic than helpful in my experience.
Beautiful ideas. And the pitch in the end about loneliness and it's actual "solution" was wonderful. Thank you!
> guru: desire is the source of suffering. one must stop desiring
> me : and how to we do that, great sage ?
> why of course, by desiring to not desire
I appreciate that you've had a go in critiquing this orientation to life and speaking into a topic that many find difficult. However i feel like your view is not a mature and all ecconpasing view but an intellectually embelished opinion based on a limited experince with this path yourself. Its a path thats dangerous to the structures in the mind that get dismantled, including the belief structures that think they 'know' what life is and philosophise about it. A true path to enlightenment is a doing away with ideology and a total embrace with life. Thanks for sharing your view, a nice watch and some good points.
I like the antidote to this. In the words of Jean Luc Marion ‘the courage to be affected’. As turner prize winner Grayson Perry says, he discovered from dealing with his past, if you want to empty yourself of the bad feelings, you don’t get to keep the positive ones.
This is not true from a buddhist pov at all. Enlightened beings have uprooted suffering completly and dwell in happiness and bliss
@@memesmojo5622 I wish you all the best with this, I don’t believe it’s realisable.
It’s true you can’t seperate the feelings as “positive” and “negative” and have only the positive ones. This is a very shallow and mechanistic approach. The problem is not the so called negative feelings, it’s how we react to them.
@memesmojo5622
I thought nirvana was nonexistence, breaking free from samsara? Something like reincarnating into the Pure Land and chilling there isn’t enlightenment, I thought.
@@vdub6343 no, nirvana isnt anhilation
Of course, the story of Buddha is he had a wife, a child, wealth, status (being a prince) and yet realised there was no lasting happiness in samsara. Obviously the miseries of life tend to drive people to spirituality, especially when their sorrows aren't so trivial that they can be easily consoled with the help and assistance of friends and family.
In Buddha's case it was the problem of suffering and impermanence itself (old age, sickness and death). Such a problem required a more radical solution i would venture.
Years ago i had a teacher in Mumbai, the same one as Leonard Cohen had before he re-entered life. He used to call spiritual people miserable seekers haha. Well, yeah, seeking tends to be more miserable than the regular.. the end of seeking is happiness, but its true you have to go through hell for that. I can vouch for it personally.
But if you've come to the end of seeking and are no longer miserable, fulfilled and don't even fear death itself. Then surely one can return to their life in samsara and live like everyone else. That's my view anyway.
well he left his wife the day she gave birth which quite frankly one of the things that put me off him LOL
@@prboddingtonmaybe it was the prospect of changing nappies and not the sorrows of samsara that drove him into the forest haha
I try not to be too judgemental of him, having left my own partner and 18 months old child to run off to meditate in Rishikesh. I came back though and am in my daughters life.
@@prboddingtonlots of assumptions and stories carried along for 2500 years by adoring disciples. Take these stories with a grain of salt. I meditate using the vipassana technics and look at Buddhist teachings in their usefulness also helping me to be more loving to others, myself and this world. It’s a very good mind map, very useful to explore your mind, feelings and emotions. Don’t get hang up on the stories and metaphysics.
As a Buddhist I'd like to throw my two cents in. It seems you're under the impression that we all throw away and actively discourage finding pleasure in anything when its just not that simple. The Buddha himself was incredibly ascetic before his enlightenment, actively harming his own body in search of enlightenment. But after actually attaining enlightenment he renounced this as unnecessary and just as bad as attachment to pleasure, this is to say he found the middle path. As Buddhists we don't fight pleasure or actively harm ourselves, we do allow ourselves to seek some things. The problem with pleasure isn't only that it's temporary, though that is a problem, the main problem is that its unsatisfactory. There is never enough of a good thing and we poison our happiness trying to chase it. The idea is to be happy and satisfied with what is rather than angry with what isn't and this is so often mistaken by others as pessimistic. The "razor" in this analogy isn't just the loss, it's the hunger and stress of the searching. We shouldn't deny ourselves pleasure and we should take happiness in what we do have, but in turn we shouldn't devote our lives to seeking something that is both unsatisfying and temporary. Everything is temporary, both suffering and happiness, but every positive action we make has long lasting good effect for everyone.
It's called the middle way for a reason.
He is attacking a caricature, he seems somewhat uninformed about Buddhism. Jhanas are reputedly providing you with pleasure (you can achieve sukkha, which is the opposite of dukkha).
Just freeing yourself from your attachments does bring you peace and relief (not to dissimilar to the relief you get from satisfying an urge).
Also, Western perspective on Buddhism is biased by the over emphasis on meditation, which is only a small part of Buddhism. The noble eightfold path which is the basis of good practice in Buddhism contains mostly a moral code that does make your life simpler.
really enjoyed your take on the Buddhist teaching:may you walk lightly, friend.
Indeed. The three jewels includes Sangha - community, so I'm not sure what version of Buddhism he met, but isolating yourself permanently is not part of the middle way. Serving others is a big part of Buddhism.
I think the answer is somewhere at the 19th minute where he said "Buddhism and Hinduism AS IT IS imported to the west". I don't know for sure what this is but I've seen the phenomenon of "non duality trolls" who go around dropping Alan watts quotes or saying crap like "why bother, just discover that you are in fact already enlightened", even at channels that AREN'T talking about non duality. They don't realise how inanely easy it is to *conceptually* understand non duality and how similar they are acting to those "accept Jesus and be saved" trolls. They're just larping at being spiritual while denying that most dharma traditions do in fact emphasize community works.
Enlightenment is certainly an internal thing, but it impossible to tell if *other people* are enlightened or not. That's why as long as we care to know whom we deal with, actions speak louder than words. I'd rather trust an illiterate simpleton who has funded hospitals and schools than a bum who's just good at stroking his beard and dispensing jargon.
We all need to be aware that the world of wishy washy abstract thoughts is a favourite playground of beginner narcissists. A simulation where they can achieve maximum results (your views and likes) with minimum effort (dropping "wise" quotes). I think even the most basic insta belfie chick worked much harder to get her views.
Indeed. The apparent intellectual here is ripping into a strawman and yes, his understanding of Buddhism is way off.
As someone conned for some time into the spiritual path by very questionable individuals, I needed to see this. Spiritualism struck me as paralyzing to personal agency in a way that reduced people to passive subjects in existence and every time I would bring that up the response would always be some jargon hogwash about how I wasn't truly aligned. Thanks
11:50 universalising spiritual discourse. At last a coherent articulation of what's wrong with mainstream fake spiritual teachings. The way i like to think if it: if you can talked into believing that your (ego) experience in the here and now is maya an illusion you have much to learm of your self
I also pursued spirituality/enlightenment in the escapist way that you describe very accurately and clearly here. But modern life, which undermines healthy relationships, turns pretty much everything-work, sports, art, entertainment, shopping, etc-even family life-into an escape because when having genuinely good relationships is out of reach, life becomes too painful to face, so we all seek some sort of escape. So although you’re right that pursuing healthy relationships would be a better alternative for most of the westerners who are seeking enlightenment, healthy relationships is exactly what our way of life makes very difficult. That’s what’s driving people to pursue spirituality and other escapes in the first place.
In contrast, in the traditional societies where enlightenment spiritualities mostly arise, but where people still have genuinely healthy relationships (before they too get westernized), people don’t pursue spirituality as an escape. When we have healthy relationships, we generally have a healthy approach to all the rest of life too. That’s what’s missing in the modernized, westernized world.
But yes, spirituality can be an especially self-deceptive escape, so it’s good you’re helping people see that.
Really loved this one, thank you for your wisdom
I like Plum Village Buddhism (a Vietnamese I think for of Buddhism). When we meditate we just do mindfulness, focus on the feelings and motion, notice them, let them flow. We have sharing St the end of the meditation. Many people shed a tear remembering or realising painful truths. If feels like a self therapy session in a support group. Even though I am still not a believer, spiritual or Buddhist I see great value in it.
I think you should do more research on Early Buddhism. The Buddha taught in the Upaddha Sutta friendship was an integral part of the spiritual life.
If you are losing your feelings towards your loved ones then you are not doing it right. Metta (loving-kindness). Is an important part of buddhism. The Buddha said it was just as important as Insight Meditation. I personally use my love for my children as a source of metta during meditation.
I feel like your experience is mostly with Hinduism and Tibetan Buddhism (which is a form of Buddhism that takes a lot of things from Hinduism). I agree that the rapid enlightenment approach that they take is dangerous. I'm personally more a fan of Theravada and Early Buddhism. It's much less guru centric.
It seems some people may have missed the point here. I don't see this as a refutation of Buddhism as a whole, but a challenge to the concept of "enlightenment", which is basically the ultimate goal of Buddhism. And I agree. When I turned to spirituality during my darkest depression many years ago, I became obsessed with the notion that I could achieve some pinnacle state where nothing could affect me. I almost went crazy chasing that. After several years and lots of seeking in many different directions, I've come to believe not only is enlightenment a fairytale, it's not even something I or most other people would want anyway. Yes, when you are suffering greatly and are desperate to end the suffering, it seems acceptable to sacrifice joy as well and just exist in a nuetral state, but once that cloud has passed and you think more rationally, you realize how bleek an existence that would be. Ultimately, it falls into the same category of spiritual bypassing as a lot of "new age" stuff, despite it being ancient. So many "spiritual" people are in a rush to transcend. But if you truly believe we are spiritual beings having a physical experience, then certainly there must be a reason why we came here. Why would you dishonor that by trying to escape?
Any path that leads towards physical in-action, emotional hedonism and intelectual m*st*urbat*0n is definitely FALSE. You won't realize who you are through rationalism, you can't see yourself, only others can. You can see your arms and hands so you can work and you can see your legs and feet so you can walk. Your own idea of who you are will never be accurate, only others can say who you actually are, how they are experiencing you. At the END of your live you can look back, contemplate your fruits and realize who you were, who you are. Who you are is about FACTS not sensations or feeling or visions or thoughts.
But that's the thing, he is treating Enlightenment as Asceticism, as if it was the point of Buddhism, when it's literally the other way around. One of the core ideas of Buddhism is that extremes are bad, so if you focus too much on detachment you build a life of numbness, and if you focus too much on pleasure seeking you build a life of eternal suffering from craving.
That's literally the whole point of Buddhism, the middle way, that only with, you guessed it, "LOVE", and "COMPASSION" to all living things that we can be enlightened. That means loving your family and spending time with them, loving your neighbors and inviting them to your home, loving animals and avoiding hurting them as much as possible, and yet, knowing that all things are ephemeral. Being ephemeral to Buddhism, actually, is what makes things beautiful, because they have meaning in their existence. I can't see how those teachings are detrimental to One's well being.
Seeing your story it seems to me that you guys that live in America ( I suppose you are American or European, I'm sorry if it's not the case) are presented with the most shallow version of Buddhism that exists. The Buddha itself never abandoned his life in search of transcendence, he abandoned the shallowness of his former life, searching for a more fulfilling one. Interestingly enough, he turned to a teacher and built a community, so it is essential to Buddhism the connection with other people and generosity, things that are complete opposites of both pleasure seeking and asceticism. When you seek only to fulfill your desires, you focus solely on you in detriment of others well being. If you focus only on asceticism you don't even acknowledge the existence of others, and put your ego above everything.
@MarceloSilva-oq8mk That's true about the middle way. And yes, I'm American so point taken there, although to be fair, mostly I learned on my own, but I also did learn under monks at a Vietnamese monastery. Nonetheless, Buddhism is still centered around the cessation of suffering and The Buddha is lauded as the first to have done so. Since the whole religion (religion might be the wrong term) is centered around him, it's safe to say that is what followers are directed towards as the ultimate way to be. And correct me if I'm wrong, but he did give up everything, right? He refused to eat more than a grain of rice. And he decided to sit under the Bodhi tree and refused to move until he ultimately attained enlightenment.
@@WILD__THINGS He was an ascetic first, but he abandoned that life as he thought it was too extreme to being able to achieve true Enlightenment. Actually, after a maiden confused him as a spirit and gave him a food offering, having eaten that offering he felt revitalized and got to that conclusion. When he sit at the foot of the bodhi tree, he already had abandoned asceticism, so he just sat there to meditate until his enlightenment. We don't know exactly the time it took or if he ate or not, probably he did, so that extremism isn't core to his teachings.
Great video!
I agree that the way spirituality is often practiced is counterproductive and practices like non-attachment can contradictingly lead to false attachments to concepts like „enlightenment“ if done the wrong way.
That said i feel like that same as with every other philosophy, religion or literally everything else in life there are still some truths that can be recognized in spirituality.
Especially now that much of spiritual teachings can be proven by neuroscience. For example the discovery of the default mode network and Problem solving network of the brain. The first one is active everytime we think about ourselves and has basically all the characteristics that are described as the „ego“ in buddhism. Neuroscience has found that the longer this is active the more depressed we get but with practices like meditation you can shut it off.
Important to note here is that its not only meditation that can do this but any activity or problem that demands your full attention.
This just goes to show that spiritual practices are not the only correct way but can definitely be for some.
For me the biggest game changer in life the lesson i found in spirituality that you are not your thoughts but the the consciousness being aware of it. For many people in the west the biggest cause or amplifier of problems like anxiety and depression is overthinking. But who could blame us? „I think therefore i am“ is all we know. But with all the thinking and thinking and thinking our whole reality gets replaced with the thought of it. But by not identifying with our thoughts and just observing them, being conscious, you can much easier break behavioral patterns that lead you into unnecessary suffering. Quieting the mind, reducing thought to a more effective problem solving tool and observing myself and reality as it truly is has truly brought immense joy to my life.
Also, great hair :)
*_Only red the last line... thank you, your compliment is appreciated._*
When we look with and look without .. we can then find the middle way.
We are not all outside of the body with the senses nor are we all within without sense!Our human experience beyond the animal body, we, the imaginative being can read with our senses .. then looking beyond the object we get to understand how the object was created.
A tree from a seed, a wooden chair from the tree.
We must use Buddha as a tool, use his life experience as a guided meditation.
Use the world we see.. use the world we close off from in sleep as dreams or meditation with breath as an exercise to understand the inner working of ourself even more and with the Mind Science of Buddhism we simply find our true self.
The Zodiac is another very creative way to understand that we are all same same (Thai phrase) but different. We are the atoms of the universe, we are temporary as droplet of rain.
It’s more about accepting than the searching sometimes… the balancing of the duality with the meaning it means as we see both sides of the coin together in imaginative thought or with our own cellular memory ✨🙏🏻✨🕉️✨☯️✨🌌✨
I reason the same way. (I guess that disqualified me in the "Become a Budha-race"). Still, a certain level of awareness and self discipline has to be developed ON TIME and by everyone, rather than just going through life in search of honey and the rasors that come with it. At one point of life, a realization of your own mortality strikes hard. Then you either become infantile, or you make some changes in life, which make more sense, or most likely- a bit of both...
Love this message, you explained my issue perfectly. Thanks.
Well done, totally agree. I studied and followed Buddhism for years and came to the conclusion that it was in many ways actually inducing depression and disassociation in people. Luckily for me in a way, I had a long history not just of depression but also of dissociative states so recognised it. There is also the problem of how hierarchical and cult-like many Buddhist groups are, spotting who is most Enlightened etc. I remember being taught one Tibetan buddhist mediation where we were meant to visualise walking through a valley composed entirely of human bones to cut our attachment to life. But when in profound depression, I had literally had precisely this vision as an utterly horrific nightmare. I've also seen too many examples of people involved in such outfits to have serial relationships dumping partners with ease and. moving on to the next all with the excuse 'non-attachment'. Like framing being a a*hole as spiritual enlightenment.
@@prboddington I was invited to stay with someone some months ago and they have some teacher who's apparently a 'rimpoche' in the the dzogchen linage. I always wondered what the appeal of these titles in Tibetan Buddhism were, because it never appealed to me. It seems Tibetan culture itself is like that, It was basically a theocracy before the Chinese came.
Also, if ones guru is especially confirmed or special then one can feel some of that specialness and certainty I guess. So I need a rimpoche as guru and not just some guy at the fruit shop...
To me such titles are just things that people give to each other. Like in zen they had official certificates of satori.. The zen monk Ikkyu famously burned his.. but in his old age he did end up an Abbott of a famous monastery (probably because he was confirmed by his teacher) something that apparently surprised him having spend most of his life after "satori' writing poetry, making music and having relationships with women 😅
My understanding of buddhism is that the intention for meditation is important for that very reason you describe. Non-attachment without the intention of wanting to reduce "unnecessary suffering" is simply being dead, just as described in the video.
I once read a paper in my psych class. It was a review about the effects of meditation with the title "can the be too much of a good thing?". It addressed the hype and looked for negative findings. long story short, one of the findings was that meditations like emptiness meditation where oyu focus on your senses have bad effects for people that have the tendency towards dissociation. Other meditation should be used then (or completle different methods). They recommended taking individual aspects into account and only using meditation as a whole package (mindfullness, empathy, non judgement etc)
I can find you the article if you want.
@Rithmy my understanding is that the kind of meditation most commonly used by Buddhists is just one of the 112 techniques recounted in Vijñāna-bhairava-tantra. Of course, more techniques have been developed in Tibet. The term Zen itself derived from Chen which itself derived from Dhyan (meditation), That's how meditation focused it became. When I was involved in Buddhist practice I found they were quite method obsessed or meditation obsessed. True. . Buddha was trained mostly in yogic ascetic paths. There is a story that he finally came to his simple sitting technique because he remembered it from his childhood, but I think it's probably just a story to indicate the ancient nature of yogic techniques predating Buddha
Most of my training is in Advaita Vedanta apart from a stint of some years practising 'Buddhist meditation' mostly of the Thai Buddhist variety which is a simple technique of sitting and letting everything 'be as it is'. In Advaita Vedanta any meditation techniques are consciously lifted from the yoga schools and so on. It's not their primary focus. If you look into the yoga schools such as Patanjali yoga sutras, it's ultimate goal is Nirvikalpa Samadhi or complete absorption in the pure unchanging awareness (without vikalpas) vikalpa means changing phenomena.
As an aside, Advaita Vedanta tends to take a student from identification with the content of consciousness to identification as the objectless pure unchanging awareness (identification not just going in and out of some state) simply by a path of discrimination between the seer and the seen or the subject and the object... and finally collapsing the distinctions between subject and object into non duality. It doesn't stay in some disassociated phase or enlightened dualism like you might find in the sankya schools of yoga and so on. Some Buddhists tend to fall in that category too, making a distinction between samsara and nirvana.. so stay in meditation as much as possible and away from samsara.. Non dual Buddhist schools say nirvana and samsara are one.. Advaita Vedanta says Consciousness alone is. It adds up to much the same..
It will be interesting to hear OPs views too.
lol been helping with my mental health coming from abrahamic faiths
Everyone has a different path 🤷♂️
@@Dovahkiin0117 Like Alan Watts who came from a Christian background. It's interesting they say even Christian mystics go through a dark night of the soul where they doubt everything and like the character in Bergman's The Seventh Seal they want to know, not just believe. Conventional religion demands belief, it doesn't give a pathway for questioning and Knowledge.. And as Watts points out, there is even a taboo against knowing yourself.
Jesus made the apparently outrageous claim that "my father and I are one" and he was taken to task for it by the Pharisees and since Jesus (in dualistic Christianity), such a pronouncement is still considered blasphemy, for anyone apart from Jesus 😄 Whereas something like Advaita Vedanta starts with the mahavakyas such as Tat Tvam Asi and Ahaṁ Brahmāsmi great statements of indentiy with ultimate reality..
Listen to the hummingbird
Whose wings you cannot see
Listen to the hummingbird
Don’t listen to me
Listen to the butterfly
Whose days but number three
Listen to the butterfly
Don’t listen to me
Listen to the mind of God
Which doesn’t need to be
Listen to the mind of God
Don’t listen to me
Listen to the hummingbird
Whose wings you cannot see
Listen to the hummingbird
Don’t listen to me
- Leonard Cohen
What a brilliant, insightful and truthful video, thank you. This will be such a useful video to help explain to my Buddhist friends why I left Buddhism for Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
I found this video to be very interesting. Thank you for sharing!
Since 16 (25 now), I have encountered spiritual teachings, mainly from Eckhart Tolle (The Power of Now). However, my experience was and is vastly different.
I, however, do not know it all. There are many things I do not understand yet and probably never will, so I wanted to see your video so I could see another perspective. Thank you for that!
I very rarely comment on videos, but at the moment I am going through a very bad experience as one of my beloved pets is going to die, so I am writing to receive a response, I am writing to be understood and be countered by someone who has a better understanding. I am writing because even though it seems like just pixels on the screen, we are all here, and we are not alone. And now I'm probably rambling...ha-ha! Sorry!
Any religion and any spiritual teachings since inception most likely was stained by the fault interpretations and understanding of its followers. It surely seems to have happened in Christianity, of which I belong, probably to Muslims, though I do not know almost anything about them so I do not know, and most likely to Buddhism as well, with which I am a little more familiar. What we all can probably agree upon is that people throughout the times have used such teachings for their own petty gains, talking about things as if they understand them, as if they knew what they were talking about, but instead they were simply after something. Be it influence, possessions, money or whatever. I am not acquainted with the book that you used as an example, but it would not surprise me
that whoever wrote it, does not understand some things themselves, or, if they do, they may have expressed them
faulty. Who knows. I don't.
The first point if I remember correctly was about detachment from desire. The way I see it is the following:
Of course we want things in life and of course we feel for others and for other things. Enlightenment is not a
thing, "Buddha describes it as 'the end of suffering'. What is left when there is no more suffering?
The Buddha is silent on that, and his silence implies that you need to find it out for yourself." - Eckhart Tolle. What that means is that much of our suffering is unnecessary and is self-made, by our own minds which wish to identify with different things. With possessions, specific relationships, status and so on. Of course, you can go and find a loving partner, you can achieve whatever you want to achieve, but you do not need to be so attached to it that your attachment becomes monstruous. Like a drunk partner accusing his spouse of cheating continuously, he too loves her, but his loved has been transformed into something grotesque. I can love my partner of four years deeply, I love my pet deeply and I love my family and I respect and cherish life. I can do all that and I can feel sad now that may pet will most likely be soon gone, I am sad and I have cried, but at the same time I can understand that whatever is now is as it is and accept it, more like try to accept it. Of course, if there is something I could do to change the situation I would and I have on many occasions.
"Detachment" is not a good term, it is more like acceptance. Acceptance of what you feel, acceptance of what it is, changing what it is if you can and so desire, loving and accepting.
What about hating others? In this state you cannot hate because you simply see their unconsciousness, their life being run by their mind, which is a wonderful tool that now has gone rogue and is controlling their master. You cannot hate them, but just pity them, however, if you need to act to stop them from doing something evil, or speak up, or fight, you will, I would, because the conscious thing is not to accept evil, but to prevent and put and end to it, in whatever form.
So 'detachment' is not a good word, it is more like acceptance, but you can feel and it is ok to feel everything that you feel. In this state, and it has been my experience, you love more because your mind is not cluttered, does not put shades onto your reality with different weird and erroneous interpretations. You are more yourself than you ever have been, not some lifeless, emotionless drone, that is not right, that is nonsense, that is not enlightenment.
I am sorry if it didn't make sense what I have said above, I am not in the best state right now so I am not very coherent. The point is, you can love, you can care and protect and achieve, all without making an identity out of it, without making it into something monstruous. That's dysfunction, that's too much. Like I read somewhere: "You have too much of a willful will, you think whatever you don't do, doesn't happen." - Zen in the art of Archery. 'Too much' is what most people do, but nothing, not caring at all and being detached completely is just as erroneous, they are 2 sides of the same coin. Both nonsense.
Your level of consciousness and awareness is what determines the quality of your existence, not how long you can sit with your eyes closed, not how much you can 'not care'. On the contrary, you do care, you care more than you ever did, but only for what truly matters, because you're more yourself than you've ever been probably, and all without making an identity out of it, all without becoming insane.
This was in relation with the point about the father who was too detached about their children, which is also a horrible thing.
I don't know man. After I came back from a recent vacation I experience about a month of almost constant total ease with life, a period of heightened consciousness. Everything I did came with ease, I was not stuck in my mind all the time and that made everything I said also be said consciously, people noticed in some sense, even though they didn't tell me, I know they could feel it. I performed greatly at my work, at the sport I practice. My relationships improved, all without trying that much, just being and doing consciously. Now it is like a flickering light bubble, I feel it drifting away if I allow it. But in that month I never stopped loving or caring about my loved ones, I never stopped loving or caring about life and nature and existence. I was less sad however, for knowing it is all in God's plan and image, all with a purpose, all consciousness, made bad events much easier to deal with, like much easier, but you cannot not be sad when death for a loved one, including a pet, comes, I cannot not be sad, I cannot be happy, but I can feel somewhat at peace. Does that mean I am detached? No, it means I accept what it is, that I honor my beloved pet, that I love it so much I have done everything I could and I know it is not the end for the energy within him that we call life, I don't want it to be the end, I cannot grasp it intellectually, but I somehow kinda know it is not the end. Who knows, I may delude myself.
Is that enlightenment? I asked myself that some times. With such a clear mind good and interesting ideas come more easily, as if from nowhere. I don't know if it is, it may be. But intellectually it cannot be grasped, it must be lived. Jessus said " you will know the truth and the truth will make you free", from what? From unnecessary suffering perhaps, but that hasn't made me an emotionless robot. This month was probably the best consistent period of my life, despite all the bullshit. I never felt less human, never felt as if I do not care, on the contrary, I care more than I ever did.
There is nothing to seek, because true power is already within you, not anywhere else. Not in this comment section or any book, not outside you.
Sorry for the rambling, if anyone wants to talk around here I will try to answer with a more clear response, as I said, I am not in the best state at the moment, not as focused and conscious as I was in that past month.
Thanks!
This was beautifully put, I shed a tear or 2. I hope all is well 🫶🏼
After a few weeks of the algorithm giving me Buddhism videos, I'm glad it gave me the Nietzsche and Buddhism video you made a year ago and then I clicked on this one. Gave me a good mental reset about my goals and reality. Thank you so much.
Great video. Reminds me of the work Pleuromatica by Gabriel Catren. In that work, you'd also find refutations of Monism, Enlightenment culture, and Non-Attachment which is all very modern right now. Emerson's oversoul, the house on the side of Mount Vesuvius, Huxley's conception of infinite chaos unfolding like a sea upon which we sail, self-reliance, tempered alliances with the world's many characters, it's all so well balanced and I think you'd find a value in that work.
Never heard of it but sounds interesting thanks for that
Thanks. This is interesting. Psychology also suggests that internal validation (isolation) is healthy. I keep seeing parallels between religion and psychology. I wonder if they are competing to meet our emotional/psychological needs. Don't settle. We got this. Let's go!
I was getting depressed because I felt like I have no purpose in life and nothing really matters... I listened to Guru Sadhguru, on a old video on purpose, he said the reality of modern life is we are stuck in psychological and intellectual thinking, which traps us from just simply living. I agree that this is so, but with my Christian background it is ingrained in me to find meaningful purpose in my life. I think this is the purpose of philosophy and the act of finding your meaning.
What I'm left with is, we are here to experience life, and so to keep things interesting I try to do something new as much as I can. It's up to me to create a purpose.
That is where I am at philosophically at the moment.
I like to use everything as tool in my belt when I need it. If I need to detach then I will. If I need to try I will. If God has something for me then I usually say yes, usually what I don't want to hear, but lately it's been getting better ☺
I have had multiple encounters with God, but that is really not for me to share. Do your own seeking...
Always enjoy your videos.
I have no issues with criticizing gurus, religions and philosophy traditions yet I feel Eastern religions, philosophies get a rough deal as they are criticized mostly on their different Western version or on retreats that ppl have had in Asia, which most of these retreats are set up for Westerners and are pumping out the same Western friendly version of the religion, philosophy.
Criticizing this way would be akin to criticizing Christianity solely on the Christianity that is being preached, propagated in China. You would get a very different taste of Christianity to its Western version.
Maybe an interesting future video would be to highlight the difference in Eastern Buddhism,Taoism to their Western versions.
As far as I know, one of the fundamental metaphysical concepts in Buddhism is Interdependent Origination, which actually encourages the sense of community and empathy. But overall, I think I get your point, since in the West I've met people who read a bit of Buddhism and preach it. Those people, in particular, use Buddhism to justify their actions such as lack of responsibility, specially emotional. I even got hurt by one, she'd always hide herself behind the phrase "everything is constantly flowing, so don't compare today-me with yesterday-me". Her "yesterday-me" was literally two weeks before that.
I see the point of this video is the simplification of such a complex philosophy. On the other hand, I don't see how bestsellers self-help books could explain anything complex and not-oversimplify philosophical concepts. They're there just to make noise and to be sold.
One man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Personally I liked the video. I think it made a valid point.
I was originally critical of this video, but when I honestly considered it, I realised that I am a deeply spirtual person who is not seeking enlightenment. Neither would I ever subscribe to a religion (which i view as programmes for the mind). I also base any religious belief I do have on science. The Quantum field of subjectivity (for example) suggests a monism to me (oneness). I use spirituality to aid my physical realm goals and can only ever describe myself as an Alchemist. This realm matters, even though it is scientifically proven to be illusory (maya). I think the quest is about appreciating the physical realm and all experience in it. This video gave me clarity. I would add that the findings of many studies on mediation run contrary to the anecdotes presented here, and non-attachment is a great tool in the seekers spiritual tool box. As for Jed he seems to be simply repeating Ultimate Zen Buddhist teachings and presenting them as his own, (no-self and Mu/ (nothingness). Which is somewhat ironic if he wants to criticise religion. This is a thought provoking video and I believe you would enhance your content by tethering your philosophy to science as opposed to anecdotes.
This was quite thought-provoking. I am a spiritual aspirant, and I can recognize how in some ways I do use it as a form of avoidance. That is hard to accept, but hearing it described in this video, I can no longer pretend no one would be wary of what I am doing.
Well, interesting video BUT…. I’ve been doing meditation retreats for decades in both the Buddhist and Advaita traditions. I’ve found it has profoundly deepened my life, given me great balance in relationships, and given me a wonderful community of wise, interesting people who have enriched my life. I’ve had one deep enlightenment experience that I cherish as the crown jewel of my life even though it’s mostly just a memory now. I still enjoy many worldly things but see them with a wiser perspective. I wouldn’t choose any other life path. It can be arduous and challenging at times but deeply enriching, healing and meaningful throughout. To each his own I guess.
For some suffering is beautiful and has meaning. For other it is pointless, repetitive and should avoided. Both can be true.
Excellent
Every kind of philosophy, spiritual or not, can be toxic if you take the arguments superficially. You are under the influence of Nietzsche, whose understanding of Buddhism was very limited and superficial, because during his lifetime the academic research on Buddhism and other Asian spiritual traditions was not sufficient. (Remember, later Nietzsche’s philosophy was also appropriated by the Nazis to be reduced to such a toxic ideology.
Also if you take the “teachings” of some popular Mc Mindfulness gurus and similar con men/women, you will be misleaded. Buddhist teachers don’t recommend a person to become a recluse or an ascetic and avoid community. In fact that’s not even possible for the majority of the people. You can be a lay person and a buddhist. You can still live life fully with pleasure and pain, but knowing both are subject to change can make your life less existentially dreadful.
Western buddhism is a thing and yes, it is mostly a joke. To differentiate real buddhism or real yoga from their shallow westernized versions you have to really explore them through direct experience with teachers from a direct lineage and original texts. Otherwise its all just modern western self help. There are no short cuts. I think also, this youtuber is biased toward western philosophy, which is underrated these days. People from the west ought to know their own philosophical traditions. I find that a real engagement with western philosophy is a better antidote to modern consumerism than a false engagement with a watered down version of "buddhism".
I started early on the eastern path. I agree that somebody shouldn’t meditate as a form of escape, which is definitely something I’ve done. But I do utilize the wisdom of ancient traditions to lend a golden glow amongst seemingly infinite choices. The main difference is I’m more focused on people now. It’s painful but rewarding, and there’s always the hope that I’ll get better at it
It’s what western culture (and by that I mean U.S. culture) has done with Eastern and ancient philosophies. I’m totally with the presenter here. I’ve seen how a bastardization of another culture’s expression has led to wokeness and cancel culture. It was all too totally predictable even by the early ‘80s. And it’s only gotten worse. We’re not all in trauma and we don’t all need healing and wellness bullshit. But perfectionism is the U.S. belief system, which has had the rest of western culture by the balls since WWII.
Thanks for the video.
I recommend Choygam Trungpa Rimpoche’s “Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism.” He had it right decades ago, but sadly died of alcoholism. RIP.
Yes, there is no one size fits all. Also, meditation neednt be a discipline. You do it because you dig it and feel like doing it because you think it will benefit you in how you feel. I would personally sheer away from all gurús, cults and religions. Btw, it was Karl Marx who rightly said "religión is the opium of the people ", not Nietsche.
This is so important
The Mingyur Rinpoche quote seems pretty clear to me, and accurate. I think I understand it, a necessary preliminary, perhaps, to experiencing it. As for realising it, seeing it as the inescapable and satisfactory fact of the matter, well, who knows? I may get there. In the meantime hold everything very lightly. Don’t get hung up on any particular teaching, and if you don’t find it helpful leave it on one side, as the Buddha said. Sometimes things ping into understanding later on. And like Epicurus said, enjoy, notice the enjoyable, it’s everywhere, but chasing after it is a mug’s game.
Awesome! Excellent work as always. I’d been largely off from Yt for a while, so it was quite refreshing to see this new video from your channel pop up in my feed just now (hello after a year or so! Haha) I’ll pull up your other stuff I’ve missed soon.
The content of this particular video called to mine, Buber’s I and Thou for some reason, possibly because I just read him recently.
✌️😄
There must be some misunderstanding here? You don’t have to practice Buddhist practices. You know that, right? Buddha Dharma is for those that have understood that the source to all dissatisfactions and sufferings is rooted in the temporary ignorance of the mind. That kind of person can easily progress into the essential principles of the teachings and draw great benefit from them.
Doubts will inevitably arise along the way but venting ones doubts publicly will be of no help but quite possibly be of harm to oneself and ones own relationship with ones own primordial wisdom, in the long run. Doubts arise naturally when newborn insights collide with ingrained mental habits. More practice, patience and study will eventually clear up doubts and it is transformed into genuine insights. That’s how we grow as practitioners on the spiritual path.
A lot of people are simply missing the point…we can still seek a fix or salvation in something helpful and genuine…it becomes an addiction to constant striving for betterment, change, while at the same time an inability to be satisfied with who we are right now.
This new industry has muddied the waters-constantly offering up new information and insights like the diet industry…
I think the points are: just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s pure and beyond criticism, it’s how we can treat seeking enlightenment in the same way as drug seeking…
And there are a massive amount of online gurus out there who profit from our insatiable need for answers, clarity, and salvation
I find it interesting that you debated the goal of the Buddhist path without mentioning rebirth.
The goal of the practice is to end rebirth and it only makes sense in that context. If you remove this component, the whole thing obviously collapses.
The Buddha saw for himself that we have been roaming around for an indiscernable amount of time. Most of that time spent as lower forms of existence. The blood we have shed could fill the world's oceans many times over, as he famously declared. Same for our tears.
When I was 19, someone tried to kidnap me. I narrowly escaped that sicko. Who knows, I might have ended up in his basement, being tied and tortured. It could have happened and I would have been powerless to avoid it.
My mother got brain cancer at age 50. She was a vibrant healthy active woman. She watched everything she saw as hers (body, intellect, senses) slowly collapse until her death 3 years later while semi-unconscious and no longer able to communicate.
This can happen to us at any moment: major accident, drowning, burning alive, being tortured, stroke, etc.
This is what the buddha encourages us to realise: our sense of control over our faculties is an illusion because they rest on a larger foundation of non-control. Everything is impermanent, not because it's constantly changing or whatever along those lines but because it can abruptly cease. In fact it will abruptly cease, we just don't know how or when.
To the west, east, south, north, there is a mountain headed our way and about to crush us.
Now if this existence is all there will ever be to us, then it does make sense to lick the honey razor with your loved ones and make the best out of it. I fully agree and, if that is the case, Buddhism is a dangerous trap.
However, if the Buddha is right, then the effort to reach extinguishment starts to make more sense because we have no idea what unimaginable horrors await us in future existences (have you ever watched hyenas turning on a member of their pack?).
Naturally, no one knows for sure what happens once we die. We just don't know.
If we lean towards a materialistic perspective, then we should listen to you. We should look at it as the glass half full. Definitely.
If we lean towards cyclical existence, then we should listen to the Buddha.
To me, there is evidence of both perspective.
Science pushes a materialistic perspective and teaches that our ego is the result of processes happening in the brain. Once the brain is dead, we cease to exist. This kind of makes sense and definitive proof of other theories have yet to be found.
However, there are NDE's and other disturbing accounts of subjective experience continuing after brain death. Who knows?
Personally, I CHOOSE to believe in rebirth because it is the best option out of all possibilities in my mind and because of such anecdotal stories.
So for me, the Buddha's teaching makes sense, however radical and antisocial. The Buddha never hid how radical his teaching is anyways. For example, he stated that anyone harboring the smallest thought of ill-will towards highway robbers sawing their limbs apart is not a true disciple of his. Now if that isn't extreme...
Well, Nietzsche is a little dangerous, too. I guess that the West, especially now, is already too atomized to take any community spirit for granted. Buddhism makes sense in context, but people really should understand what they're getting into. The Christian tradition can also be faulted for promoting monastic virtues to the laity. Yoga is different from Buddhism, at least if one is equipped to explore the various forms and not simply spoonfed a single program. That tradition has a variety of spiritual paths and a broad range of internal philosophies. One thing I never recommended is repression. You just need to be accountable with yourself. If you believe that you understand how to attain fulfillment, then by all means, go for it. At worst, you could change your mind when you're ready. Enlightenment is just like the dawn.
Meditation helped me greatly with rumination. I am both blessed and cursed by thought and those racing over the speed of thought feel particularly harsh. They can take on this half-life, latching onto emotions and looping infinitely. It becomes hard to notice those moments when those thoughts take over and meditation can be a great practice for noticing. It’s been a huge relief. However, behind every relief for life’s ailments can potentially lurk an ideology, that can twist up the baby inside the bathwater. With spirituality, this can be even more nefarious at times because enlightenment appears as such a net positive, that its potential toxicity can be obfuscated more easily.
I enjoyed your video tremendously because it shows a tension implicit in every revelation. How to judge the truth content against the viability of ones surrounding reality? That means both the value of an ultimate truth to the mysteries of existence and the utility of suffering. Those of us who have glanced behind the curtain are neither immune to being dealt another less visible curtain nor to needing one altogether. Therefore non-attachment may simply be attachment to non-attachment, which is at its core just another idea.
Making the cutting pain go away, and just licking the honey, flies in the face of all we can learn about our experience. As you said, the true spiritual path is reserved for the few. People tend to look for shortcuts and that is where misconceptions or misleadings can happen. The concept of nirvana or bliss is such a case. Nothing can be bliss but it is the somethingness of that nothing that we can experience. By the abscence of something we can contour our experiences but that doesn’t mean we denounce experience itself. I think that people seek relief from a meaningless, boring or agonizing life by feeling themselves less because it suggests that whatever pain they felt will go away. It turns out, not feeling anything is the worst feeling of all.
I’ve always been rather spirituality inclined but I also know that means I can be self-deceived - seeing patterns of meaning where there may not be any. That made me want to see the difference that makes a difference. I feel that my spirituality is at the core about connections. Connections between people, other beings, matter, events, experiences and ideas. I discovered metta loving-kindness meditation and am enjoying it greatly. I feel the glowing ricochet of being with others in my meditation.
Thanks for your thought-provoking videos. This one challenged me a little more than the others because it is the pool of ideologies that I am most vulnerable to. To paraphrase you, vulnerability is how we get to feel close to ourselves and therefore to others, which may just be how we’re designed to be.
"I'm not like those other gurus."
J. Krishnamurti?
@@wspolnotahim Here is for example Alan Watts during his lecture called Mind over Mind:
And then somebody comes along and says: ... "Well, as I said, they are all equally revelations of the divine. And in seeing this, of course, I am much more tolerant than you are." ... You see how that game is going to work? I could take this position. Supposing you regard me as some sort of a guru--and you know how gurus hate each other. They are always putting each other down. And I could say: ... "Well, I do not put other gurus down." ... See? That outwits all of them. We are always doing that. We are always finding a way to be one up, and by the most incredibly subtle means.
@@Ralderable I'm not interested of an opinion about Alan but J. Krishnamurtki, ok?
@@wspolnotahim apologies then 😊 I misinterpreted your question as you asking if it was Krishnamurti who expressed the quoted line. To which I responded by sharing a line by Watts where something similar was said.
@@Ralderable No, the question was: is J. Krishnamurti a con guru that convince you that he's not like others.
This reminds me of when I was roped into Stoicism as a teenager and got very emotionally numb from the constanr practice of non-attachment. I felt happy because... Hey look Marcus, I made it! But could not actually feel the happiness and denounced it as soon as it arose. Looking back, it was a sad way to experience life and I'm glad I grew past it for my own good.
Then just like he misunderstood buddhism I think you sadly misunderstood stoicism 🙏
Just like any other philosophy or tool, it can be quite dangerous if not grasp correctly (●'◡'●)
Thanks for sharing. Perception is a wonderful thing.
Regarding meditation, yes, it has the effect of making you so calm & detached that you don't feel extreme emotions. That is actually why it works for stress and psychological issues. But, in my personal experience, the effect is only maybe an hour or so. Maybe people who do it regularly get greater benefit. But, invariably, in psychological patients, they are incapable of even doing it.
My point is meditation's effect of flattening your emotional reaction is actually beneficial because it prevents the situation from spiraling out of control. But, as far as negative effects are considered, I have never felt any nor have I seen anyone complaint of such emotions except that their expectations were not met and resulted in frustration.
Most important of all, no master in meditation has been able to effectively communicate to their student as to what is the path and the state that is to be achieved, so that the student knows that his is on the right path.
Does it need to invoke a God or a mantra or a sound or is just simply nothing?
I have actually fallen asleep in many of my meditation sessions. I don't find any difference in meditation while lying down or sitting in a bus seat or seating in an asana [actually I found asanas more uncomfortable]. Sometimes, the mind is just wandering and sometimes it becomes more alert and focusses on nothing.
But, did not find any benefits than mentioned above and the path was always varied once enter into meditation.
But, I would like to add a disclaimer that I am more of a SIGMA and hence, since childhood, even before learning meditation or learning about Bhagvad Gita, as a Hindu, I have always sort of been aloof and detached.
"Most important of all, no master in meditation has been able to effectively communicate to their student as to what is the path and the state that is to be achieved, so that the student knows that his is on the right path."
- Thats such a unspecific claim that its impossible to not be right.
THere are many text that try to decipher it and there are many approaches to it. You may not find it "effective", yet there is as some sort of progress, which is an effect.
But on the other hand you are also completly right when say that they don't offer a "path". Depending on what path means to you. The thing with it is that (at least form my sources) i often heard that only the methodology is given. The path is something you discover yourself. Like you. You tried it out. You are not conviced. And thats ok. I like to read those books the most that specified that i have to make sure of it myself and that all the text in there is just proposal based on a flawed mind that strives for seeing more of the "truth of their being".
@@Rithmy Partly agree with you and hence, I found regular exercise far more useful than meditation or yoga. Sports are even better. In fact, sports are where I have achieved what laymen described as "THE ZONE". My guess is that that is what meditation is supposed to achieve but the descriptions given do not describe "THE ZONE".
But, it happens randomly. No specific degree of stress or focus. It sometimes happens even when I am trying to solve a medical case or search for an answer academically.
I go on for hours together to find the answer and don't feel tired at all. Of course, smoking is there to fight the diurnal rhythm mandated sleep.
@@maheshdocherla
Do you mean flow experience? Psychologists kinda try to define it. There are many studys on hoe beneficial it is and i find it very similar to the meditation state.
Tbh i would not simply recommend meditation to random people. I would recommend the basics. Sleep, eat, exercise, socialize. Master those and most non clinical problems will seem either manageable or can be helped with. Of course its not easy to do that in a capitalistic world but thats another things.
@@Rithmy I have read about flow experience a long time ago but I remember concluding that my experience was different. IN fact, the ZONE experience is quite different from what I achieve in actual meditation that I described in my first comment. In meditation, there is an emotional flatness and the fixed point when you get to that stage is a bit difficult to come out of. Whereas in sports etc, the emotions actually drive the ZONE even further and you are fully functional to your utmost limit.
Also, the success rate is far higher to achieve the ZONE. No need to do anything special, no procedure. Just an aim and the adrenaline to push it. You can also be multi-tasking in the ZONE, I have done it while preparing for my research publications about 15 yrs ago.
I have heard many sportspersons like cricketer Tendulkar and others describe.
Hence, overall my conclusion is that this is the better one because it is associated with productivity rather than meditation which is basically an unknown entity.
@@maheshdocherla
Really sounds like flow or hyperfocus to me. I would really like to hear more from how you describe it, but i feel like its kinda hard to communicate and listen over text to text.
Personally i like meditation (or sometimes i just call it sitting or "do nothing" time as i have no *real* buddhist attachment), exactly because it lacks productivity. For me it also has the effect of
I am sure we know best what nurtures us best.
Wow, I suppose that measured dopamine-fueled escapes are what we are truly after in life. That could also explain the mutual friendship bonds we so need throughout our lives. THANKS for simplifying this for me, as it needed to be brought forth in my consciousness!
Yeah, well, I had a kundalini awakening and it was magnificent! It wasn't deliberately brought on, but kind of spontaneous.
10:00 life is temporary. "Who wants to live forever"?
It is right it should be so
Man was made for Joy & Woe
And when this we rightly know
Thro the World we safely go
Joy & Woe are woven fine
A Clothing for the soul divine
Under every grief & pine
Runs a joy with silken twine
Great video
I can agree with the idea that being a person a part of the material world, connection to the world, having groundedness and part of it is important aspect of the human experience. My own "spiritual path" if I can call it that, has been to open myself more to life and experiences, but not be overwhelmed and destroyed by them. So the result of what I've gone through is the complete opposite of what you're mentioning here. But then again, I am interpreting it in my own terms.
There are some very good points here that I completely agree with, but I’d like to suggest a more nuanced view of all of this. I don’t know much about Buddhism beyond a superficial level, but the impression I got was that most of the criticisms were directed at the people I’ve heard Sam Harris call “concentration junkies”. Basically, people who get hooked on the good feelings provided by concentration practices and forsake most other things.
A very interesting practice that I think aligns better with the South Park guy’s philosophy is that of Mindfulness (I found out recently what the difference is between Right Concentration and Right Mindfulness in the Dharmachakra), and by that I mean the sort of open-attention mindfulness practices that Sam Harris most advocates for, as well as the metta practices for remedying the lack of emotional connection to others when that is the case.
As I said, I don’t know much about Buddhism, but a tradition that I discovered more recently and that I think is overall a lot more well-rounded is Vedanta. It basically recognizes that people come in all different shapes and sizes and thus there is no one-path-fits-all. It focuses more on the four core yogas: Bhakti, Karma, Rāja (the kind of concentration practices very often associated with Buddhism) and Jnāna yogas. Vedanta advocates for the idea that you may take any of those approaches or a combination thereof, but that usually the most recommended is to engage in all four practices while having them be directed by the one you’re the most naturally drawn to. So that way you’re not avoiding practices that are difficult for you just because they’re uncomfortable, and you’re also getting the benefits of practicing something you’re actually interested in, and using that to frame and motivate the other practices that are healthy but that maybe you’re not so fond of, so that things balance themselves out in the end.
If anyone who hasn’t heard of this approach, I highly recommend checking out the New York Vedanta Society YT channel, where Swami Sarvapriyananda goes very in depth and into the nuances of these concepts and practices, according to the teachings of Swami Vivekananda and Śri Rāmakrishna.
Personally I really like to balance Vedanta with the humanist psychology of Maslow (his original works, not the “pyramid” people associate with him but is actually not his) and Carl Rogers, for the more developmental side of things. The book “Transcend: The New Science of Self-Actualization” by Scott Barry Kaufman has been absolutely great for me. Also John Vervaeke’s philosophical approach to Cognitive Science in his YT lecture series “Awakening from the Meaning Crisis” is the wonderful glue that ties all of this together with science and philosophy. Hope this can help somebody 😁
Does Buddhist ontology teach that we are atomized individuals? I'm not anything resembling an expert on these matters, but I thought that Buddhism placed a big emphasis on community (Sangha), taught the middle way (rather than attachment and avoidance), and rejected the very notion of an atomized, cartesian ego as being anything other than an illusion...
Again, I'm nothing remotely like an expert on this stuff. I've stayed mostly within western philosophy and western religion, but I don't recall Buddhist teachings being about an atomized ego rejecting relationality. I think modern westerners are just so drenched in so called "enlightenment" values of materialism, atomism, cartesian dualism, substance ontology, etc. that it's next to impossible for most of us to even conceive of something different. Buddhism existed long before the lunatic asylum known as modernity came into existence, and I imagine it will be around long after modernity is good and dead.
Hi I'm a Buddhist and have studied a few texts so I may be able to answer this but first can you explain what you mean by "atomized individuals" and "Cartesian ego"?
I think he’s making a distinction between the stated beliefs and implications of actual practice in terms of individualism. “Engaged” schools are rather new and I don’t think the Sangha actually plays a role in most Buddhists lives, much more of a nebulous concept than say a church of England parish. More that Buddhists are congregationally structured in western terms, which like in the west also tends to be atomizing outside already existing strong family and community structures.
@@spelcheak I would agree on some parts but it's important to understand that the sangha does play a very important role in practice. But yeah more or less you rely on yourself with the aid of your sangha rather than being a part of a group.
@@infernocore9517 could you explain what the sangha does in your experience outside a monastic setting? Or where to find that information?
@@infernocore9517 My understanding of atomised individuals is that it refers to a view of the self that says everyone as independent, isolated individuals - essentially the philosophical assumption underpinning individualism. This is in contrast to the “relational” self that is common in a number of Eastern philosophies (and some Western).
Cartesian ego is similar, which emphasises mind/body dualism as well as a strong distinction between the subject and object, de-emphasising the view that all things are interconnected.
Ive been a Buddhist for 30 years!
Your opinion is the same I had when my GF told me about her ex that was a Buddhist.
I got jealous of hearing how kind and respectful he was
, so I decided to find everything negative about Buddhism to convince her he was full of s&#^#.
Now..The more I tried to find faults, the more Buddhist I became 😂
Now I feel completely aligned with it, but still living normally and being depressed as fuck, while loving life ❤
So I think you should continue what you do, but please dig deeper than you've done !Read the suttas and maybe even interview an experiences munk or two from each tradition? ❤❤
Keep us poated!
Thank you for this video. I struggle with this central Buddhist notion. I am beginning to trust my own instincts. I have struggled with how love, joy and compassion can be negative aspects of our experience of existence. It’s seems the middle way is always the easiest to lose. We will suffer and maybe wisdom is to understand that it can’t be avoided, to lean into joyous connection instead. My pragmatist values of truth make buying a nihilist view that my joy is wrong feel like a valid critique of Dissociative philosophy. Impermanence seems a reason to embrace love and engagement, not spurn it. One can be both be a construct and an actor in a minor true relationship with the moment of reality. I think of Job. This was impactful. I thank you. 😊
Thank you, great insight.
i used to always say: "enlightenment sucks"
Fantastic video! I wholeheartedly agree. You see these types of spiritual/social panacea everywhere. _The path to happiness is this!_ They have found one thing that clicked with them and then claim it's for anyone. One true aspect of happiness/justice/meaning or whatever and now it's an ideology or a way of life.
Buddhism claims to have an answer to a problem that almost nobody that isn't a Buddhist acknowledges as such: attachment to desires. How many people are there that consider this a problem other than addicts? Who can really say that desiring to become a doctor, scientist, lawyer, teacher, traveler, a life of intellectual pursuit, watching movies or series or simply have sex regularly is really a bad thing? Everything in moderation. Having no possessions or attachment to anything is not a good way of life.
Have some. Not too little, not too much.
I feel you did not engage with the subject in a fair manner. How can one even begin to speak of the Buddhist path without stressing one of its three pillars, Sanga, which is after all community that involves connection, compassion and love? Your discussion is too one-sided and reductionist. You speak of the dangers of the Buddhist/ Yoga path as if the path that you seem to advocate does not often produce hideous outcomes. (Read any newspaper for ample examples.) Nonethelss, you make some excellent points here and have often produced some brilliant work. Your intelligence, sincerity and empathy seem to me to beyond question.
In the words of Alan Watts "Their are no perpetual state's" we're here to experience and share in each others pain and happiness, in the words of Bill Hicks " we are all one consciousness experiencing life SUBJECTIVELY " meditation should only be used medicinely, life is predetermined book but we're still reading the book in real time. The point of meditating on a mountain top is the self realisations of what your missing out on at the base of the mountain, Happiness, sadness, pain, suffering...your missing out on Living Life. 🙏🙏🙏.
Thanks!
There have always been insoluble aporia surrounding tanha (desire/craving), not the least of which must be the impetus to transcend the same in order to attain Buddhist salvation - nirvana, whatever the frittata that is, for what is that impetus itself, if not another desire?
Life depends on consumption - I mean literally we have to eat to continue to live - so this existential condition of existence itself is grounded in appetition-satisfaction, which writes large the role of desire in all psychological reality. Of course, if you have no wish to live, then you may always self-immolate, noting of course that this too constitutes a desire. The standard Buddhist strategy to answer this conundrum is to qualify the demonisation of desire, that is, appetition-satisfaction, in a move that effectively collapses it as one of the most rudimentary of Buddhist principles, the aforementioned fourth noble truth.
The stoics make the same point as you do, yes nothing lasts forever, yes death and transformation are inevitable, but they embrace this and live their lives with more realistic expectations, just like you said
Amor fati
Amor fati
really good eye opening video mate
I think you can have both (or sort of middle ground): self-reliance, acceptance of some sort of solitude and loss (if that happens) and ability to still feel joy in some things if they are really something you life
emotional pallet isn't very wide, and feelings may not be that intense, but it's the thing that keeps me sane and I wouldn't like being more "normal". the things are somehow related to my core values are still joyful, the bad parts of life can be annoying, irritating, but not that deep to the point of intense anger or sadness, etc.
I feel like this might be a misunderstanding of buddhism? I don't know much about buddhism, but my sense is that it's actually trying to have you end the desire to end desire. NOT merely end desire. That's why there is the addage 'first there was a mountain, then there wasn't, then there was' It's not about abandoning life, it's about fleeing INTO life. The mistake we make is pursuing things believing that once attained it will end out pursuit of things. Buddhism teaches us to accept that the pursuit never ends, and so in understanding this, we pursue things with a different attitude. No longer do we pursue something like love in hopes that it will secure us for eternity. We pursue it for it's own sake, well aware that it's impermanent. And BECAUSE it's impermanent, there is a necessary pain that comes with it. It only need that we get out of our own way, because we are already configured for all of this. Because of dependent origination, everything is simultaneously instrumentally and intrinsically valuable. This means that everything is an instrument towards it's own intrinsic worth, that is what makes it intrinsically worthy. It exists both for it's own sake and that of another object, and same with that object too. In essence, reality is a perfect system that inherently yields pleasure, meaning ect.
How very Zen. Thumbs up.
It's toxic for those who want to know it, but not so for those who realise it through experience. ☯
I feel like maybe just a little bit of detachment or spiritualism can help you be like butters and appreciate the emotions/experiences that you go through, such as sadness over a breakup, or the temporary pain of jogging for example. but I agree that full Buddhist enlightenment is maybe not good.
Note: I don't currently have very good personal relationships so take my advice with salt.
I don't know what Buddhist enlightenment is that well, but it feels like to me to be to be the pursuit of being nothing (esp since existence comes from connection with others arguably), when (to me) we will already be nothing when we die and eventually fade out of memory (to Buddhists we will be reincarnated over and over again, i don't think one perspective is necessarily more true than another), so I think we should pursue living life in the deepest/best way, and/or helping others do so, while we/they can.
“Buddhist enlightenment is (…) the pursuit of being nothing (esp since existence comes from connection with others.”
No. But one aspect of Buddhist enlightenment is to understand and live according to the fact that you are not a “thing” in itself and ultimately you are nothing without the connection or interaction with other beings. You seem to be partially enlightened. Congrats! 😄
follow the way of the heart, use meditation and mindfulness to connect to your emotions and the emotions of others, this too is a spiritual path and one based on empathy and connection and the unity of being.
The confusion really comes from thinking of Buddha as a philosopher, proposing ideas that will make one live better. But that is such a dim picture of the whole thing. It's not a contest of ideas it's about the truth and our own direct experience.
A lot this ways based upon a perverted understanding of the Dhamma. But his point are still valid as this is the understanding a lot of people carry.
But ultimately it was a huge strawman it doesn't remotely aling with what the Buddha meant by "Suffering" or the middle way
Interesting thougts ..in most Himalayan buddhist monastery Meditation is not practiced everyday...it rare and partice by special few.....there is more to monastic life then just meditation. I love the sense of community, experience all range of emotions and co habits with others..its a daily compassiinate effort to managed one emotions and thoughts without the risk of becoming numb.......also shared resources to minimise the pressure on global environmental health.
I think the westerns interest and academic and neurosience and neo liberal interest to extract the juice of meditation to optimise the human profamance to the level of robots is ruining it for everyone...😅
Very good video.
I forgot. I don't know if you've read Life Of Pi. An alternative look at the concept of faith.
Another great piece of thought.
Cheers Nate
Nice to see someone else talking about how asceticism is self-defeating, destructive garbage. It’s also very popular in western religion, as if the way to get closer to God is to reject the life He supposedly gave us. Love the new format, btw 👍
Great stuff. Great - videos!
I went through a phase of “deep spiritual exploration” between ages 15 and 23. It definitely hindered my social development and decreased my enjoyment of life. I can’t identify any lasting positive effects.
Then you were not exploring the right way 🙏
But you are right, it can be either a blessing or a curse depending how you handle it
@@Roxar96 agreed. But the “right way” was not available. The only choices seemed to be the dominant religious bullshit, wannabe hippie mumbo jumbo, or try to interrupt the often conflicting literature. Still not sure what the “right way” is and I’m too old and tired to keep searching.
@@weschrist Which is not a problem 👌
Good luck to you ✨
I agree Buddhism is bad, but the overall idea is a real one.
It's true that those external pleasures are transient, so you don't want to focus on them overall as a strategy.
What you want is sustainable activities and it's what being religious is about. Meditation obviously is sustainable if you like it.
But there is a whole range of sustainable activities that can be done with externals. It depends on your situation.
It's no different than people that want solar energy instead of fossil fuel. It just makes sense overall long term.
Obviously, the problem is some people take it as a fix for their own issues but the reason they have those issues in the first place is because they do care about any externals. It definitively won't fix them, just give the impression of it. I think you are right in the end, that it is only for some people. I know other people are the source of all my problems so for me it makes a lot of sense but you have to give up on things like money, fame, sex and all those things which is obviously not for everybody. If people don't make that realization, it's pointless to go through with it, but they could take it easy on those things because "loneliness" is actually people that want those and can't do it, not those that don't want them. So having lower expectations works for everybody, but the extent of it will vary. Buddhism and religious life in general are just too extreme because they basically seek death while a true spiritual path is I believe to enjoy the small things.
@@OneLine122 *_As a beetle carries dung... an atlas carries the world._*
Great video!
Kashmir Shaivism says that you are God and should enjoy life, have a family, fulfill your destiny etc. Same with Hermeticism
Wow, bro. You just went chainsaw massacre on Buddhism with a humble Irish accent and tone of voice :)
Mh, the deep dive into life through vulnerability, is what i call the spiritual path. Semantic... i do agree that wanting to be a spiritual person is avaoidiance of your needs.
But i also feel like we are not evalutating the spiritual paths at their right value opposing, living life fully and detatchement. Becaus the consequence of detatchement is basically, living life fully, plesure and pain and everything. In my understanding of them, taken wholly, these spiritual teachings tell us you don't need to intelectualise everything. You can and do have direct expérience of it. Detachement is not holding what you think of the world to be true. Your relationships are not the way you think they are, they are the way they are. Just as your thoughts are. Not what you think of them but them.
And the external aspect of it all is, to my mind, that it is a placé where we tend to believe that what we think is true. And as we are decieved and this thought is prouven false. We realise our thoughts are not 100% true. It doesent give you lasting plesure, nor pain. It only changes the way you relate, and so the way you Will be able to interact with the world. Because, knowing thoughts are not à viable source of truth about the world, you go to your senses and the direct perception of it all. Including your thoughts and emotions. And you live from that place. You are so to say brought back to your origin. Living, percieving, right here right now everything that can be lived. Both the good and the bad, just living it.
To me dionisys and buddha are one and the same person. With a différent face though.
Have à good Day! Thank you for the video.
Thats very interesting. People may pursue spirituality for the wrong reasons and too much of anything can be harmful. But I think spirituality is a very desirable part of life if you don't neglect your humanity. "Be in the world, but not of it".
Nice one James! Missed you!
Thanks Lindy
Not all Buddhism teaches you that you can achieve enlightenment through your own actions. In fact very few actually do really teach that. They often teach that you should be moral/devout so you have a good rebirth, instead. Many Pure Land Buddhists and non-meditating Theravada Buddhists generally believe you can’t achieve enlightenment in this life, while numerous other groups teach that everyone already is enlightened anyway and as such need to start acting like it (Japanese sects, in particular). Still other groups insist it will take essentially millions of years of rebirths to achieve.
Buddhism is not a religion of gurus and cult leaders for the most part. In the west it is new so there are more suspect groups since it’s still considered very weird. Most Buddhist monks and priests are very much by-the-book. It’s in Zen, especially Rinzai-and Tibetan Buddhism where you tend to find more devotion to specific teachings of a living teacher, and that can easily become culty.
An English guru said, "The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." He also told us our minds shackle us to fear and loathing.
Great job 👏 ❤ thank you
yes the spiritual path isn't chosen, it find you, and you will be emersed in it, and it can't be ran away from, same as I cant run away from my life in spiritual non attachment spiritual bypassing. I don't think its a bad thing to recognize desires as temporary and feel less fulfillment towards them. This can happen on its own, and not feeling as strongly about something or not feeling anything at all might just occur one day.
There seems to be two main philosophies.
The transcendent philosophy wants to escape this world and this life, so they create the concept of a higher eternal world to escape into.
The immanent philosophy focuses on this life in this world, for them the idea that life is meaningless merely because it is temporary would seem plain absurd.
Transcendent philosophy might be not fully nihilistic, but it creates the breeding ground for nihilism, then if you accept that life has only meaning in eternity, but realizes that there is no eternal world beyond, then nihilism will be the conclusion.
i like the immanent philosophy more (if i understood you right). Its more about finding "Heaven on earth" instead of waiting for heaven after *death/ascension*.
That life holds no meaning actually motivates to give it meaning in that aspect. I find it closly related to existantial philosophy..
A lot to unpack there , but I think there is something essentially avoidant and nihilist in Buddhist belief , advocated as liberation - no self , no aim , no form - extinguish all notions - but it is a life that is far from abundant. ( Not to decry the benefits of detachment ).The desire for pleasure and power , and material things is definitely a losers game . Life requires some meaning for fulfilment , I believe - and a common valid shared meaning is right conduct , right thinking ie righteousness . A moral compass is essential ( not for moral imbeciles / psychopaths ) . Of course , it is all a matter of individual choice ,and then being authentic to that choice . Meister Eckhart said ‘ We should not so much ask what we should do ,as rather who we should be .’ Food for thought . Thanks .
This video felt like it called me out ngl.
I do hate my life and I'm a pessimist towards everything in general and I think I won't change that, but still, this was a good critique, I guess.
The weird thing is that... I do want something that would allow me to find permanent satisfaction, but the while idea of abandoning all desire never sat right with me anyway, the "it feels human to feel sadness/other emotions" like that is something that I understand and I've thought about despite everything. It's weird but it feels like an existence where there's no sadness ever is worse than one where it exists a bit, it does strangely enough give a meaning and in fact it can be weirdly addictive.
I'm looking for a middle ground I guess, neither "abandon everything to reach X state" or "things are fine the way they are".
I think I just got off topic during this comment but I've written too much and don't want to delete it. I probably just missed the point like I tend to do, but welp.