Great video, but the use of the term 'soul' is a bit misleading. Such a concept is likewise rejected in Buddhism and is one of the other controversies surrounding it compared to the other religions in it's founding region. The idea of Anatta or no-self is very relevant to our current state of being as well as Buddhahood, and isn't our goal but is actually the truth of our being. You went to some other extremes with the summary as well Tristan; enlightenment isn't a state of non-existence so much as a freeing what we call the self from the illusions of desire and separation.
Soul is also a complicated term though. There have been major uses of that word in Western thought (such as by Plato and Aristotle) that are completely consistent with Buddhism. Of course I say Western thought but it's not like the Socratics and Indian philosophy were ever completely separated.
@@JoshuaHillerup yes good point. Neither ancient Greeks, Greco-Buddhists, nor Ancient Indians used the exact world 'Soul', which itself is abstract and contextually ambiguous. There is however significant distinction between anatta/anatman and the concept of atman ie. having no fixed essence
@@highwaytothesun yup, I agree with that. Heck, there were philosphers who argued that plants clearly had something that we now translate to "soul" because they grew. Or that soul means the capacity for movement. Buddhists talk about things that can be translated to soul, and contrast them as being distinct from other concepts that can also be translated to soul.
~1:11 "Siddhartha was a prince in what would be modern day Nepal" *Enraged Indian screaming* Okay, but in all seriousness, the actual location of the place Siddhartha (whose name is pronounced with more of a "t" sound than an English "th", for the record) came from is a little up in the air. It was definitely on the India-Nepal border, but which side of that border isn't known for sure. Both countries make being the birthplace of Buddha a point of national pride, so taking the Nepali side has just opened you up to the wrath of the second most populous country on earth. Good luck.
Vatthugāthā, Sutta Nipāta: 'The Bodhisatta, the excellent pearl, the incomparable, is born for the good and for a blessing in the world of men, in the town of the Sakyas, in the country of Lumbinī. Therefore we are glad and exceedingly pleased. (683)
@@birkmcclain6220 Yes, the point of controversy is whether the location of the modern site of Lumbinī is actually the same as the original site. I personally believe that it most likely is, but some people are very insistent that it is not. The ancient sources describe its location in relation to two other towns, one of which was situated in an unclear location, hence why people feel justified in arguing about this (the Nepalese claim is far more convincing, but don't tell any other Indians I said that).
Yaaaay big up for religion for breakfast! Cool to see you two collaborate! Super bummed out that I have to wait for more but hey, loved the images you used in the video, took almost everything for drawing documentation! Anyway thanks for the video and keep it fresh!
some good coles notes! it's definitely a LOT to smash in. in my understanding you don't necessarily have to believe in reincarnation full stop, but there are a lot of concepts like that that are tools to help you come to broader understandings of how to move closer to the lasting happiness that comes from detaching from harmful delusions (anger, fear, greed, etc.). there's also so much philosophy around fear (vs. courage) and selfishness etc. that is really useful that I'd recommend people dig into! looking forward to part 2 :)
Mexie You have to believe in the three Jewels (The Buddha, the Dharma and Sangha (If you have)) to be able obtain freedom from rebirth. Doubt is a hindrance.
Reincarnation can be viewed as a metaphor for taking on an identity, a fixed solid view of oneself. Like: "I am a Buddhist. That's what I am." Then anything even vaguely derogatory towards Buddhism is inherently derogatory of you. And each time you do that, create a delineated sense of something about you, you've incarnated around that. And that self inevitably falls away - it "dies" - until the next time you step into that identity of "I am this thing" (you've reincarnated). Video games or sports or politics or masculinity or anything like that. Insert one of those. I'm sure you've seen people "incarnate" around any of those...
There are a lot of big inaccuracies here. For example, using the word 'soul' is in opposition to the anatta doctrine highlighting the lack of an enduring self.
These days, there's various schools of Buddhism. The original Buddhism is Theravada Buddhism. Many prominent and influential people claimed to be Buddhist (Many of them were Americans), but they weren't. They were just atheists pretending to be Buddhists.
"Atheists pretending to be buddhists"?!? Are you implying that buddhists are not atheists? Some of them may believe is spiritual beings (heavenly buddhas or boddhisattvas) but that is not the same things as belief in, much less worship of some god or gods. The concept of a God or gods is irrelevant to buddhism. Atheists can certainly be buddhists. One need not be a theist to be a Buddhist. Just what did you mean by that comment: "atheists PRETENDING to be buddhists"? Why do you say they are "pretending" to be buddhist? What do you think is the difference between a REAL buddhist and one just "pretending" to be such?
@@lshulman58 "It is fitting for you to be perplexed, O Kālāmas, it is fitting for you to be in doubt. Doubt has arisen in you about a perplexing matter [(the validity and efficacy of Buddhism, when compared to other religions or philosophies)]. Come, Kālāmas. Do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of texts, by logic, by inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or because you think, '[This devoted and accomplished person] is our teacher.' But when you know for yourselves [(through your own personal experience)], 'These [teachings] are unwholesome; these [teachings] are blameable; these [teachings] are censured by the wise; these [teachings], if undertaken and practiced, lead to harm and suffering,' then you should abandon them. ... [furthermore] when you know for yourselves (through your own personal experience)], 'These [teachings] are wholesome; these [teachings] are blameless; these [teachings] are praised by the wise; these [teachings], if undertaken and practiced, lead to welfare and happiness,' then you should engage in them. ..." -The Buddha
@@lshulman58 primarily the above comment. Some atheists and (in my opinion) "not-real-buddhists" don't heed The Buddha's advice in the above quote. Instead of seeking to come to an understanding of the Dhamma (Buddhism) through personal experience, they mostly seem to just be interested in trying to intellectualy interact with the ideas inspired by it (that or take up buddhist trapings and asthetics for shallow reasons like vanity). Whenever they come up against an idea that offends their sensibilities in some way, instead of taking that as an opportunity to observe their reaction to the Dhamma and question the personal views they hold, in light of the buddhist ideas they've come into contact with, they tend to defensivly react by engaging in some form of coping behavior of some form or another. They come up with all the reasons why the Dhamma is incorrect or ignore the uncomfortable parts and idealize the teaching to suit their personal preferences. Ultimately it comes down to their unwillingness or inability to directly and meaningfully engage with The Buddha's teaching.
yeah...I'm not so sure about "The Original Buddhism" part. I personally practice and prefer Theravada, but from everything I've read and learned, only those who aren't well versed in buddhist history claim that Theravada is "The Original". Sure it's the oldest extant tradition, but the oldest remaining records of the teachings (incomplete though they may be) are actually more closely related to the Mahayana tradition.
Well Steve was a Zen Buddhist which almost has nothing to do with actual Buddhism so take that into consideration. It's a huge difference. Zen Buddhists believe that enlightenment is right here and there is nothing to do to get it. Just be in the here and now and be complete present. Zen Buddhism is more similar to Daoism than Buddhism. So that is what Steve Jobs is
@Lainon xyz I mean what ARE the practices of Zen. It's just the practice of Zazen. Anti materialism and following the eightfold path aren't at all having to do with Zen. It's just meditation. That's why it's more similar to Daoism
@@vforvazquez6503 true (for the most part), but saying that Zen (practitioner of Theravada here, so don't get me wrong) has very little to do with Buddhism in general is unfounded and misleading. The concept of "here and now, nothing needs be achived" enlightenment has very strong parallels with some of the foundational concepts of earliest buddhism. Primarily with the distinction The Buddha made between nibbana (nirvana) and samsara, and the description of nibbana as being the "unconditioned" state. The "deathless" state, being that it is devoid of birth or origination. No origination, no cessation. Enlightenment never "begins", because if it did, then it could end. Not to mention that the single most important tool and practice of buddhism (and The Buddha's personal favorite) is sitting meditation.
"Ananda, if I - being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self - were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I - being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self - were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I - being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self - were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?" "No, lord." "And if I - being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self - were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'" - SN 44.10, ānanda sutta
Yo dawg, the 4 Noble Truths are deeply, profoundly bed-rock & core to the belief system, so to gloss of them in like 30 seconds - I personally think - isn't consistent with your stated thesis. There's more to each of them than just what you put in there. As is the Triple Gem of The Three Refuges: Buddha, Dhamma (or Dharma), and Sangha. There are multiple interpretations of each piece, but a common break-down is the Buddha - the figure - the teachings themselves - the Dharma - and the community of the monastics - both of the Buddha's day as well as today. One other interpretations of Sangha is about how we move through our own communities, which ties into Sila or "ethical action." A common break-down of that is into the 5 Precepts: not deliberately causing death or intentional harm to any living being; not taking that which is not freely given; abstaining harmful use of sexuality or sexual energy; abstaining from harmful speech; and abstaining from drink & drugs which lead to heedlessness. Also, you can't talk about Buddhist fundamentals without mentioning the largest split: Theravadan vs Mahayana. Here is a serviceable overview of the differences: oneminddharma.com/theravada-mahayana-buddhism/ That'd be kinda like talking about Christianity without mentioning catholicism and protestantism, or maybe more appropriately orthodox and Catholic, the differences there. I found Noah Levine's Against The Stream very helpful in actually making the stuff make sense, tho I have to point out that he has recently accused of sexual and financial improprieties and I think his main groups he started have shut down.
Sorry for yelling, I'm just frustrated because it's not linked anywhere obvious here (like the description) and I can't find it by looking through your listed videos on your channel (but I'm new here so I haven't watched all of them, just perused through the titles). Did you just forget to make it yet, or am I missing it somewhere?
When we look at the original texts, the Pali Suttas, which scholars agree are the oldest texts containing Buddha's teachings, it's not at all mystical or mysterious. Buddha was very analytical, explaining his claims and the terms he uses, giving precise definitions he repeats in many sermons, in a sort of mnemonic way, he has various formulas and lists which he repeats many times. Buddha literally means "awakened". He wasn't actually a prince, his dad wasn't a king, but a town leader, and a delegate of that town to the parliament. Their state was an ancient republic, run by an assembly of ~500 local leaders, which elected a (non-hereditary, limited term) 'king'. There is no historical evidence Buddha's father was ever elected to be this 'king'. The story about Buddha's palace privileged life is a later myth. The lotus flower is a symbol of purity, bc it is in the water, but risen above it and not wet. "Striving for buddahood" is a concept in later schools of Buddhism, there is nothing of the sorts in the original texts, and also, it is different from escaping the cycle of rebirth. One can aim to escape the cycle of rebirth, but striving for buddhahood is actually striving to develop such traits so that one becomes a Buddha in some next life, and thus help other beings by being such a person and preaching the teaching of Buddhas. That's why Mahayana calls itself that, "great vehicle" as opposed to hinayana "small vehicle", they strive to remain in the cycle of rebirth so they can help other, as opposed to simply wanting to save themselves from that cycle. But, as I said, this is a later teaching. "Doing good deeds and transferring karma to others". Firstly, no, monks don't do good deeds, except teach. They have nothing to give, they don't work or make anything (like eg ancient Christian monks), and their many rules and secluded life practically prevent them from helping people. Secondly, transferring karma to others is according to Buddha impossible, he repeats many times the formula "I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir", and "I am not the only one who is the owner of one’s actions, the heir of one’s actions; who has actions as one’s origin, actions as one’s relative, actions as one’s resort; who will be the heir of whatever actions, good or bad, that one does. All beings that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of their actions, heirs of their actions; all have actions as their origin, actions as their relative, actions as their resort; all will be heirs of whatever actions, good or bad, that they do." and also says explicitly "By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another." Regarding asceticism, buddhist monks live off the food given to them only. They eat only between sunrise and noon, and Buddha recommend that they eat only one meal then, this is not a rule, just a recommendation, but what is most important is that they don't eat for pleasure but simply for nurishment, Buddha repeats many times the formula monks should have in mind, that food is "not for fun, not for pleasure, not for fattening, not for beautification, but only for the maintenance and nourishment of this body, for keeping it healthy, for helping with the Holy Life; thinking thus: I will allay hunger without overeating, so that I may continue to live blamelessly and at ease". Also monks are not to listen to music, not to watch entertainment, not to use perfumes, cosmetics or any adornments, or to use soft chairs or beds. This is pretty ascetic. These are also the rules laypeople are to follow once a week (Uposatha days), to prepare for meditation, which they are also to do on that day. What Buddha was against as "too much asceticism" is not abstinence, but practices done as active asceticism, like fasting and eating too little, or standing for some time without moving, or purposefully wearing uncomfortable clothes, etc. "Ceasing to exist as an individual", Buddha says that when a person after death doesn't get reborn, we can't say of such person that they either exist, or not exist. He explicitly says it's not non-existence, but it also isn't existence, at least as we know it. He says in another place that we can only really talk about his world, the cycle of rebirth, this is our "all". The state outside the cycle of rebirth is beyond this "all" we know. This point of Buddha's sounds kinda similar to the differentiation between phenomenal world and the noumenal world in Kant, or Wittgenstein's "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Although Buddha does add that this state beyond rebirth is 'ultimate happiness' and that is the only thing which is permanent, everything else being changing and impermanent. Many people also get wrong what Buddha taught. You give the Four Noble Truths as his teaching, but this is only the end of his teaching, which he said is for monks (as is the Noble Eight-fold Path, it being the Fourth Truth), he has previous teachings for lay people. But not to get ahead of myself, and of your part 2 video, I will wait till you post that video and comment there x)
Lotus is a symbol for purity not because it’s wet or not. It is because even though it grew from the dirty mud under the water, it is still beautiful and pure.
There is no "soul" (Atman) concept in buddhism, nothing standing like a "soul", only a karma flow of consciousness. Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation but in rebirth. The karmic flow rebirthing in the samsara is "you" but not "you". The "thing" that rebirth is a consequence of all your past thaugts, actions and speechs (karma) of all your pasts rebirths, this is not your actual personnality. Exemple : your child is a consequence of you, is not You. When you plant a seed, the new tree is a consequence of the tree where you keep the seed, not the same tree. So when you die, there is no full destruction, no annihilation, no nothingness, but there is no permanent, standing thing that survive to your death. Your rebirth is not a totaly new person, but this is not standing "soul" life after life. Nothing is standing in the reality. Creation from nothing is impossible but nothingness, annlihlation, is impossible too, this is the view of the Middle. Reality is no creation and no destruction, the reality is in the middle. This is the correct view confirm by science, french chemist Lavoisier : nothing is created, nothing is lost, all is transformed. (XVIIIth century).
Many many years ago I heard the idea that The Budha actually asked for his teaching not be turned into a religion, they were only lessons and not a religion with rituals and all. I wonder if that has some truth in it...
Kinda makes me think of the yoruba traditional religion were reincarnation occurs as souls seek out a supposed destiny trying to find fulfilment and according to some text I've read eventually reunite with the consciousness of the Supreme god Olorun that all things posese a peice of said consciousness known as Ase the power to create change in life and shape one's fate
This is actually an oversimplification. The idea is that you already do not exist as an individual and should approach the cognitive/sensory appearances that show up as making someone an individual unity with no desires and look at them as what they truely are, a multiplicity (not unity) of processes which you might not even be able to control. Simultaneously buddhism emphasizes that these processes are connected to everything, without there being a true boundary between the rest of the universe and the individual, just as a wave is a modulation of the ocean. Many buddhists have also claimed that nirvana and samsara are the same thing, but samsara is what a person filled with desire and illusion sees and exeriences, while nirvana is what an enlightened person sees and experiences.
One of the hardest parts of Buddhism is explaining things in terms of non duality. Non- existence framed like this sounds like annihilationism which is considered a wrong view. Human language is not good at describing non duality so saying the goal is neither existence nor non-existence doesn't make a lot of sense without deeper explanation. Non duality can only be internalized and inadequately explained within the confines of language.
Pain and suffering are not synonymous, nor even related. Pain is no more than one of the body's neurological responses to its environment. Suffering, on the other hand, is psychological, a dissatisfaction born of the delusion that life as it is in this moment is somehow incomplete, that there is some indefinable other yet to be attained. Thus, it was in setting aside his overwhelming need to know the cause of suffering that Siddhartha set aside suffering itself - and became the Buddha.
I believe in reincarnation and that we choose the life we have so in effect we choose how we suffer. I think it's unnatural to try tobreak the chain of life and death. I also do not believe in punitive karma as we choose the life in order to learn what we need so that our "bigger" selves will grow in knowledge and wisdom to reach higher levels (dimensions).
I still don't understand how that concept of Nirvana is different from how an atheist sees suicide. And I've been trying to figure that out for decades.
i don't guess they are different, but the materialist sees consciousness as originated from and dependent on the brain, whereas the buddhist identifies another prerequisite
"It is fitting for you to be perplexed, O [Joshua Hillerup], it is fitting for you to be in doubt. Doubt has arisen in you about a perplexing matter. Come, [Joshua Hillerup]. Do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of texts, by logic, by inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or because you think, '[This devoted and trained person] is our teacher.' But when you know for [yourself (through your own personal experience)], 'These [teachings] are unwholesome; these [teachings] are blameable; these [teachings] are censured by the wise; these [teachings], if undertaken and practiced, lead to harm and suffering,' then you should abandon them. ... [furthermore] when you know for [yourself (through your own personal experience)], 'These [teachings] are wholesome; these [teachings] are blameless; these [teachings] are praised by the wise; these [teachings], if undertaken and practiced, lead to welfare and happiness,' then you should engage in them. ..." -The Buddha
"Why is it, Master Kachahna, that [the elites] fight with [the elites], [religious leaders] with [religious leaders], and [common people] with [common people]?" "It is, [Father Aramadanda], because of attachment ... [and] ... [devotion] to ... , fixation on ... , addiction ... [and] obsession with sensual pleasures, holding firmly to sensual pleasures that [the elites] fight with [the elites], [religious leaders] with [religious leaders], and [common people] with [common people]. "[Then why] is it ... , that [those who devote themselves to higher thoughts and ideals] fight [amongst one another aswell]?" "It is ... because of attachment ... [and] ... [devotion] to ... , fixation on ... , addiction ... [and] obsession with [opinions, ideals and beliefs], holding firmly to [opinions, ideals and beliefs] that [those who devote themselves to higher thoughts and ideals] fight [amongst one another aswell]." -AN 2: iv, 6, abridged [and paraphrased]; I 66
You mention making karma/merit for yourself and from others, however you omit to mention this is completely different for men and women to the there are two systems not one.
@@StepBackHistory I was asking specifically in a Buddhism context. Such as men able to earn merit by becoming monks but women earning none by becoming nun. People earning merit by giving alms to monks but not earning any merit by giving alms to nuns. Women being largely dependent on their sons to earn merit for the next life for them by becoming a monk, while men can earn their own. Daughters being unable to earn merit for the mother being largely worthless. Men allowed in many Buddhist sites to touch or stand beside the relics gaining merit but women not allowed near them because they are unclean and would contaminate them.... and so on. BTW I spent 10 years of my life living in Buddhist countries. Whenever I hear westerners talk about Buddhism they talk about Buddhism without mentioning everything they say is only for men misleading people it is the same for women. Buddhism is a different religion for women, it has a sexual divide that dwarfs the one in Christianity.
@@Fiddling_while_Rome_burns the divide between men and women in religion, as in societies in general, seems universal. But I would say that is the influence of social norms on religion rather than blame it on the religions themselves. Ancient cultures (that spawned most of today's religions) did tend to be patriarchal. However, more contemporary (newer) religions as well as newer forms of old religions (newer "denominations") do making efforts to treat men and women more equally.
@@lshulman58 If you look at Buddhism, there is such a huge range of cultures in the religion, compared to say European Christianity. If cultural norms were shaping the religion you would expect huge differences in the religion in the treatment of women reflecting the differing societies but you don't have this. In countries where women have traditionally had few rights and low status such as China, Korea, Tibet, ect their is little difference in the way the religion treats women to the countries where women have traditionally had a much higher status and greater rights such as Northern SE Asia (Lao, Thailand, Cambodia ect).
@@lshulman58 not to mention the original reason for the exclusion of women from the order of monks and later on their segragation. That of course being the power of the human sex drive. The Buddha may have espoused plenty of ideals, but its hard not to see (if you actually study the canonicl texts) that he was also a pragmatic realist. Having been a devilishly handsome young man with unfettered access to beautiful women, as well as being married, he knew how much power sexual desire held over people.
then it simply means this is not the religion of Adam, Moses, Abraham,Solomon David Jesus and Muhammad because the oldest religion of these prophets is Tawheed means one God which later renamed by the prophet Muhammad (islam) means peace...by the way you have a nice video bro thanks
“But what, Ānanda, does the Community of monks expect of me? The Teaching has been taught by me, Ānanda, without having made a distinction between esoteric and exoteric, for the Realised One there is nothing, Ānanda, of a closed teacher’s fist in regard to the Teaching. - DN 16, mahāparinibbāna sutta in fact, buddhism is not intended to be mysterious at all but rather plain "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. - SN 12.15, kaccānagotta sutta
These three things, monks, are conducted in secret, not openly. What three? Affairs with women, mantras of the brahmins, and wrong view. But these three things, monks, shine openly, not in secret. What three? The moon, the sun, and the Dhamma and Discipline proclaimed by the Tathāgata. -AN 3:129; I 282-83
Yeah, that's why I'm not a Buddhist anymore. To me, it was nihilistic, passive, life-extinguishing. It's nice to see all those monks meditate and being serene from a far distance but after you interact with them you realize that you can find a flaw in any of their thinking. From Dalai Lama not wanting (for a reason or another) to uplift the Tibetan peasants (but don't trust the Chinese either on this topic) to zen masters cheering for imperialism, to shady sexual cultic practices to zillions of sects made in the images of their respective creators, these are just some of the flaws that I noticed with it. The enlightenment concept was so much discussed over what it is and such but i never saw an enlightened person so far, just give them a bit of time. And if it is untenable then it's just another carrot, like the afterworld. Which then contradicts the tenets of Buddhism which state that it is a religion of truth and not of faith. I do still keep from it what I found to be useful and the four noble truths are very useful concepts to live your life by. I still believe that we could change the world if we really wanted to and no extinction religion will help with this process.
I think you might be looking at buddhism in a false manner. This is definitely not what buddhism is about. These nihilistic/pessimistic elements are usually either oversimplifications, misunderstandings or imspired but not truely being a part of buddhism. The idea is that you already do not exist as an individual and should approach the cognitive/sensory appearances that show up as making someone an individual unity with no desires and look at them as what they truely are, a multiplicity (not unity) of processes which you might not even be able to control. Simultaneously buddhism emphasizes that these processes are connected to everything, without there being a true boundary between the rest of the universe and the individual, just as a wave is a modulation of the ocean. Many buddhists have also claimed that nirvana and samsara are the same thing, but samsara is what a person filled with desire and illusion sees and exeriences, while nirvana is what an enlightened person sees and experiences. This idea that life and happiness is bad and that samsara is here while nirvana is the transceding realm of non existence that we will reach by denying everything, this is not what buddhism is about. Buddhism is not about binary transcendence, it's the opposite.
@@shanuwachnl1619 No, even if nirvana is reached, you can still fall back into samsara, the only way to break the cycle of life is complete and perfect enlightenment, and then you join the buddha's or you can chose to reincarnate as to provide guidance for sentient beings, like the dalai lama
@@shanuwachnl1619 Parinirvana will be needed for release of the birth death cycle, which is achieved through becoming fully awakened ie Enlightenment. If your practice is of the Theravada school, then the difference between nirvana and parinirvana is unnecessary for you to discern, because as you rightly point out, you become an arahant. In mahayana or vajrayana the texts view the hinayana practitioner as one who achieves buddhahood for oneself,so the best you can achieve is either a sravaka or a pratyekabuddha. In the other styles, you achieve buddhahood not for oneself but for the sake of all sentient beings, and so strive to live the way of the bodhisattva for which there is 10 levels...once completed, and it can be done in a single lifetime through skillful means and advanced practices, enlightenment or awakening is obtained. Unlike an arahant who still has defilement's and understanding to learn while in the nirvana state (which can difficult) a bodhisattva is already free of these hindrances but chooses to stay in samsara with a vow to remain within the cycle of birth/ death until the enlightenment of all sentient beings is complete.
Do you think that someone made your house, even though you have never seen them? The house is the evidence of the builder. Same with this universe. It had a beginning, therefore it had to have a cause. And that cause, is God. This universe could not have created itself. So do you think God cares about how we live? If He has given us morality so that we have set up a system of law with courts and judges, how much more would the supreme ruler of the universe demand justice? Have you ever lied, stolen the smallest thing or thought a rude thought? If these were the things God would judge us by, would He find us innocent or guilty? The answer? Guilty. Sinning against an infinite authority figure brings infinite punishment. Hell. So how can we stop going to hell? Does doing good deeds take away our sins? If I get a speeding ticket in the morning, then do 5 good things, should the judge let me go free? No, the fine has to be paid. What about asking for forgiveness? If a criminal stands before a judge and says, I'm really sorry... Should the judge let him go free? No, because that would be a bad judge. If he forgave every criminal because he loved them, that would not be doing justice. Justice has to be paid. God is merciful, but not so at the expense of justice. The only way we can go to heaven is if someone pays our hell punishment for us. Jesus lived a perfect sinless life and then took all of God's wrath for our sins upon Himself on the cross. Since Jesus paid 100% of our sins, there is none left for us to pay. Our punishment has been paid and we get off free. Justice has been paid and Gods mercy has been upheld. Our good deeds don't save us. Nor do they contribute anything to our salvation. Jesus paid it all. Just acknowledge your sins, and accept this gift of Jesus Christ to go to heaven. Baptism, communion, bible reading, church, good deeds, they contribute nothing to our salvation. God paid it all. But we want to do it after being saved out of gratitude and love for God. And as soon as we are believe and are saved, we are secure, safe in His salvation forever. To learn more about God, read the gospel of John.
Go on a tour of the world's religions with this whole series! ruclips.net/video/BNh7QNRUVp0/видео.html
what is the fundamental belief of Bhuddism ?
Great video, but the use of the term 'soul' is a bit misleading. Such a concept is likewise rejected in Buddhism and is one of the other controversies surrounding it compared to the other religions in it's founding region. The idea of Anatta or no-self is very relevant to our current state of being as well as Buddhahood, and isn't our goal but is actually the truth of our being. You went to some other extremes with the summary as well Tristan; enlightenment isn't a state of non-existence so much as a freeing what we call the self from the illusions of desire and separation.
yes to the above, and he failed to even mention meditation at all.
Thanks for adding this! I try my best, but I am but one human!
Soul is also a complicated term though. There have been major uses of that word in Western thought (such as by Plato and Aristotle) that are completely consistent with Buddhism.
Of course I say Western thought but it's not like the Socratics and Indian philosophy were ever completely separated.
@@JoshuaHillerup yes good point. Neither ancient Greeks, Greco-Buddhists, nor Ancient Indians used the exact world 'Soul', which itself is abstract and contextually ambiguous. There is however significant distinction between anatta/anatman and the concept of atman ie. having no fixed essence
@@highwaytothesun yup, I agree with that.
Heck, there were philosphers who argued that plants clearly had something that we now translate to "soul" because they grew. Or that soul means the capacity for movement. Buddhists talk about things that can be translated to soul, and contrast them as being distinct from other concepts that can also be translated to soul.
~1:11 "Siddhartha was a prince in what would be modern day Nepal" *Enraged Indian screaming*
Okay, but in all seriousness, the actual location of the place Siddhartha (whose name is pronounced with more of a "t" sound than an English "th", for the record) came from is a little up in the air. It was definitely on the India-Nepal border, but which side of that border isn't known for sure. Both countries make being the birthplace of Buddha a point of national pride, so taking the Nepali side has just opened you up to the wrath of the second most populous country on earth. Good luck.
Thanks for adding this! I did not see anything about this fight in my research.
He was born poo in the loo.
@Swapn Lok Fair point!
Vatthugāthā, Sutta Nipāta: 'The Bodhisatta, the excellent pearl, the incomparable, is born for the good and for a blessing in the world of men, in the town of the Sakyas, in the country of Lumbinī. Therefore we are glad and exceedingly pleased. (683)
@@birkmcclain6220 Yes, the point of controversy is whether the location of the modern site of Lumbinī is actually the same as the original site. I personally believe that it most likely is, but some people are very insistent that it is not. The ancient sources describe its location in relation to two other towns, one of which was situated in an unclear location, hence why people feel justified in arguing about this (the Nepalese claim is far more convincing, but don't tell any other Indians I said that).
Yaaaay big up for religion for breakfast! Cool to see you two collaborate! Super bummed out that I have to wait for more but hey, loved the images you used in the video, took almost everything for drawing documentation! Anyway thanks for the video and keep it fresh!
Glad you liked it!
I'm disappointed there was no reference to Lisa Simpson, arguably the most well-known Buddhist in the modern day
opportunity missed!
@@AionMirror 😒
some good coles notes! it's definitely a LOT to smash in.
in my understanding you don't necessarily have to believe in reincarnation full stop, but there are a lot of concepts like that that are tools to help you come to broader understandings of how to move closer to the lasting happiness that comes from detaching from harmful delusions (anger, fear, greed, etc.). there's also so much philosophy around fear (vs. courage) and selfishness etc. that is really useful that I'd recommend people dig into! looking forward to part 2 :)
Mexie You have to believe in the three Jewels (The Buddha, the Dharma and Sangha (If you have)) to be able obtain freedom from rebirth. Doubt is a hindrance.
Thanks for adding this!
Reincarnation can be viewed as a metaphor for taking on an identity, a fixed solid view of oneself. Like: "I am a Buddhist. That's what I am." Then anything even vaguely derogatory towards Buddhism is inherently derogatory of you. And each time you do that, create a delineated sense of something about you, you've incarnated around that. And that self inevitably falls away - it "dies" - until the next time you step into that identity of "I am this thing" (you've reincarnated).
Video games or sports or politics or masculinity or anything like that. Insert one of those. I'm sure you've seen people "incarnate" around any of those...
When I asked you the Buddhism question in your livestream I hadn't even seen you made this video. I guess I'm going to have to click the bell 😄
You wont regret it (I hope)
This video helped me understand a very complex Buddhist followings. Thanks,
There are a lot of big inaccuracies here. For example, using the word 'soul' is in opposition to the anatta doctrine highlighting the lack of an enduring self.
So good information abt Buddhism. Thank you 🙏🏽 💐💐
Glad you liked it!
Set a reminder for the Ides of March.
:P
These days, there's various schools of Buddhism. The original Buddhism is Theravada Buddhism. Many prominent and influential people claimed to be Buddhist (Many of them were Americans), but they weren't. They were just atheists pretending to be Buddhists.
THIS SUMMER
"Atheists pretending to be buddhists"?!? Are you implying that buddhists are not atheists? Some of them may believe is spiritual beings (heavenly buddhas or boddhisattvas) but that is not the same things as belief in, much less worship of some god or gods. The concept of a God or gods is irrelevant to buddhism. Atheists can certainly be buddhists. One need not be a theist to be a Buddhist. Just what did you mean by that comment: "atheists PRETENDING to be buddhists"? Why do you say they are "pretending" to be buddhist? What do you think is the difference between a REAL buddhist and one just "pretending" to be such?
@@lshulman58 "It is fitting for you to be perplexed, O Kālāmas, it is fitting for you to be in doubt. Doubt has arisen in you about a perplexing matter [(the validity and efficacy of Buddhism, when compared to other religions or philosophies)]. Come, Kālāmas. Do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of texts, by logic, by inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or because you think, '[This devoted and accomplished person] is our teacher.' But when you know for yourselves [(through your own personal experience)], 'These [teachings] are unwholesome; these [teachings] are blameable; these [teachings] are censured by the wise; these [teachings], if undertaken and practiced, lead to harm and suffering,' then you should abandon them. ... [furthermore] when you know for yourselves (through your own personal experience)], 'These [teachings] are wholesome; these [teachings] are blameless; these [teachings] are praised by the wise; these [teachings], if undertaken and practiced, lead to welfare and happiness,' then you should engage in them. ..."
-The Buddha
@@lshulman58 primarily the above comment. Some atheists and (in my opinion) "not-real-buddhists" don't heed The Buddha's advice in the above quote. Instead of seeking to come to an understanding of the Dhamma (Buddhism) through personal experience, they mostly seem to just be interested in trying to intellectualy interact with the ideas inspired by it (that or take up buddhist trapings and asthetics for shallow reasons like vanity).
Whenever they come up against an idea that offends their sensibilities in some way, instead of taking that as an opportunity to observe their reaction to the Dhamma and question the personal views they hold, in light of the buddhist ideas they've come into contact with, they tend to defensivly react by engaging in some form of coping behavior of some form or another. They come up with all the reasons why the Dhamma is incorrect or ignore the uncomfortable parts and idealize the teaching to suit their personal preferences.
Ultimately it comes down to their unwillingness or inability to directly and meaningfully engage with The Buddha's teaching.
yeah...I'm not so sure about "The Original Buddhism" part. I personally practice and prefer Theravada, but from everything I've read and learned, only those who aren't well versed in buddhist history claim that Theravada is "The Original". Sure it's the oldest extant tradition, but the oldest remaining records of the teachings (incomplete though they may be) are actually more closely related to the Mahayana tradition.
Well Steve was a Zen Buddhist which almost has nothing to do with actual Buddhism so take that into consideration. It's a huge difference. Zen Buddhists believe that enlightenment is right here and there is nothing to do to get it. Just be in the here and now and be complete present. Zen Buddhism is more similar to Daoism than Buddhism. So that is what Steve Jobs is
Thanks for adding this!
@@StepBackHistory 👍🏽👍🏽
That's somehow miscaractetizing both Zen Buddhism and all the other schools of Buddhism.
@Lainon xyz I mean what ARE the practices of Zen. It's just the practice of Zazen. Anti materialism and following the eightfold path aren't at all having to do with Zen. It's just meditation. That's why it's more similar to Daoism
@@vforvazquez6503 true (for the most part), but saying that Zen (practitioner of Theravada here, so don't get me wrong) has very little to do with Buddhism in general is unfounded and misleading. The concept of "here and now, nothing needs be achived" enlightenment has very strong parallels with some of the foundational concepts of earliest buddhism.
Primarily with the distinction The Buddha made between nibbana (nirvana) and samsara, and the description of nibbana as being the "unconditioned" state. The "deathless" state, being that it is devoid of birth or origination. No origination, no cessation. Enlightenment never "begins", because if it did, then it could end.
Not to mention that the single most important tool and practice of buddhism (and The Buddha's personal favorite) is sitting meditation.
"Ananda, if I - being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self - were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I - being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self - were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I - being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self - were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"
"No, lord."
"And if I - being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self - were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"
- SN 44.10, ānanda sutta
good to see that there are some real students of the dhamma out there and not just a bunch of wishy-washy new-age spiritualists.
You should do a video on the anti-Sikh riots in India
You can submit and upvote video ideas here: stepbackhistory.idea.informer.com/
Did you ever do part 2 of this video? I can't find it.
Yo dawg, the 4 Noble Truths are deeply, profoundly bed-rock & core to the belief system, so to gloss of them in like 30 seconds - I personally think - isn't consistent with your stated thesis. There's more to each of them than just what you put in there.
As is the Triple Gem of The Three Refuges: Buddha, Dhamma (or Dharma), and Sangha. There are multiple interpretations of each piece, but a common break-down is the Buddha - the figure - the teachings themselves - the Dharma - and the community of the monastics - both of the Buddha's day as well as today. One other interpretations of Sangha is about how we move through our own communities, which ties into Sila or "ethical action." A common break-down of that is into the 5 Precepts: not deliberately causing death or intentional harm to any living being; not taking that which is not freely given; abstaining harmful use of sexuality or sexual energy; abstaining from harmful speech; and abstaining from drink & drugs which lead to heedlessness.
Also, you can't talk about Buddhist fundamentals without mentioning the largest split: Theravadan vs Mahayana. Here is a serviceable overview of the differences: oneminddharma.com/theravada-mahayana-buddhism/
That'd be kinda like talking about Christianity without mentioning catholicism and protestantism, or maybe more appropriately orthodox and Catholic, the differences there.
I found Noah Levine's Against The Stream very helpful in actually making the stuff make sense, tho I have to point out that he has recently accused of sexual and financial improprieties and I think his main groups he started have shut down.
Well explained 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Thanks so much!
WHERE'S PART TWO!?
Sorry for yelling, I'm just frustrated because it's not linked anywhere obvious here (like the description) and I can't find it by looking through your listed videos on your channel (but I'm new here so I haven't watched all of them, just perused through the titles). Did you just forget to make it yet, or am I missing it somewhere?
When we look at the original texts, the Pali Suttas, which scholars agree are the oldest texts containing Buddha's teachings, it's not at all mystical or mysterious. Buddha was very analytical, explaining his claims and the terms he uses, giving precise definitions he repeats in many sermons, in a sort of mnemonic way, he has various formulas and lists which he repeats many times.
Buddha literally means "awakened". He wasn't actually a prince, his dad wasn't a king, but a town leader, and a delegate of that town to the parliament. Their state was an ancient republic, run by an assembly of ~500 local leaders, which elected a (non-hereditary, limited term) 'king'. There is no historical evidence Buddha's father was ever elected to be this 'king'. The story about Buddha's palace privileged life is a later myth.
The lotus flower is a symbol of purity, bc it is in the water, but risen above it and not wet.
"Striving for buddahood" is a concept in later schools of Buddhism, there is nothing of the sorts in the original texts, and also, it is different from escaping the cycle of rebirth. One can aim to escape the cycle of rebirth, but striving for buddhahood is actually striving to develop such traits so that one becomes a Buddha in some next life, and thus help other beings by being such a person and preaching the teaching of Buddhas. That's why Mahayana calls itself that, "great vehicle" as opposed to hinayana "small vehicle", they strive to remain in the cycle of rebirth so they can help other, as opposed to simply wanting to save themselves from that cycle. But, as I said, this is a later teaching.
"Doing good deeds and transferring karma to others". Firstly, no, monks don't do good deeds, except teach. They have nothing to give, they don't work or make anything (like eg ancient Christian monks), and their many rules and secluded life practically prevent them from helping people. Secondly, transferring karma to others is according to Buddha impossible, he repeats many times the formula "I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir", and "I am not the only one who is the owner of one’s actions, the heir of one’s actions; who has actions as one’s origin, actions as one’s relative, actions as one’s resort; who will be the heir of whatever actions, good or bad, that one does. All beings that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of their actions, heirs of their actions; all have actions as their origin, actions as their relative, actions as their resort; all will be heirs of whatever actions, good or bad, that they do." and also says explicitly "By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another."
Regarding asceticism, buddhist monks live off the food given to them only. They eat only between sunrise and noon, and Buddha recommend that they eat only one meal then, this is not a rule, just a recommendation, but what is most important is that they don't eat for pleasure but simply for nurishment, Buddha repeats many times the formula monks should have in mind, that food is "not for fun, not for pleasure, not for fattening, not for beautification, but only for the maintenance and nourishment of this body, for keeping it healthy, for helping with the Holy Life; thinking thus: I will allay hunger without overeating, so that I may continue to live blamelessly and at ease". Also monks are not to listen to music, not to watch entertainment, not to use perfumes, cosmetics or any adornments, or to use soft chairs or beds. This is pretty ascetic. These are also the rules laypeople are to follow once a week (Uposatha days), to prepare for meditation, which they are also to do on that day. What Buddha was against as "too much asceticism" is not abstinence, but practices done as active asceticism, like fasting and eating too little, or standing for some time without moving, or purposefully wearing uncomfortable clothes, etc.
"Ceasing to exist as an individual", Buddha says that when a person after death doesn't get reborn, we can't say of such person that they either exist, or not exist. He explicitly says it's not non-existence, but it also isn't existence, at least as we know it. He says in another place that we can only really talk about his world, the cycle of rebirth, this is our "all". The state outside the cycle of rebirth is beyond this "all" we know. This point of Buddha's sounds kinda similar to the differentiation between phenomenal world and the noumenal world in Kant, or Wittgenstein's "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Although Buddha does add that this state beyond rebirth is 'ultimate happiness' and that is the only thing which is permanent, everything else being changing and impermanent.
Many people also get wrong what Buddha taught. You give the Four Noble Truths as his teaching, but this is only the end of his teaching, which he said is for monks (as is the Noble Eight-fold Path, it being the Fourth Truth), he has previous teachings for lay people. But not to get ahead of myself, and of your part 2 video, I will wait till you post that video and comment there x)
Yus thnk u
Lotus is a symbol for purity not because it’s wet or not. It is because even though it grew from the dirty mud under the water, it is still beautiful and pure.
Yoo, where's part 2? I need a full on depth political analysis plsss?? 😬😬
I love your videos for the most part but I feel this was a bit inaccurate and imprecise.
To be fair buddhism is a largely complex religion and history so he tries
Yeah, there was a TON of stuff glossed over...
There is no "soul" (Atman) concept in buddhism, nothing standing like a "soul", only a karma flow of consciousness. Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation but in rebirth. The karmic flow rebirthing in the samsara is "you" but not "you". The "thing" that rebirth is a consequence of all your past thaugts, actions and speechs (karma) of all your pasts rebirths, this is not your actual personnality. Exemple : your child is a consequence of you, is not You. When you plant a seed, the new tree is a consequence of the tree where you keep the seed, not the same tree. So when you die, there is no full destruction, no annihilation, no nothingness, but there is no permanent, standing thing that survive to your death. Your rebirth is not a totaly new person, but this is not standing "soul" life after life. Nothing is standing in the reality. Creation from nothing is impossible but nothingness, annlihlation, is impossible too, this is the view of the Middle. Reality is no creation and no destruction, the reality is in the middle. This is the correct view confirm by science, french chemist Lavoisier : nothing is created, nothing is lost, all is transformed. (XVIIIth century).
Many many years ago I heard the idea that The Budha actually asked for his teaching not be turned into a religion, they were only lessons and not a religion with rituals and all. I wonder if that has some truth in it...
Kinda makes me think of the yoruba traditional religion were reincarnation occurs as souls seek out a supposed destiny trying to find fulfilment and according to some text I've read eventually reunite with the consciousness of the Supreme god Olorun that all things posese a peice of said consciousness known as Ase the power to create change in life and shape one's fate
It's very common. It was even common in classical Greece and Rome.
Thanks for adding this!
This is actually an oversimplification. The idea is that you already do not exist as an individual and should approach the cognitive/sensory appearances that show up as making someone an individual unity with no desires and look at them as what they truely are, a multiplicity (not unity) of processes which you might not even be able to control. Simultaneously buddhism emphasizes that these processes are connected to everything, without there being a true boundary between the rest of the universe and the individual, just as a wave is a modulation of the ocean. Many buddhists have also claimed that nirvana and samsara are the same thing, but samsara is what a person filled with desire and illusion sees and exeriences, while nirvana is what an enlightened person sees and experiences.
One of the hardest parts of Buddhism is explaining things in terms of non duality. Non- existence framed like this sounds like annihilationism which is considered a wrong view. Human language is not good at describing non duality so saying the goal is neither existence nor non-existence doesn't make a lot of sense without deeper explanation. Non duality can only be internalized and inadequately explained within the confines of language.
Pain and suffering are not synonymous, nor even related. Pain is no more than one of the body's neurological responses to its environment. Suffering, on the other hand, is psychological, a dissatisfaction born of the delusion that life as it is in this moment is somehow incomplete, that there is some indefinable other yet to be attained. Thus, it was in setting aside his overwhelming need to know the cause of suffering that Siddhartha set aside suffering itself - and became the Buddha.
Om Mani Padme Hum and love to all
I believe in reincarnation and that we choose the life we have so in effect we choose how we suffer. I think it's unnatural to try tobreak the chain of life and death. I also do not believe in punitive karma as we choose the life in order to learn what we need so that our "bigger" selves will grow in knowledge and wisdom to reach higher levels (dimensions).
Canonical? My diction is SO big. I have a HUGE diction I know what a canon is, but I was surprised to see it used as "canonical."
I still don't understand how that concept of Nirvana is different from how an atheist sees suicide. And I've been trying to figure that out for decades.
i don't guess they are different, but the materialist sees consciousness as originated from and dependent on the brain, whereas the buddhist identifies another prerequisite
@@birkmcclain6220 so how could that possibly be a good thing?
@@JoshuaHillerup well how does an athiest view suicide?
"It is fitting for you to be perplexed, O [Joshua Hillerup], it is fitting for you to be in doubt. Doubt has arisen in you about a perplexing matter. Come, [Joshua Hillerup]. Do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of texts, by logic, by inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or because you think, '[This devoted and trained person] is our teacher.' But when you know for [yourself (through your own personal experience)], 'These [teachings] are unwholesome; these [teachings] are blameable; these [teachings] are censured by the wise; these [teachings], if undertaken and practiced, lead to harm and suffering,' then you should abandon them. ... [furthermore] when you know for [yourself (through your own personal experience)], 'These [teachings] are wholesome; these [teachings] are blameless; these [teachings] are praised by the wise; these [teachings], if undertaken and practiced, lead to welfare and happiness,' then you should engage in them. ..."
-The Buddha
@@rubarbcilantro7687 generally as something pretty bad.
Yo dawg, "dis-satisfactory experiences" is a far more accurate translation of the concept of "dukkha."
"Aseedacism"? - it is pronounced asceticism (4:20)
Not in any standard English at least. Dictionaries go with something like əˈsedəˌsizəm
Okay, I did my homework and I looked up Ashin Wirathu. I didn't know this planet had murder monks, but now I do!
messed up eh?
messed up? sure. surprising? not for a true student of the Dhamma-Vinaya.
"Why is it, Master Kachahna, that [the elites] fight with [the elites], [religious leaders] with [religious leaders], and [common people] with [common people]?"
"It is, [Father Aramadanda], because of attachment ... [and] ... [devotion] to ... , fixation on ... , addiction ... [and] obsession with sensual pleasures, holding firmly to sensual pleasures that [the elites] fight with [the elites], [religious leaders] with [religious leaders], and [common people] with [common people].
"[Then why] is it ... , that [those who devote themselves to higher thoughts and ideals] fight [amongst one another aswell]?"
"It is ... because of attachment ... [and] ... [devotion] to ... , fixation on ... , addiction ... [and] obsession with [opinions, ideals and beliefs], holding firmly to [opinions, ideals and beliefs] that [those who devote themselves to higher thoughts and ideals] fight [amongst one another aswell]."
-AN 2: iv, 6, abridged [and paraphrased]; I 66
Well definitly a shaved head and robes dont make you a monk
Very simple ! Do the right things and You will increase your odds of getting the right result
I'm Buddhists ☸
Buddha would say "What you call good deeds, they are not good deeds, but they are just called good deeds." They are known as Dharma. :)
No, Trisna is not translated as desire but as thirst
Dude knock it off with the premiere thing. Its annoying
When I get something for nothing I generally don't make extra demands...
...you do you though.
You mention making karma/merit for yourself and from others, however you omit to mention this is completely different for men and women to the there are two systems not one.
I plan on hitting the Indian religions over the next couple of years. Karma definitely will be more prominent when I get to the Hindus.
@@StepBackHistory I was asking specifically in a Buddhism context. Such as men able to earn merit by becoming monks but women earning none by becoming nun. People earning merit by giving alms to monks but not earning any merit by giving alms to nuns. Women being largely dependent on their sons to earn merit for the next life for them by becoming a monk, while men can earn their own. Daughters being unable to earn merit for the mother being largely worthless. Men allowed in many Buddhist sites to touch or stand beside the relics gaining merit but women not allowed near them because they are unclean and would contaminate them.... and so on.
BTW I spent 10 years of my life living in Buddhist countries. Whenever I hear westerners talk about Buddhism they talk about Buddhism without mentioning everything they say is only for men misleading people it is the same for women. Buddhism is a different religion for women, it has a sexual divide that dwarfs the one in Christianity.
@@Fiddling_while_Rome_burns the divide between men and women in religion, as in societies in general, seems universal. But I would say that is the influence of social norms on religion rather than blame it on the religions themselves. Ancient cultures (that spawned most of today's religions) did tend to be patriarchal. However, more contemporary (newer) religions as well as newer forms of old religions (newer "denominations") do making efforts to treat men and women more equally.
@@lshulman58 If you look at Buddhism, there is such a huge range of cultures in the religion, compared to say European Christianity. If cultural norms were shaping the religion you would expect huge differences in the religion in the treatment of women reflecting the differing societies but you don't have this. In countries where women have traditionally had few rights and low status such as China, Korea, Tibet, ect their is little difference in the way the religion treats women to the countries where women have traditionally had a much higher status and greater rights such as Northern SE Asia (Lao, Thailand, Cambodia ect).
@@lshulman58 not to mention the original reason for the exclusion of women from the order of monks and later on their segragation. That of course being the power of the human sex drive. The Buddha may have espoused plenty of ideals, but its hard not to see (if you actually study the canonicl texts) that he was also a pragmatic realist.
Having been a devilishly handsome young man with unfettered access to beautiful women, as well as being married, he knew how much power sexual desire held over people.
then it simply means this is not the religion of Adam, Moses, Abraham,Solomon David Jesus and Muhammad because the oldest religion of these prophets is Tawheed means one God which later renamed by the prophet Muhammad (islam) means peace...by the way you have a nice video bro thanks
Thanks so much!
“But what, Ānanda, does the Community of monks expect of me? The Teaching has been taught by me, Ānanda, without having made a distinction between esoteric and exoteric, for the Realised One there is nothing, Ānanda, of a closed teacher’s fist in regard to the Teaching.
- DN 16, mahāparinibbāna sutta
in fact, buddhism is not intended to be mysterious at all but rather plain
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
- SN 12.15, kaccānagotta sutta
These three things, monks, are conducted in secret, not openly. What three? Affairs with women, mantras of the brahmins, and wrong view.
But these three things, monks, shine openly, not in secret. What three? The moon, the sun, and the Dhamma and Discipline proclaimed by the Tathāgata.
-AN 3:129; I 282-83
Yeah, that's why I'm not a Buddhist anymore. To me, it was nihilistic, passive, life-extinguishing. It's nice to see all those monks meditate and being serene from a far distance but after you interact with them you realize that you can find a flaw in any of their thinking. From Dalai Lama not wanting (for a reason or another) to uplift the Tibetan peasants (but don't trust the Chinese either on this topic) to zen masters cheering for imperialism, to shady sexual cultic practices to zillions of sects made in the images of their respective creators, these are just some of the flaws that I noticed with it. The enlightenment concept was so much discussed over what it is and such but i never saw an enlightened person so far, just give them a bit of time. And if it is untenable then it's just another carrot, like the afterworld. Which then contradicts the tenets of Buddhism which state that it is a religion of truth and not of faith.
I do still keep from it what I found to be useful and the four noble truths are very useful concepts to live your life by.
I still believe that we could change the world if we really wanted to and no extinction religion will help with this process.
I think you might be looking at buddhism in a false manner. This is definitely not what buddhism is about. These nihilistic/pessimistic elements are usually either oversimplifications, misunderstandings or imspired but not truely being a part of buddhism.
The idea is that you already do not exist as an individual and should approach the cognitive/sensory appearances that show up as making someone an individual unity with no desires and look at them as what they truely are, a multiplicity (not unity) of processes which you might not even be able to control. Simultaneously buddhism emphasizes that these processes are connected to everything, without there being a true boundary between the rest of the universe and the individual, just as a wave is a modulation of the ocean.
Many buddhists have also claimed that nirvana and samsara are the same thing, but samsara is what a person filled with desire and illusion sees and exeriences, while nirvana is what an enlightened person sees and experiences.
This idea that life and happiness is bad and that samsara is here while nirvana is the transceding realm of non existence that we will reach by denying everything, this is not what buddhism is about. Buddhism is not about binary transcendence, it's the opposite.
Ok..❤..ankh. Asphalt. ❤.
Yo dawg, karma just means cause & effect.
What if they break the
Cycle of reincarnation where do they go??????
Breaking cycle of reincarnation is nirvana,
@@shanuwachnl1619 No, even if nirvana is reached, you can still fall back into samsara, the only way to break the cycle of life is complete and perfect enlightenment, and then you join the buddha's or you can chose to reincarnate as to provide guidance for sentient beings, like the dalai lama
@@kyelfletcher9701 you have to become an arhat inorder to attain nirvana
@@shanuwachnl1619 Parinirvana will be needed for release of the birth death cycle, which is achieved through becoming fully awakened ie Enlightenment. If your practice is of the Theravada school, then the difference between nirvana and parinirvana is unnecessary for you to discern, because as you rightly point out, you become an arahant. In mahayana or vajrayana the texts view the hinayana practitioner as one who achieves buddhahood for oneself,so the best you can achieve is either a sravaka or a pratyekabuddha. In the other styles, you achieve buddhahood not for oneself but for the sake of all sentient beings, and so strive to live the way of the bodhisattva for which there is 10 levels...once completed, and it can be done in a single lifetime through skillful means and advanced practices, enlightenment or awakening is obtained. Unlike an arahant who still has defilement's and understanding to learn while in the nirvana state (which can difficult) a bodhisattva is already free of these hindrances but chooses to stay in samsara with a vow to remain within the cycle of birth/ death until the enlightenment of all sentient beings is complete.
Fun fact - Buddha was a Hindu.
Karma is a hindi word and its pronounced krm in hindi.
Buddha is anti-Hindutva.
@@alexscriabin buddha wasn't anti Hindutava he became anti Hindutava 😎
Dude chill with the word geneside I'm from myanmar
Do you think that someone made your house, even though you have never seen them? The house is the evidence of the builder. Same with this universe. It had a beginning, therefore it had to have a cause. And that cause, is God. This universe could not have created itself.
So do you think God cares about how we live? If He has given us morality so that we have set up a system of law with courts and judges, how much more would the supreme ruler of the universe demand justice?
Have you ever lied, stolen the smallest thing or thought a rude thought? If these were the things God would judge us by, would He find us innocent or guilty? The answer? Guilty. Sinning against an infinite authority figure brings infinite punishment. Hell.
So how can we stop going to hell? Does doing good deeds take away our sins? If I get a speeding ticket in the morning, then do 5 good things, should the judge let me go free? No, the fine has to be paid.
What about asking for forgiveness? If a criminal stands before a judge and says, I'm really sorry... Should the judge let him go free? No, because that would be a bad judge. If he forgave every criminal because he loved them, that would not be doing justice. Justice has to be paid. God is merciful, but not so at the expense of justice.
The only way we can go to heaven is if someone pays our hell punishment for us. Jesus lived a perfect sinless life and then took all of God's wrath for our sins upon Himself on the cross. Since Jesus paid 100% of our sins, there is none left for us to pay. Our punishment has been paid and we get off free. Justice has been paid and Gods mercy has been upheld.
Our good deeds don't save us. Nor do they contribute anything to our salvation. Jesus paid it all. Just acknowledge your sins, and accept this gift of Jesus Christ to go to heaven. Baptism, communion, bible reading, church, good deeds, they contribute nothing to our salvation. God paid it all. But we want to do it after being saved out of gratitude and love for God. And as soon as we are believe and are saved, we are secure, safe in His salvation forever.
To learn more about God, read the gospel of John.
peep the bernie sticker! nice
Yo dawg, fat Buddha isn't Buddha.
्
Show me the thicc ideas real gamer😫😫😫😫.