I mostly come to RUclips for educational content. And there's a lot of great stuff out there, we're kind of living through a golden age of this type of content. But this channel is still heads and shoulders above the rest. Just great, interesting, deeply informative content week after week after week. Love it.
A small correction, here at the begining the two priests were talking about the attributeless bramhan not the four headed god bramha. Those two things are different.
Exactly. Brahman and Brahma are different. Brahman is a metaphysical concept related to consciousness and is considered as the ultimate reality in Hinduism.
@tc59932 This short. I was in the comments talking about it and there were some good discussions there! ruclips.net/user/shortsf2gK9uRIPQc?si=UaIhCaquzeuLmC4Y
I don't know the west thinks Buddhism is atheistic..... We always worshipped gods..... But buddha is supreme teacher of gods and humans. Btw... Another amazing video ❤❤❤🙏
The cultural West has always been weird regarding the question of divinities. Until well into the 20th century (and to a degree still today), monotheism was regarded as the most “rational” belief system, which was of course mere Eurocentrism reflecting a preference for the White European way of doing things, one of these being Christian belief in one supreme God. Then in fits and starts throughout the 20th century, European intellectuals who questioned the rationality of belief in divinities embraced Buddhism for its apparent disinclination towards gods, championing it on this basis as a rational, empirical, even “scientific” philosophy. Extolling Buddhism’s “rational empiricism” naturally meant downplaying the presence of gods and rituals in Buddhist praxis; these were “mere superstitious contamination” of an otherwise sensible tradition relying on empirically observable data about reality.
The concept of upaya is essential to how the various devas, bodhisattvas, and Buddhas are reinterpreted to be metaphors for various aspects of the mind. Thank you for bringing this concept up. For example, the upaya doctrine espoused in the Lotus Sutra allows for the later Universal Gate chapter within the Lotus Sutra to be reinterpreted from being a long sermon on how Avalokiteshvara can save us to being an extended metaphor for the workings of compassion. Upaya serves as a very useful tool to the Buddhist Modernist, as you say, to reinterpret the Buddhadharma. Buddhism is really all four parts of the tetralemma, atheistic, theistic, both atheistic and theistic, and neither atheistic nor theistic.
Buddhist philosophical history has plenty of investigation of many classical "divine attributes," but as they concern Buddhas: omniscience, omnipresence, impassibility, omnibenevolence, etc. The only classical divine attribute routinely denied of the Buddhas is being the efficient or formal cause of the world. One sees this tendency throughout historical Buddhist literature in India for example. So here's a question: is the most important attribute for making something a God the creator-attribute? Because if not, then maybe the Buddhas - the omniscient (sarvajña) saviors (tāyin) through teaching - are Buddhism's gods. And the devas are more like...jinn or something.
The complexity of Buddhist cosmology, with realms and layered heavens, serves as a powerful metaphor as much as a literal belief system. For some, these devas are guiding symbols for psychological states, while for others, they are very real presences in their spiritual lives. And the beauty of Buddhism is that it doesn’t force a one-size-fits-all approach. Whether devas are seen as external or internal, Buddhism ultimately centers on self-awareness and insight over external worship.
The middle way is key; they are both internal and external. They are real and not, the same way we are real and yet not. However, the degree to which one wants to interact with the Devas, Nagas, Nyen ect. Is up to ones self. Focus on the inner, outer, both or neither. Though, I'll quote my Friends teacher, Gelug Lama "we make a vow to all sentient beings, including Debas, Nagas and so forth. To ignore them is to forsake our Bodhisattva vows which extend to all sentient beings which are our responsibility."
@@kaiklose6172Like how many more intelligent life forms are there besides humans because I feel like there’s too many to track… I also feel like we’re just infants compared to the others 😑
The thing is: Buddhism says that there is no difference beetween the physical and the psychological. In Buddhist metaphysics, it is said that each plane of existence or realm is created by the karma (the intentions, thoughts and actions) of the beings living on it, including our own human realm. When Buddhism says that "heaven and hell are mind states" it is not meant to be interpreted as "Buddhist cosmology is just metaphors". It is meant to be interpreted as the fact that each kind of existence (humans, animals, heaven, hells, ghosts...) is manifested by the mind states of sentient beings. Each mind reflects reality according to its own point of view. Some Tibetan schools even hold the belief that dreams are a manifestation of this luminous, creative aspect of the mind. You are creating your own "personal, minor realms" when you are sleeping, not different from how your mind is manifesting this human existence right now.
The Buddhist gods are there to protect us. Their powers are activated by our Buddhist practice. They don't need to be identified or assume any kind of form other than the manifestation of protection or to quickly resolve a dilemma.
@@ดีดีมาก-ญ2ฅ Wow, thanks for the quick reply! You are right, the similarity is not complete. What I was thinking was that, calling bodhisattvas 'gods' can be misleading, especially for people in monotheistic traditions, who think 'polytheism' is anathema (background: I was brought up Christian (in the UK), but now consider myself Buddhist, though I don't follow a particular tradition).
@@ดีดีมาก-ญ2ฅnot exactly true. This is true for most heterodox Christianity, but in orthodox Christianity there is a theological concept called “theosis” which means deification of humanity. Since man is created in the image of god, human beings are therefore living icons of god. The saints in Christianity, although are not gods themselves, but are seen as a completed spiritual fathers and mothers in the process of transformation of deification. The outlook for orthodoxy is that human beings are not complete until they fulfil the image of god, whom Christ the living god, became an example for living a life of sinlessnes, even though we are still sinners. Theosis is described as God became man, so that man can become gods by grace(spiritual gifts).
Theosis is still different from becoming a Buddha, because one does not gain the same exalted attributes as the object of worship through theosis. But the Buddhist view is that once a bodhisattva becomes a Buddha, they are equally omniscient, equally endowed with every excellence, etc., as all previous and future Buddhas. A bodhisattva isn't just becoming "like" the most exalted possible kind of individual, but is in the process of actually becoming such, on the Buddhist view. So I think it is still different from theosis. @@ramintahouri270
I think the reason a lot of people think of Buddhism as Athiestic is because in the West, a lot of people practice Secular/Athiest Buddhism. That being said, just like all religions, it encompasses a variety of thoughts and perspectives. Some Buddhist are theist, and others are not.
@@s.d.m.g361 yeah and they tend to ignore the community and ethical aspect as well. Basically mindfulness in pursuit of individual material happiness, regardless of the effect your actions have on others, the environment, society. Eg soldiers using mindfulness
"Buddha" is a life condition to be aspired to. Everyone has the potential to become a buddha. Shakyamuni Gautama is the name of the historical buddha. He was a real person, not a fantasy diety.
Bodhisattvas also exist in Pali canon, and Theravada also includes a procedure for lay practitioners to enter a path of bodhisattva with aim of eventually becoming buddha. Pure buddha fields (also called pure lands) are not celestial realms per say, they are more like a state of mind, although they are sometimes associated with certain direction such as west for Sukhavati or east for Abhirati, they do not reside in any physical place. Great bodhisattvas themselves have their own pure fields - Avalokiteshvara resides in Potala, Manjushri in Vimala and Vajrapani in Alakavati, but again these are not physical places as such. Unlike devas, these bodhisattvas are free from samsara and are a source of Buddhist refuge (as a jewel of sangha) along with buddhas and their teaching.
I thought the term ‘bodhisattva’ simply referred to one who is not yet enlightened in the Pali canon-distinct from its later meanings. Beyond that, I also thought part of the bodhisattva path involved choosing to remain in samsara in order to help all others; how then can these great bodhisattvas be said to be free from samsara?
@@marchwhitlock6455a bodhisattva both in non-Mahāyāna and Mahāyāna contexts refers to someone who, for the sake of others, aims at becoming a samyaksaṃbuddha (sammāsaṃbuddha in Pāḷi) rather than another kind of awakened person. The reason why this requires "staying in saṃsāra" is because the path to becoming a samyaksaṃbuddha is the longest path to awakening and the most arduous - traditionally, it is narratively recounted in the Jātaka stories, wherein the bodhisattva who became the Samyaksaṃbuddha Śākyamuni has to do various difficult things and go through arduous births. But eventually, once one becomes a samyaksaṃbuddha, one is free from saṃsāra. And further, one is uniquely able to help other beings. Or so the Buddhist view goes. Mahāyāna and Theravāda disagree in some ways on the nature of a samyaksaṃbuddha and on what is cultivated during the path towards it, but otherwise these terms are basically held in common across all Buddhism.
Gods, namely devāh, are beings that enjoy higher states of existence due to a store of past good karma, but at the end of the day they, like all other non-awakened beings (humans, animals, demons, etc.) are subject to cyclical rebirth, and so will be eventually pass away and be reborn into another state (a lower one if they have exhausted their good karma and not cultivated more to keep them in the rarified heavenly realms). So yes, gods exist in Buddhist cosmologies, and depending on the tradition may or may not be objects worthy of veneration, but they are differentiated from Buddhas (and Bodhisattvas, depending on how one interprets these) by being subject to cyclical rebirth.
An interesting chapter in the history of the reception of Buddhism as an "atheistic religion" is at least a subset of the Buddhist clergy of the Mongolic peoples of the former Russian Empire embracing the Bolshevik Revolution and trying to sell the idea that their core teachings were perfectly compatible with communism and scientific rationalism. For some time the Bolsheviks reciprocated, but ultimately extended their anti-religious campaigns to the Buddhists as well.
The Buddhist concepts are very similar to the neo-Pagan ones. The Buddhist cosmology is far more complex and systematized but some Pagans view the gods as actual independent spiritual beings while others view them as symbols, archetypes, and aspects of nature and human life, while others see the gods as a blend of actual and symbolic. Some see the gods as separate beings while others as aspects or ways of experiencing an undivided Divine/Spiritual. Some Pagans are atheistic in that they don't work with the gods at all but directly with nature. Outside monotheism, religions are often not simple binaries of theist or atheist. They can be mixes or gradations of or even neither. But that makes life more interesting.
I actually think that if some Christians read and understood Buddhas teachings , they become better, wiser, more mindful Christians. They would learn to be awake and conscious each moment and understand the intricate interplay of cause and effect . They’d be more present each moment with the thoughts they think , the words they speak and the actions they engage in. They’d understand that they are 100% responsible and accountable for their choices words and actions . They’d understand that they shape their very next moment with their choices, thoughts, words and actions . They’d realize they create each moment their own heaven or hell. It’s all cause and effect
Minor correction/nitpick: Avalokiteshvara is not exclusively Male. Depending on the region they are depicted as Male or Female (for instance in China she is Guanyin and often female, while in Tibet he is Chenrezig and usually male.)
Question (around 16:00 made me think of it) what do you consider the biggest challenge regarding early scholars and understanding other cultures religion? The limited texts they got, the strict cultural lenses they saw it though or the language barrier being higher for lay people as opposed to the learned and making interactions less fruitful?
The Brahman described by Hindus is essentially "Consciousness" (Chitta) or "Fullness" (Poornam). Yogic meditations and the teachings of the Upanishads serve as guides toward enlightenment. While Buddha referred to the ultimate reality as "Shunyam" (Emptiness), Hindus recognized it as "Poornam" (Fullness) or Brahman. This is why idealists are more interested in hindu philosophy especially Advaita vedanta.
@@marchwhitlock6455 the concept of Emptiness, Śunyata, arose around the 1-2 centuries AD with the rise of Mahayana thought around this time in Northern India. Fundamentally, Śunyata describes what Orthodox Buddhist schools designate “Conditioned Origination”: that all phenomena, not being static and unchanging, lack any essence fundamental to their existence that would impart permanence (in humans this would be our Soul, our notion of Ego even as we undergo fundamental changes as we grow and develop). For Mahayana Buddhists, the absence of such a “permanent” essence in anything makes everything “empty”. For their part, the Orthodox Buddhist schools understood Śunyata as Annihilationism, namely that what comes into existence passes away and ceases absolutely, (in Conditioned Origination, things serve as the basis for the origination of more things before passing, in this way continuing to “exist” through the ripple effect of further things spawned). Nagarjuna attempted through his writings to show that Mahayanist thought, and especially Śunyata, was still in line with Orthodox Buddhist thought, but his efforts were unsuccessful and was ultimately embraced by Mahayanists only.
@@marchwhitlock6455 Nagarjuna attempted to demonstrate through his writings that the Mahayana concept of Emptiness was compatible, and indeed a continuation, of the Orthodox Buddhist concept of Conditioned Origination when Mahayana began to emerge in northern India during the 1-2 centuries AD. Ultimately he was unsuccessful in reconciling these two traditions of Buddhist thought, and was embraced only by Mahayana Buddhism.
Buddhism is just another branch of Hinduism. Hinduism has many schools of philosophies, including pure atheistic schools. Search "Charvaka" school of philosophy in Hinduism.
What do you think of the idea that Budhism served as a form of ideological population control so people themselves passively accepted their exploitation? Michael Parenti has talk about this in relation to Tibet.
“Does God (or god) exist?” This question is ultimately unanswerable and thus unhelpful. On the other hand, the Buddha’s teaching on the nature of suffering and its cessation, is knowable and useful. When I say that Buddhism is a religion without God, I mean that God has no role to play in the Buddhist worldview. Unknowable concepts have no value. That is not to say that things beyond my comprehension don’t exist, only I don’t find it helpful to investigate them. Silence is better in these cases, and to focus on the truth of impermanence and the consequences that follow.
One important point I've heard to how the Mahayana circles the square of having extensive pantheons of supernatural beings yet asserting an atheistic world view is through Madhyamaka philosophy. If all phenomena are ultimately empty, then even devas only "exist" in the relative view, which is non-dual with the ultimate view. In the ultimate view of emptiness, no such beings exist. Something like this anyway. Thank you for the video!
Great video. I think if one is promoting a western influenced version of Buddhism that dispenses of supernatural elements, great. You are free to do so. But I think transparency is important, you should admit that your belief and practise is also the result of a specific historical process. You may argue for the value of your perspective, but asserting that it is somehow the immutable original feels very arrogant. It'd be like if you changed a friend's family recipe, started claiming that's how their grandma really cooked it, and then told them that their version tastes off.
Sects of Buddhism itself developed the same way. The Chan/Zen tradition centers around Huineng the sixth patriarch, his life story, and his teachings. However, it turns out that what is said about Huineng did not actually happen, and the Platform Sutra attributed to Huineng was likely written by his followers to assert Huineng's position as the sixth patriarch, while also asserting that the "sudden enlightenment" approach to awakening is not only correct, but also the correct way to interpret Buddha's teachings. Then, later Dogen asserted that the way to enlightenment is a gradual process that includes meditation which contradicts the teachings of Huineng. I think it is important not to discredit anyone's spiritual beliefs and people should practice what makes sense to them. The arrogance comes when people believe that their subjective truth is superior to others.
Hinduism also agrees that the Devas do die & aren't omniscient. But they disagree with the Buddhists in that they believe in a Supreme Being (for Vaishnavas it is Vishnu, for for Shaivas it is Shiva, for Shaktas it is the Goddess Shakti), who creates Brahma, the creator of the cosmos is the personified manifestation of Brahman, by whose grace moksha (Hindu equivalent of the Buddhist nirvana) is obtained. While Mahayana doesn't treats much with the Puranic deities, Vajrayana (Tibetan Buddhism in layman's term) goes in another direction. The Vajrayana compendium Sadhanamala graphically depicts Buddhist bodhisattvas & other deities trampling upon Hindu deities.
Interesting video. It seems like the longer a religion exists, the more complexity gets added to it. Christianity does the same thing. It's like you have to keep adding features to the product to get more "customers" or to keep your existing "customers" interested. I'm a spiritual person, but I've never felt a connection to a particular organized religion for this reason and a few others.
id argue you see the same process in scientific fields as well (notable physics and chemistry). In many cases it was explicitly done to attract converts or increase popularity (you can see this in how Christianity adapted to the religious environments of the new world, Asia, etc), but I think it's inaccurate to say that that is the only or even primary reason we see so much complexity in religions
@madisonarnett4194 Actually, that's inaccurate about science. Usually, science strives to explain things in simpler, more concise ways over time. Organized religions seem to be about adding complexity when things in the world turn out to be inconsistent with their original writings.
No. There is no such thing as absolutely incorrect usage-humans invent, reinterpret, and make new languages all the time. There is no intrinsic meaning to any word outside of a certain context-The word "fire" at a shooting range means metaphorically similar but still fundamentally different to that same word used in an HR meeting. Nothing within the context of Buddhism is comparable to the stereotypical objective-defining, independant-of-humans, Abrahaic tri-omni "God" worshiped by most Western layity. Now, you _can_ find some Western mystics (like in some esoteric forms of Kabbalah) that blur the lines. But for the vast majority of Westerners, their concept of "God" is fairly unsophisticated. Outside of them, you only get allegorical reinterpretions of daities by intellectual elites such as Mimonides, Spinoza, and Jung. Those guys aren't being disingenuous to interpret "God" allegorically-this genuinly seems to be how the authors of scriptural narratives intended for at least some of their writings to be read. So as long as everyone is able to clearly translate what you mean by terms like "God" into in terms their more literal minds can comprehend then there really shouldn't be any issues-this is unfortunately where most of these people fail. But, Buddhism has something called "Dvasatya"-the Two Truths Doctorine, that allows for the distinction between "Saṁvṛti-satya"-Provisional Truth (i.e. Devas, Asuras, Nagas etc.) and "Paramārtha-satya"-Ultimate Truth (i.e. Sunyata, Anattā, Pratītyasamutpāda). With the addition of Doctorines like "Upaya"-Skillful Means, it means that Buddhism is endlessly adaptable to synchronizing any existing religions or non-religions it encounters by interpretating them as (merely) "Saṁvṛti-satya". The supernatural does _really exist_ as a type of "Saṃjñā"-Perception within the synapses and neurons of the minds who believe in such things while simultaneously not existing in the minds of those who do not because they have diffrent a Saṃjñā. Grappling with the Parable of the Elephant and the Blind Men is crucial for understanding that what Buddhism calls "Gods" are more like what Jung called "Gods" than what Christians mean when they talk about "God".
I've been anticipating this video. As someone who prays to Avalokiteśvara, I thank you. I get really tied of people telling me what my religion is about. I personally don't follow any particular school but I consider the Bodhisattvas an important part of my journey. The bottom line is, as long as you follow the core beliefs of Buddhism, the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, you're a Buddhist. But the guys you were describing, the secularists who are so far removed, you might as well liken them to the Cultural Christians.There's no meat on those bones.
it's originally agnostic. as it spread throughout asia people combined it with local beliefs and religion, most people are unaware of the original teachings by Buddha.
@@MarshmallowRadiation I like dogs. I have a dog. That dog is given everything it needs for survival and enrichment. I take it out to explore and play and use the world as it's restroom whenever it wants. I buy it high quality food and treats that I labor for. I bathe and groom this creature in a way as to make them happy and make others who interact with them happy too. I suspect I am not the only one who does this for their pet. Do you worship or venerate your pet? Probably not. Do I worship or venerate mine? Probably not. All you've done is take one step back and say you've soved the problem. What is "venerate" and what is "worship"?
@@A10810 Superiority complexes are usually where most people start in religious studies-given enough time they'll understand sunyata and extinguish their ego. Even if it takes a thousand lifetimes to do so.
As a practicing and convert to Vajrayana Buddhism (albeit not always strictly the best) - there are many gods in the pantheon. It was an easy conversion from Catholicism into Buddhism because some of the concepts & history of religion in Mexico, from when the Spaniards brought Christianity and mixed with our Indigenous customs share parallels (Saints are parallels to Bodhittsavas as an example La Virgen Maria and Avalokitsvara in the form of Chenrizeg/Guanyin or Tara, celebrations of the ancestors/the dead, the afterlife, what happens when we die, spirits). Through conversations with my Tibetan neighbors we discovered that we related on various concepts, histories, and shared similar ideas/traditions that were adopted by the dominant religion as well as the violent clashes that empire and religion often bring (Buddhism in Tibet and Catholicism in Mexico). Sidenote, I'm from the north, with Yaqui ancestry, we also share similar views about the spirit world and the significance of the deer 🦌. I also saw many of the same parallels when I traveled to Oaxaca as an example the belief of snakes and what they represent was very similar to Nagas. But this was my own experience can't make assumption all Northern Mexicans view it this way. To give a crude yet simple example of all this in Mexico we have burritos (which predate colonization), in the Middle East they are called Shawirma, in other Western countries they call them wraps. It's essentially a carbohydrate that you add proteins, vegetables, sauce etc. that is food on the go, it's virtually eaten in the same way in all places except with a regional variation and flavor but works the exact same way. This is how I was able to understand the concepts of both religions separated by time and space. I guess that's as simple as I can put it.
In Bangladesh We practice Theravada, and we also consider the existence of Gods(not the creator one), but don't worship any (except few people worship Hindu Gods, but they only do that because they want solution for temporary problems). But people not study Buddhism that much, rather they do things like other religions somewhat do
I feel like you basically glossed over Mahayana Buddhism. Significantly more time was given to "secular Buddhism" something that while influential is like 1% of all Buddhists.
That is because Buddhism comes from the same parent faith as Hinduism. The same way that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all descend from the faith of Abraham
@BadgerOfTheSea Yeah I know. Commented that because the way Westerners think about Buddhism vis a vis Hinduism is way more different than how different the faiths actually are.
Gautama Buddha is the founder of this "religion" and I don't think he spent any time inventing some divine cosmology - so why do people who identify as buddhists believe in particular cosmologies? Surely this is just some cultural tradition.
This all makes me believe that buddhism is not a religion founded by the enlightened buddha.. his teachings does not allow any room for a religion or "way of life" to exist in the first place.. his teachings are mostly focusses on "self".. then why an enlightened one.. would form a religion especially out of his own name.. I really think buddhism is a religion founded by people who followed the path of Buddha.. what you guys think
Everyone is atheistic towards other gods, therefore everyone is an atheist. Sometimes atheists become more atheistic, or misotheistic, or simply dystheistic as more gods fall before logic and experience.
some might say that the self is reborn many times every day, that we are slaves to our conditioned human experience - as for personal liberation, this is a personal issue, though it may be universal at the death of the body.
I had this obnoxious attention seeking hippie hipster from special class who said she's a Buddhist because she think Buddha is a god while rejecting absolutely everything about the very easy basics of Buddhism that everyone else knows such as the Eightfold Path. She said that it's just like Christians don't believe in everything in their religion which is a very flawed comparison to her perception of Buddhism. Although she is like any other atheists (except me) in the school who openly bashes religion. Our religious/societal teacher thinks she only say that just because to have something to talk about or to feel special and interesting amongst other atheists. She has a very limited mental capacity of thinking Africa is only one big country and cherrypicking the most obscured sources from the bottom of the search results that support her claims.
As a Theravada Buddhist, I feel like Mahayana is a heavily mutated form that's deeply integrated with traditional local beliefs. And yes, original Buddhist teachings a heavily compatible with Science and keeps proving these teaching time and time again. Unlike other religions where books and teachings has to be revised to fit into modern scientific findings
I don't really think it is right to characterize Mahayana's distinct views as coming from "local beliefs," because Mahayana Buddhism's historical origins are clearly discernible within early Indian Buddhist communities. The Mahayana Sutras first circulated among the same Buddhist communities where the non-Mahayana Tripitaka circulated, and the key doctrines can be found outside of the Mahayana movement as well, spread across different ancient Buddhist sects like the Mahasamghika and Dharmaguptaka.
Mahayanis are far better than Theravadans like you who degraded the status of Tathagatha to mere hippee in order to appease westerners. Regretfully , there is no emperor Ashoka in the modern world to punish people like you.
@@sryoutube9821 True, I'm referring more to practices. While the core teachings might be similar, there's more Personification of concepts and deity worshiping where deities are held in more regard than actual teachings which defeats the whole purpose.
@@dnwarrior199 As a Mahayana Buddhist who has also practiced in Theravada contexts, I don't think that is really the case, and I think I see people who treasure and practice the teachings and people who engage in empty ritualism equally in both traditions. What matters is whether a person is growing in renunciation, and their kleshas are declining, and their good qualities are growing. And one finds such practitioners in Theravada and Mahayana, but one also finds people for whom this is not the case. In any case, the Buddha said buddhanusati is valuable. So we should be thinking about and focusing on awakened ones. That is a common teaching. I don't think it is pernicious.
As a secular Buddhist I’d like to say that karma isn’t necesarily seen as súper natural as it is seen as a cause and effect of actions and thought. If you do harm you simultaniously effect your own mind in a way that causes suffering.
with things like the extremely convoluted hierarchy of realms, i'm wondering how they were invented or constructed. were they based on preexisting phenomena, like, for example, the number of bones or tendons in the body, or the number of chi points in the body, or planetary cycles? or did they just "come to people in dreams" (and related phenomena, like divine inspiration) over the eons?
I'm sticking with the Theravada school, not Mahayana or any of that outlandish stuff. Buddhism is a practice, not a religion of beliefs as in there being a creator God.
Devas, the Buddha's omniscience, iddhi, etc. are all present in Theravada Buddhism as well. But Theravada has perhaps changed more in modernity than Mahayana Buddhism has, making these features less evident.
"outlandish stuff" what a bigoted sectarian thing to say. Also, why are you acting like religion can be picked up and dropped or changed like a fashion accessory?
Register for our class "Who are the Hungry Ghosts?:" religionforbreakfast.eventbrite.com/
Excellent video educating as to why secular buddhism is colonialist drivel
Today I am having Religion For Brunch.
I’m having Religion For Lunch.
I'm having Religion for Late Night Snacks
I've always had the Eternal Dharma
A bunch of slackers that couldn't wake up on time!😂
Religion for Dinner
I mostly come to RUclips for educational content. And there's a lot of great stuff out there, we're kind of living through a golden age of this type of content. But this channel is still heads and shoulders above the rest. Just great, interesting, deeply informative content week after week after week. Love it.
Yes.
Also, Ready to Harvest
A small correction, here at the begining the two priests were talking about the attributeless bramhan not the four headed god bramha. Those two things are different.
Exactly. Brahman and Brahma are different. Brahman is a metaphysical concept related to consciousness and is considered as the ultimate reality in Hinduism.
@@AdvaiticOneness1 Yes
I feel like this is actually a pretty big mistake in this video, thanks for bringing attention to this!
@@oscaraltman8122 Yep that mistakes makes hinduism nearly identical to other indo-europeann religions.
Brah
Wow, literally was just talking about this on cosmic skeptic's channel. Can't wait to watch this video!
Which video?
@tc59932 This short. I was in the comments talking about it and there were some good discussions there!
ruclips.net/user/shortsf2gK9uRIPQc?si=UaIhCaquzeuLmC4Y
I don't know the west thinks Buddhism is atheistic..... We always worshipped gods..... But buddha is supreme teacher of gods and humans.
Btw... Another amazing video ❤❤❤🙏
The cultural West has always been weird regarding the question of divinities.
Until well into the 20th century (and to a degree still today), monotheism was regarded as the most “rational” belief system, which was of course mere Eurocentrism reflecting a preference for the White European way of doing things, one of these being Christian belief in one supreme God.
Then in fits and starts throughout the 20th century, European intellectuals who questioned the rationality of belief in divinities embraced Buddhism for its apparent disinclination towards gods, championing it on this basis as a rational, empirical, even “scientific” philosophy. Extolling Buddhism’s “rational empiricism” naturally meant downplaying the presence of gods and rituals in Buddhist praxis; these were “mere superstitious contamination” of an otherwise sensible tradition relying on empirically observable data about reality.
The concept of upaya is essential to how the various devas, bodhisattvas, and Buddhas are reinterpreted to be metaphors for various aspects of the mind. Thank you for bringing this concept up.
For example, the upaya doctrine espoused in the Lotus Sutra allows for the later Universal Gate chapter within the Lotus Sutra to be reinterpreted from being a long sermon on how Avalokiteshvara can save us to being an extended metaphor for the workings of compassion.
Upaya serves as a very useful tool to the Buddhist Modernist, as you say, to reinterpret the Buddhadharma. Buddhism is really all four parts of the tetralemma, atheistic, theistic, both atheistic and theistic, and neither atheistic nor theistic.
The part of buddhist modernism was very interesting.
Buddhist philosophical history has plenty of investigation of many classical "divine attributes," but as they concern Buddhas: omniscience, omnipresence, impassibility, omnibenevolence, etc. The only classical divine attribute routinely denied of the Buddhas is being the efficient or formal cause of the world. One sees this tendency throughout historical Buddhist literature in India for example. So here's a question: is the most important attribute for making something a God the creator-attribute? Because if not, then maybe the Buddhas - the omniscient (sarvajña) saviors (tāyin) through teaching - are Buddhism's gods. And the devas are more like...jinn or something.
Definite theism:
1. Specifically the Abrahamic idea of God? Then: obviously NO.
2. The wider understanding of deities? Then: obviously YES.
Had to click on the notif.
The complexity of Buddhist cosmology, with realms and layered heavens, serves as a powerful metaphor as much as a literal belief system. For some, these devas are guiding symbols for psychological states, while for others, they are very real presences in their spiritual lives. And the beauty of Buddhism is that it doesn’t force a one-size-fits-all approach. Whether devas are seen as external or internal, Buddhism ultimately centers on self-awareness and insight over external worship.
So essentially believe whatever make you happy
The middle way is key; they are both internal and external. They are real and not, the same way we are real and yet not.
However, the degree to which one wants to interact with the Devas, Nagas, Nyen ect. Is up to ones self. Focus on the inner, outer, both or neither.
Though, I'll quote my Friends teacher, Gelug Lama "we make a vow to all sentient beings, including Debas, Nagas and so forth. To ignore them is to forsake our Bodhisattva vows which extend to all sentient beings which are our responsibility."
@@kaiklose6172Like how many more intelligent life forms are there besides humans because I feel like there’s too many to track… I also feel like we’re just infants compared to the others 😑
That's a very western point of view. They were and are considered real even to this day in actual Buddhist countries.
The thing is: Buddhism says that there is no difference beetween the physical and the psychological. In Buddhist metaphysics, it is said that each plane of existence or realm is created by the karma (the intentions, thoughts and actions) of the beings living on it, including our own human realm.
When Buddhism says that "heaven and hell are mind states" it is not meant to be interpreted as "Buddhist cosmology is just metaphors". It is meant to be interpreted as the fact that each kind of existence (humans, animals, heaven, hells, ghosts...) is manifested by the mind states of sentient beings. Each mind reflects reality according to its own point of view. Some Tibetan schools even hold the belief that dreams are a manifestation of this luminous, creative aspect of the mind. You are creating your own "personal, minor realms" when you are sleeping, not different from how your mind is manifesting this human existence right now.
your eyebrow work has become sublime, my friend
The Buddhist gods are there to protect us. Their powers are activated by our Buddhist practice. They don't need to be identified or assume any kind of form other than the manifestation of protection or to quickly resolve a dilemma.
To me, the bodhisattvas in Mahayana Buddhism seem quite similar to the saints in Christianity.
Bodhisattvas will become Buddha themselves but Saint can't become God in Christianity.
@@ดีดีมาก-ญ2ฅGood point!
@@ดีดีมาก-ญ2ฅ Wow, thanks for the quick reply! You are right, the similarity is not complete. What I was thinking was that, calling bodhisattvas 'gods' can be misleading, especially for people in monotheistic traditions, who think 'polytheism' is anathema (background: I was brought up Christian (in the UK), but now consider myself Buddhist, though I don't follow a particular tradition).
@@ดีดีมาก-ญ2ฅnot exactly true. This is true for most heterodox Christianity, but in orthodox Christianity there is a theological concept called “theosis” which means deification of humanity. Since man is created in the image of god, human beings are therefore living icons of god. The saints in Christianity, although are not gods themselves, but are seen as a completed spiritual fathers and mothers in the process of transformation of deification. The outlook for orthodoxy is that human beings are not complete until they fulfil the image of god, whom Christ the living god, became an example for living a life of sinlessnes, even though we are still sinners. Theosis is described as God became man, so that man can become gods by grace(spiritual gifts).
Theosis is still different from becoming a Buddha, because one does not gain the same exalted attributes as the object of worship through theosis. But the Buddhist view is that once a bodhisattva becomes a Buddha, they are equally omniscient, equally endowed with every excellence, etc., as all previous and future Buddhas. A bodhisattva isn't just becoming "like" the most exalted possible kind of individual, but is in the process of actually becoming such, on the Buddhist view. So I think it is still different from theosis. @@ramintahouri270
I think the reason a lot of people think of Buddhism as Athiestic is because in the West, a lot of people practice Secular/Athiest Buddhism. That being said, just like all religions, it encompasses a variety of thoughts and perspectives. Some Buddhist are theist, and others are not.
Yeah and it's annoying that the western secular buddhists almost insist that theirs is the correct one
@@niket527 it's the west so there's nothing else to expect.
@@s.d.m.g361 yeah and they tend to ignore the community and ethical aspect as well. Basically mindfulness in pursuit of individual material happiness, regardless of the effect your actions have on others, the environment, society. Eg soldiers using mindfulness
@@s.d.m.g361 Gotta make Buddhism sensible to capitalist droggery
I'm a new subscriber and this channel has been a blessing. Thank you for your knowledge and delivery, Dr.
Secular buddhist:I believe in the Buddha but none of that supernatural stuff.
Buddha:Yeah fine whatever.
Buddha - 😊
"Buddha" is a life condition to be aspired to. Everyone has the potential to become a buddha.
Shakyamuni Gautama is the name of the historical buddha. He was a real person, not a fantasy diety.
Phenomenal work! Buddham Dhammam Sangham Namasami 🙏🙏🙏
People always called me crazy for refusing to have premarital eye contact. Well who's crazy now?
Personally, for me, this is one of the most usefully educational channels on the net.
Bodhisattvas also exist in Pali canon, and Theravada also includes a procedure for lay practitioners to enter a path of bodhisattva with aim of eventually becoming buddha. Pure buddha fields (also called pure lands) are not celestial realms per say, they are more like a state of mind, although they are sometimes associated with certain direction such as west for Sukhavati or east for Abhirati, they do not reside in any physical place. Great bodhisattvas themselves have their own pure fields - Avalokiteshvara resides in Potala, Manjushri in Vimala and Vajrapani in Alakavati, but again these are not physical places as such. Unlike devas, these bodhisattvas are free from samsara and are a source of Buddhist refuge (as a jewel of sangha) along with buddhas and their teaching.
I thought the term ‘bodhisattva’ simply referred to one who is not yet enlightened in the Pali canon-distinct from its later meanings. Beyond that, I also thought part of the bodhisattva path involved choosing to remain in samsara in order to help all others; how then can these great bodhisattvas be said to be free from samsara?
@@marchwhitlock6455a bodhisattva both in non-Mahāyāna and Mahāyāna contexts refers to someone who, for the sake of others, aims at becoming a samyaksaṃbuddha (sammāsaṃbuddha in Pāḷi) rather than another kind of awakened person. The reason why this requires "staying in saṃsāra" is because the path to becoming a samyaksaṃbuddha is the longest path to awakening and the most arduous - traditionally, it is narratively recounted in the Jātaka stories, wherein the bodhisattva who became the Samyaksaṃbuddha Śākyamuni has to do various difficult things and go through arduous births. But eventually, once one becomes a samyaksaṃbuddha, one is free from saṃsāra. And further, one is uniquely able to help other beings. Or so the Buddhist view goes.
Mahāyāna and Theravāda disagree in some ways on the nature of a samyaksaṃbuddha and on what is cultivated during the path towards it, but otherwise these terms are basically held in common across all Buddhism.
yesss I've been waiting for this video
Profoundly helpful, many thanks!🙏
Gods, namely devāh, are beings that enjoy higher states of existence due to a store of past good karma, but at the end of the day they, like all other non-awakened beings (humans, animals, demons, etc.) are subject to cyclical rebirth, and so will be eventually pass away and be reborn into another state (a lower one if they have exhausted their good karma and not cultivated more to keep them in the rarified heavenly realms).
So yes, gods exist in Buddhist cosmologies, and depending on the tradition may or may not be objects worthy of veneration, but they are differentiated from Buddhas (and Bodhisattvas, depending on how one interprets these) by being subject to cyclical rebirth.
This was really interesting, I learned a lot of new things about Buddhism. Thank you :)
An interesting chapter in the history of the reception of Buddhism as an "atheistic religion" is at least a subset of the Buddhist clergy of the Mongolic peoples of the former Russian Empire embracing the Bolshevik Revolution and trying to sell the idea that their core teachings were perfectly compatible with communism and scientific rationalism. For some time the Bolsheviks reciprocated, but ultimately extended their anti-religious campaigns to the Buddhists as well.
The Buddhist concepts are very similar to the neo-Pagan ones. The Buddhist cosmology is far more complex and systematized but some Pagans view the gods as actual independent spiritual beings while others view them as symbols, archetypes, and aspects of nature and human life, while others see the gods as a blend of actual and symbolic. Some see the gods as separate beings while others as aspects or ways of experiencing an undivided Divine/Spiritual. Some Pagans are atheistic in that they don't work with the gods at all but directly with nature. Outside monotheism, religions are often not simple binaries of theist or atheist. They can be mixes or gradations of or even neither. But that makes life more interesting.
I am Catholic, but I have a lot of respect for Buddhism. I think it's a fascinating tradition to learn about
_"I am Catholic..."_
Why did you decide to worship a father who used one of his sons as a human sacrifice to himself _and_ cannibalism?
I actually think that if some Christians read and understood Buddhas teachings , they become better, wiser, more mindful Christians. They would learn to be awake and conscious each moment and understand the intricate interplay of cause and effect . They’d be more present each moment with the thoughts they think , the words they speak and the actions they engage in. They’d understand that they are 100% responsible and accountable for their choices words and actions . They’d understand that they shape their very next moment with their choices, thoughts, words and actions . They’d realize they create each moment their own heaven or hell. It’s all cause and effect
Thank you. I’m Buddhist and I enjoy your Buddhist videos a lot.
In Thailandd we think of deva as more of an angle than a god, but some Buddhists do worship Hindu Gods
Thanks for sharing
Minor correction/nitpick: Avalokiteshvara is not exclusively Male. Depending on the region they are depicted as Male or Female (for instance in China she is Guanyin and often female, while in Tibet he is Chenrezig and usually male.)
That doesn’t make referring to him as ‘he’ incorrect, though.
Question (around 16:00 made me think of it) what do you consider the biggest challenge regarding early scholars and understanding other cultures religion? The limited texts they got, the strict cultural lenses they saw it though or the language barrier being higher for lay people as opposed to the learned and making interactions less fruitful?
great video! as always :D
Thank you for your contribution on the matter.
The Brahman described by Hindus is essentially "Consciousness" (Chitta) or "Fullness" (Poornam). Yogic meditations and the teachings of the Upanishads serve as guides toward enlightenment. While Buddha referred to the ultimate reality as "Shunyam" (Emptiness), Hindus recognized it as "Poornam" (Fullness) or Brahman. This is why idealists are more interested in hindu philosophy especially Advaita vedanta.
I thought it was Nāgārjuna, and not the Buddha, who first referred to ultimate reality as emptiness.
@@marchwhitlock6455 the concept of Emptiness, Śunyata, arose around the 1-2 centuries AD with the rise of Mahayana thought around this time in Northern India. Fundamentally, Śunyata describes what Orthodox Buddhist schools designate “Conditioned Origination”: that all phenomena, not being static and unchanging, lack any essence fundamental to their existence that would impart permanence (in humans this would be our Soul, our notion of Ego even as we undergo fundamental changes as we grow and develop).
For Mahayana Buddhists, the absence of such a “permanent” essence in anything makes everything “empty”. For their part, the Orthodox Buddhist schools understood Śunyata as Annihilationism, namely that what comes into existence passes away and ceases absolutely, (in Conditioned Origination, things serve as the basis for the origination of more things before passing, in this way continuing to “exist” through the ripple effect of further things spawned).
Nagarjuna attempted through his writings to show that Mahayanist thought, and especially Śunyata, was still in line with Orthodox Buddhist thought, but his efforts were unsuccessful and was ultimately embraced by Mahayanists only.
@@marchwhitlock6455 Nagarjuna attempted to demonstrate through his writings that the Mahayana concept of Emptiness was compatible, and indeed a continuation, of the Orthodox Buddhist concept of Conditioned Origination when Mahayana began to emerge in northern India during the 1-2 centuries AD. Ultimately he was unsuccessful in reconciling these two traditions of Buddhist thought, and was embraced only by Mahayana Buddhism.
When you covered your eyes instead of your mouth, I died laughing. And found myself in an awkward situation
Last time I was this early Buddhism was an atheistic religion
Buddhism is just another branch of Hinduism. Hinduism has many schools of philosophies, including pure atheistic schools. Search "Charvaka" school of philosophy in Hinduism.
Too bad I can't finish this, gotta go back to work
Western/Secular Buddhism sounds a lot like Unitarian Universalism, which strips away the superstitious/religious parts of Christianity.
What do you think of the idea that Budhism served as a form of ideological population control so people themselves passively accepted their exploitation? Michael Parenti has talk about this in relation to Tibet.
I hope me and Andrew end up in the same heavenly realm. 😏
Wear sunglasses for protection!
@ Notice me Senpai! Notice me!
“Does God (or god) exist?” This question is ultimately unanswerable and thus unhelpful. On the other hand, the Buddha’s teaching on the nature of suffering and its cessation, is knowable and useful. When I say that Buddhism is a religion without God, I mean that God has no role to play in the Buddhist worldview. Unknowable concepts have no value. That is not to say that things beyond my comprehension don’t exist, only I don’t find it helpful to investigate them. Silence is better in these cases, and to focus on the truth of impermanence and the consequences that follow.
One important point I've heard to how the Mahayana circles the square of having extensive pantheons of supernatural beings yet asserting an atheistic world view is through Madhyamaka philosophy. If all phenomena are ultimately empty, then even devas only "exist" in the relative view, which is non-dual with the ultimate view. In the ultimate view of emptiness, no such beings exist. Something like this anyway. Thank you for the video!
That doesn't satisfy me, because we don't exist either by that logic (or what if...that's the point 😦).
Great video. I think if one is promoting a western influenced version of Buddhism that dispenses of supernatural elements, great. You are free to do so. But I think transparency is important, you should admit that your belief and practise is also the result of a specific historical process. You may argue for the value of your perspective, but asserting that it is somehow the immutable original feels very arrogant. It'd be like if you changed a friend's family recipe, started claiming that's how their grandma really cooked it, and then told them that their version tastes off.
Sects of Buddhism itself developed the same way. The Chan/Zen tradition centers around Huineng the sixth patriarch, his life story, and his teachings. However, it turns out that what is said about Huineng did not actually happen, and the Platform Sutra attributed to Huineng was likely written by his followers to assert Huineng's position as the sixth patriarch, while also asserting that the "sudden enlightenment" approach to awakening is not only correct, but also the correct way to interpret Buddha's teachings. Then, later Dogen asserted that the way to enlightenment is a gradual process that includes meditation which contradicts the teachings of Huineng.
I think it is important not to discredit anyone's spiritual beliefs and people should practice what makes sense to them. The arrogance comes when people believe that their subjective truth is superior to others.
Hinduism also agrees that the Devas do die & aren't omniscient. But they disagree with the Buddhists in that they believe in a Supreme Being (for Vaishnavas it is Vishnu, for for Shaivas it is Shiva, for Shaktas it is the Goddess Shakti), who creates Brahma, the creator of the cosmos is the personified manifestation of Brahman, by whose grace moksha (Hindu equivalent of the Buddhist nirvana) is obtained. While Mahayana doesn't treats much with the Puranic deities, Vajrayana (Tibetan Buddhism in layman's term) goes in another direction. The Vajrayana compendium Sadhanamala graphically depicts Buddhist bodhisattvas & other deities trampling upon Hindu deities.
"A mind that believes there is a God, or that there is no God, is a conditioned, prejudiced mind." J. Krishnamurti
I don’t get it,can you elaborate more?
@@BZentinela
"Belief has no place where truth is concerned."
J. Krishnamurti
Interesting video. It seems like the longer a religion exists, the more complexity gets added to it. Christianity does the same thing. It's like you have to keep adding features to the product to get more "customers" or to keep your existing "customers" interested. I'm a spiritual person, but I've never felt a connection to a particular organized religion for this reason and a few others.
id argue you see the same process in scientific fields as well (notable physics and chemistry). In many cases it was explicitly done to attract converts or increase popularity (you can see this in how Christianity adapted to the religious environments of the new world, Asia, etc), but I think it's inaccurate to say that that is the only or even primary reason we see so much complexity in religions
@madisonarnett4194 Actually, that's inaccurate about science. Usually, science strives to explain things in simpler, more concise ways over time. Organized religions seem to be about adding complexity when things in the world turn out to be inconsistent with their original writings.
"I've Lost all my Money to 300 pound ghosts." -bob pollard
Why does Buddha sound more like Muhammad to me? Both took existing religious framework of the time and gave it their own spin.
Whaaaat? Really?
Maybe it's just me but the way a lot of westerners try to paint Buddhism as atheistic seems orientalist and disingenuous
Ikr? It's litteral colonialism thinking they can do better than the actual worshippers
@@Carlos-bz5oo Well, we could do better pretty much everything, otherwise we wouldn't have colonialised you. Cope and cry.
No. There is no such thing as absolutely incorrect usage-humans invent, reinterpret, and make new languages all the time. There is no intrinsic meaning to any word outside of a certain context-The word "fire" at a shooting range means metaphorically similar but still fundamentally different to that same word used in an HR meeting.
Nothing within the context of Buddhism is comparable to the stereotypical objective-defining, independant-of-humans, Abrahaic tri-omni "God" worshiped by most Western layity.
Now, you _can_ find some Western mystics (like in some esoteric forms of Kabbalah) that blur the lines. But for the vast majority of Westerners, their concept of "God" is fairly unsophisticated. Outside of them, you only get allegorical reinterpretions of daities by intellectual elites such as Mimonides, Spinoza, and Jung.
Those guys aren't being disingenuous to interpret "God" allegorically-this genuinly seems to be how the authors of scriptural narratives intended for at least some of their writings to be read. So as long as everyone is able to clearly translate what you mean by terms like "God" into in terms their more literal minds can comprehend then there really shouldn't be any issues-this is unfortunately where most of these people fail.
But, Buddhism has something called "Dvasatya"-the Two Truths Doctorine, that allows for the distinction between "Saṁvṛti-satya"-Provisional Truth (i.e. Devas, Asuras, Nagas etc.) and "Paramārtha-satya"-Ultimate Truth (i.e. Sunyata, Anattā, Pratītyasamutpāda).
With the addition of Doctorines like "Upaya"-Skillful Means, it means that Buddhism is endlessly adaptable to synchronizing any existing religions or non-religions it encounters by interpretating them as (merely) "Saṁvṛti-satya". The supernatural does _really exist_ as a type of "Saṃjñā"-Perception within the synapses and neurons of the minds who believe in such things while simultaneously not existing in the minds of those who do not because they have diffrent a Saṃjñā.
Grappling with the Parable of the Elephant and the Blind Men is crucial for understanding that what Buddhism calls "Gods" are more like what Jung called "Gods" than what Christians mean when they talk about "God".
@@Carlos-bz5oo We can do better, otherwise we wouldn't have colonized you!
I've been anticipating this video. As someone who prays to Avalokiteśvara, I thank you. I get really tied of people telling me what my religion is about. I personally don't follow any particular school but I consider the Bodhisattvas an important part of my journey.
The bottom line is, as long as you follow the core beliefs of Buddhism, the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, you're a Buddhist. But the guys you were describing, the secularists who are so far removed, you might as well liken them to the Cultural Christians.There's no meat on those bones.
it's originally agnostic. as it spread throughout asia people combined it with local beliefs and religion, most people are unaware of the original teachings by Buddha.
So Buddhist cosmology is basically Xianxia but instead of pursuing the Dao, the protagonists just want to ask a question we can google of ourselves?
If only the word "god" actually meant something, rather than being an abyss onto which anyone can project anything
To steal from Arthur C. Clarke: any sufficiently venerated being or entity is indistinguishable from a god.
@@MarshmallowRadiation I like dogs. I have a dog. That dog is given everything it needs for survival and enrichment. I take it out to explore and play and use the world as it's restroom whenever it wants. I buy it high quality food and treats that I labor for. I bathe and groom this creature in a way as to make them happy and make others who interact with them happy too. I suspect I am not the only one who does this for their pet.
Do you worship or venerate your pet? Probably not. Do I worship or venerate mine? Probably not.
All you've done is take one step back and say you've soved the problem. What is "venerate" and what is "worship"?
Ffs why come to a channel discussing religions if you're only here to brag about how smart you are for not believing in one
@@A10810 Superiority complexes are usually where most people start in religious studies-given enough time they'll understand sunyata and extinguish their ego. Even if it takes a thousand lifetimes to do so.
As a practicing and convert to Vajrayana Buddhism (albeit not always strictly the best) - there are many gods in the pantheon. It was an easy conversion from Catholicism into Buddhism because some of the concepts & history of religion in Mexico, from when the Spaniards brought Christianity and mixed with our Indigenous customs share parallels (Saints are parallels to Bodhittsavas as an example La Virgen Maria and Avalokitsvara in the form of Chenrizeg/Guanyin or Tara, celebrations of the ancestors/the dead, the afterlife, what happens when we die, spirits). Through conversations with my Tibetan neighbors we discovered that we related on various concepts, histories, and shared similar ideas/traditions that were adopted by the dominant religion as well as the violent clashes that empire and religion often bring (Buddhism in Tibet and Catholicism in Mexico). Sidenote, I'm from the north, with Yaqui ancestry, we also share similar views about the spirit world and the significance of the deer 🦌. I also saw many of the same parallels when I traveled to Oaxaca as an example the belief of snakes and what they represent was very similar to Nagas. But this was my own experience can't make assumption all Northern Mexicans view it this way. To give a crude yet simple example of all this in Mexico we have burritos (which predate colonization), in the Middle East they are called Shawirma, in other Western countries they call them wraps. It's essentially a carbohydrate that you add proteins, vegetables, sauce etc. that is food on the go, it's virtually eaten in the same way in all places except with a regional variation and flavor but works the exact same way. This is how I was able to understand the concepts of both religions separated by time and space. I guess that's as simple as I can put it.
It's almost like all gods in all religions are symbols of different aspects of the One that you are.
3:00 In the afternoon
Religion for lunch 😅
In Bangladesh We practice Theravada, and we also consider the existence of Gods(not the creator one), but don't worship any (except few people worship Hindu Gods, but they only do that because they want solution for temporary problems). But people not study Buddhism that much, rather they do things like other religions somewhat do
I agree with this presentation.
I feel like you basically glossed over Mahayana Buddhism. Significantly more time was given to "secular Buddhism" something that while influential is like 1% of all Buddhists.
UPSIDE, INSIDE, OUT! Living the devaloka!
Thank you.
Buddhism is _very_ similar to Hinduism.
That is because Buddhism comes from the same parent faith as Hinduism. The same way that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all descend from the faith of Abraham
Nope
@BadgerOfTheSea Yeah I know. Commented that because the way Westerners think about Buddhism vis a vis Hinduism is way more different than how different the faiths actually are.
@@marvelloustraveller3559 Om Mani padme hum. I wonder where did the Om comes from?
the great vehical sounds like merkabah mysticism
15:07 wait a minute, "Upaya" just means "effort" in the Indonesian language....
So... Buddhism is generally apatheistic
Secular Buddhism is the way to go
thank you
Brahman and Brahma are two different things
Yes
Gautama Buddha is the founder of this "religion" and I don't think he spent any time inventing some divine cosmology - so why do people who identify as buddhists believe in particular cosmologies? Surely this is just some cultural tradition.
Why do people comment before actually watching the video?
a whole myriad of reasons, from presumptions and prejudice, to something as simple as trolling in the comments and then just leaving.
This all makes me believe that buddhism is not a religion founded by the enlightened buddha.. his teachings does not allow any room for a religion or "way of life" to exist in the first place.. his teachings are mostly focusses on "self".. then why an enlightened one.. would form a religion especially out of his own name.. I really think buddhism is a religion founded by people who followed the path of Buddha.. what you guys think
23:50 Really made me laugh.
He didn't talk about soy as a protein source. Maybe it's included in the beans? Or is he avoiding soy for some fear of isoflavinoides?
Everyone is atheistic towards other gods, therefore everyone is an atheist.
Sometimes atheists become more atheistic, or misotheistic, or simply dystheistic as more gods fall before logic and experience.
I’m sorry for ruining the number and liking this video 😔 it’s 667 now
I disagree with calling sam harris an atheist. hes a christian nationalist who superficially appeals to atheism.
Religion for cookie in the way to work after lunch
So is deva also a root for 'diva'?
I had always heard the terms big wheel and little wheel Buddhism, is that no longer a thing, or did I miss something?
Theravada doesn’t like being called little wheel I think is the reason.
do hungry ghosts have religion for breakfast?
Sounds like Narnia
There is no such thing as rebirth, no such thing as bondage, and no such thing as liberation.
I can't tell if this is some zen koan or if this is a simple anti Buddhist statement
And you know this how?
some might say that the self is reborn many times every day, that we are slaves to our conditioned human experience - as for personal liberation, this is a personal issue, though it may be universal at the death of the body.
Yesn't.
Live in la deva loca
Religion for dinner.
Religion for mid afternoon snack
I had this obnoxious attention seeking hippie hipster from special class who said she's a Buddhist because she think Buddha is a god while rejecting absolutely everything about the very easy basics of Buddhism that everyone else knows such as the Eightfold Path. She said that it's just like Christians don't believe in everything in their religion which is a very flawed comparison to her perception of Buddhism. Although she is like any other atheists (except me) in the school who openly bashes religion. Our religious/societal teacher thinks she only say that just because to have something to talk about or to feel special and interesting amongst other atheists. She has a very limited mental capacity of thinking Africa is only one big country and cherrypicking the most obscured sources from the bottom of the search results that support her claims.
U should do a about 40k religion
Nope.
As a Theravada Buddhist, I feel like Mahayana is a heavily mutated form that's deeply integrated with traditional local beliefs. And yes, original Buddhist teachings a heavily compatible with Science and keeps proving these teaching time and time again. Unlike other religions where books and teachings has to be revised to fit into modern scientific findings
Bet you wouldn't be able to actually debate a Mahayana monk on it.
I don't really think it is right to characterize Mahayana's distinct views as coming from "local beliefs," because Mahayana Buddhism's historical origins are clearly discernible within early Indian Buddhist communities. The Mahayana Sutras first circulated among the same Buddhist communities where the non-Mahayana Tripitaka circulated, and the key doctrines can be found outside of the Mahayana movement as well, spread across different ancient Buddhist sects like the Mahasamghika and Dharmaguptaka.
Mahayanis are far better than Theravadans like you who degraded the status of Tathagatha to mere hippee in order to appease westerners.
Regretfully , there is no emperor Ashoka in the modern world to punish people like you.
@@sryoutube9821 True, I'm referring more to practices. While the core teachings might be similar, there's more Personification of concepts and deity worshiping where deities are held in more regard than actual teachings which defeats the whole purpose.
@@dnwarrior199 As a Mahayana Buddhist who has also practiced in Theravada contexts, I don't think that is really the case, and I think I see people who treasure and practice the teachings and people who engage in empty ritualism equally in both traditions. What matters is whether a person is growing in renunciation, and their kleshas are declining, and their good qualities are growing. And one finds such practitioners in Theravada and Mahayana, but one also finds people for whom this is not the case.
In any case, the Buddha said buddhanusati is valuable. So we should be thinking about and focusing on awakened ones. That is a common teaching. I don't think it is pernicious.
Myanmar and the Rohingya Muslims will beg to differ
better term might be “humanistic Buddhism”
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
As a secular Buddhist I’d like to say that karma isn’t necesarily seen as súper natural as it is seen as a cause and effect of actions and thought.
If you do harm you simultaniously effect your own mind in a way that causes suffering.
Early
with things like the extremely convoluted hierarchy of realms, i'm wondering how they were invented or constructed. were they based on preexisting phenomena, like, for example, the number of bones or tendons in the body, or the number of chi points in the body, or planetary cycles? or did they just "come to people in dreams" (and related phenomena, like divine inspiration) over the eons?
I'm sticking with the Theravada school, not Mahayana or any of that outlandish stuff.
Buddhism is a practice, not a religion of beliefs as in there being a creator God.
Buddhism is a practice for nothing acording to you, who cares how you live?
Devas, the Buddha's omniscience, iddhi, etc. are all present in Theravada Buddhism as well. But Theravada has perhaps changed more in modernity than Mahayana Buddhism has, making these features less evident.
"outlandish stuff" what a bigoted sectarian thing to say. Also, why are you acting like religion can be picked up and dropped or changed like a fashion accessory?
@@BadgerOfTheSeaWell, obviously, because it can.
Inb4 “hinayana” mentioned