Register for our class "Who are the Hungry Ghosts?:" religionforbreakfast.eventbrite.com/ Edit: If you missed this class, subscribe here to be notified about new classes!: classes.religionforbreakfast.com
As a life long Buddhist my understanding is >Buddhism enters a new country/society. >people “Cool,cool,cool…… Can we keep these gods around as well.” >”sure, ig” >People “Yay”
It's almost like any religion naturally shapes itself anew when it passes through new cultures, and that this is perfectly fine. Think about this when a hard-line Buddhist gets upset with you for choosing the secular Buddhist path. You can imagine they are a Catholic or a protestant upset that you didnt pick exactly everything they chose to believe in
As a Japanese (so I might be biased, mind you), I think the original Buddhism thought was similar to "I can neither prove nor disprove the gods' existence (or, their influence on our lives), so leave it for the time being. we have too many things to mind."
Buddhism is just one of the many schools of philosophy that exists in India. You can belong to more than one at the same time. The modern distinction of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism is fake. These are the same Sanatan Dharma. Sanatan Dharma has many branches and it's very diverse. It is a way of life. Athiesm, Animism, Monoethism, Polyesthism all are accepted in Sanatan Dharma.
I remember I had a discussion with a Buddhist monk in Japan, who happened to speak English, and I told him that one thing I liked about Buddhism was how the Buddha was just a man, and he looked at me and said very simply, with a bit of a laugh, 'The Buddha was NOT just a man'.
On the other hand I remember when a radio presenter (new age radio show) was interviewing my husband (Shin Buddhist) and two zen priests on the occasion of a big Buddhist gathering in Anchorage Alaska, asked “when you meditate do you connect with the Buddha?” There was a pause, then my husband answered, “the Buddha is dead”. More silence. The priests like the answer.
Giving the monk the benefit of the doubt, it might be the "just" that irked him. I.e. he didn't mean to imply "the Buddha was far more than a man", but "the Buddha was an extraordinary man". Similar to how sports fans would take it the wrong way of you call their favorite world class athlete "just" a man. Then again, you'd think he'd get your drift that your statement was meant as a compliment. I guess no matter how secular a religion claims to be, if you devote your life to it you're bound to elevate the important figures in it to a higher status. (Even if that figure emphasizes to not do that very thing.)
I'm from Sri Lanka and according to the teachings taught here, Bodhisattvas are not beings that deliberately postpone their enlightenment to help others! They are on a path from one rebirth to the next in order for them to finally reach enlightenment. They may help people along the way in these rebirths and since they are beings of compassion and kindness they do so without hesitation. Theravada buddhists generally do not worship any sort of bodhisattva's. The general notion we have about the devas is that the idea of Devas were introduced in order for the teachings of the Buddha to be better understood by the people who lived during that time who were brought up in a Jina or Hindu religious background. Buddhist traditions are common in Sri Lanka, ranging from watering trees, to building statues etc. However, more or less people here are aware that the core of Buddhism does not involve all the traditions. Traditions were introduced as means of longevity of the religion, political manipulation and blind faith. Buddhism in its true form is quite simple yet profound. What we learn here in Sri Lanka is that your whole life revolves around your mind which is quite untethered in most people. In order to tether it to yourself or ground it of sorts, we practice meditation to try and calm the mind. Our pursuit of enlightenment does not involve and Devas or supernatural beings.
I remember being taught a lot of these misconceptions during high school, and it was a luxury that we even had a course to teach us about religions and traditions at all. Thank you for the lesson!
Lol my American public school banned all teaching about other religions and only allowed learning christian stories and jewish pronouns and fairy tale horse/bullshiet
It’s stupid they don’t teach about these things anymore. It’s not like the world stopped having religious people just because we made the concept of teaching about it political. It’s only a problem when you only teach one religion and you teach it like it’s fact that supersedes everything else; But actually learning about different cultures, *especially* ones you don’t believe in, is extremely important. People fear and disrespect things they don’t understand and that creates problems throughout society.
These are not "misconceptions", they are *different* conceptions. By the same token as some people wrongly assume a kind of universal rationalism Buddhism, others falsely assume Buddhism to have an "orthdoxy" -it simply doesn't have. There is no Buddhist Vatican with a worldwide authority. While there are strong feelings about upholding correct practice and belief in some quarters, there's yet to be a Buddhist Inquisition, or a Buddhist fatwa that means anything beyond a single country.
As a Thai person who is raised in a country where Theravada Buddhism is the official religion, viewing anti-ritualism as purely a Western invention seems not entirely accurate. Over here, just within Theravada Buddhism, we make distinctions of two kinds of temples and two kinds of monks that practice in them: city and forest. The city temples focus more on rituals and things to do with the community of believers, while the forest temples focuses more on individual practice. Generally, forest temples and their monks are viewed with more respect and is seen as closer to true Buddhist practice. Some specific Nikaya in the city is actually viewed with derision. One of them allowing you to buy land in the heaven for your afterlife. Peak commercialization of Buddhism. And perhaps undeniably something untrue to any respectable Buddhist text. Maybe when the foreigners came, they get to see all the different Nikayas and so gets to choose what they think is best to follow. And what is best, if not to treat it as Philosophy and to reject all parts incompatible with science.
Agreed. There seems to be this idea that Buddhism as practiced in Asian countries is completely ritual-based and that anti-ritualism is Western which is very strange considering that Buddhism in all its forms was formed in Asia.
Same case in Sri Lanka. We perceive the organized sangha in Corlty as more materialistic than monks who reside in the wana aramayas or forest monastries.
Buddhism is somewhat flexible. Religious rites is never a requirement. However the practice is allow if it is to help teaching of Buddhism to those who is hard to understand from read/listening alone.
Totally Agree. This same practice is there in Sri Lanka. Where the monks in the city live luxurious lives while people have more respect for the recluse forest monks.
@@tabryis Mostly in the sense that hypocritical athiests like Harris embrace secular Buddhism while dismissing the exact same concept applied to Christianity.
I've noticed that there is a kind of Neo-Gnostic Christianity that has been bubbling on the r/gnosticism subreddit which I can only describe as secular gnosticism.
I went through a big Buddhist phase in my 20s (about 20 years ago). I remember being consistently baffled and flustered at all the secular, western, caucasian practitioners and groups who would insist that Buddhism was just a mental practice even while they were kneeling on zafutons in front of icons and effigies and chanting what one could describe as prayers.
I constantly hear from Westerners that Buddhist is a philosophy not a religion, that it can't be a religion because x, that they don't believe in gods. I live in Thailand, so this is always amusing to me. Q: Which gods do you believe in? Thai Buddhist A: Yes
@@Sparhafocmahayana is kind of more like that tbh since bodhisattvas arent gods. mahayana buddhists usually only pray to their ancestors as well and only interact with bodhisattvas and deities for guidance and protection
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.
Buddhism, Hinduism and other Eastern religions are deeply intertwined. The prevalence of Hindu-derived deity worship in various parts of Buddhist Asia is because of the Hindu influence. Phra Phrom (Thai depiction of Brahma) as featured in the video at 10:52 cannot be tied to Buddhism but more broadly to the general Dharmic/Indic culture that exists in Thailand. Thai people also popularly worship Ganesha, a deity that does not exist in Buddhist cosmology and Thai people also visit Hindu temples in Thailand. Some of the largest Ganesha statues outside of India are located in Thailand. Phra Phrom in Thai-style is also worshipped by ethnic Chinese across Southeast Asia and southern China. In Hong Kong, there is a famous Phra Phrom statue that is frequented by Chinese people. In Japan, there are Japanese versions of Ganesha, Shiva and Skanda and in Sri Lanka, you will find Buddhist people worshipping local folk gods as well as Hindu gods inside some Buddhist temples like Seema Malaka. The same thing applies to other Buddhist groups in Asia. So correlating it to Buddhism is incorrect because some of these devas don't even exist in Buddhism. The reason people worship them in Asia is because of the pre-existing Hindu influence and the general overlap that Eastern religions share with one another. Thailand was previously a Hindu nation, these Hindu practices were simply carried over after Theravada Buddhism was brought to the country from Sri Lanka. There is no restriction to how people must practice Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism etc. so people mix them together.
@@user-jt3dw6vv4x The modern socio-political element within him made say so, which cant digest the fact that Hinduism and Buddhism have existed together for centuries.
Hinduism is a scam and vinayak is worshipped in vajrayan Buddhism and in old hindi script they said those who worship Ganesha or vinayak don't invite them for yagya (fire sacrifice) later hindu appropriated Ganesh during bak Gangadhar Tilak time when he started Ganesh visharjan in last less than 200 years
@@DB03584 There are Hindu temples dedicated to Ganesha dating long, long before Tilak's time. You have been successfully scammed by your bahujan political masters.😅😅 Now you will spend your entire life trying to make everything about Sanatan Dharm into blue-tinted Buddhism. Sad.
Yeah the Hindu worship is because of the Hindu influence across Buddhist Asia. I think people don't realise that in Buddhist Asian cultures, people mix Buddhism with other similar religions like Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism and folk religions.
@@user-jt3dw6vv4x hindu is a brahminism and bileve in caste system. There is nothing hindu or hinduism is a made concept. Brahminism is actually pratuce in shadow of Hinduism. Stop accociate buddism to hindusim.
I know that in the 1600s the Vedic faiths began to acknowledge the Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu - this led to the decline of Buddhism as an independent religion in the Indian subcontinent, but allowed many followers of Buddhist teachings to return to their Hindu families without compromising their values as they no longer had to choose between the two religions.
God is western concept...there is nothing called Hindu god, Hindu itself is name of river. Dev means the one who shines and the one who protect. Gautam budh is just another guru like thousands of them in India. It has turned into religion pr0paganda.
@@wilberwhateley7569 there has been so many guru in India. Different guru has been teaching different things, doesn't mean they start calling themselves a different religion. The people who call budhist, sikh, Hindu, jain religion, then they just fail the basic concept of Dharma.
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.
well theres even more information out there thats just outright doodoo. real pooopy. like reeeealy bad. i just think its important to consider and we shouldnt forget that.
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.
Yeah that is the most annoying thing of all, western scholars from christian europe who reduce buddhism to only meditation supposedly know more about buddhism than people who actually created it.
Yeah but that's kind of exactly what happens with all religion. My religion is the original, most connected to the "prophet", most accurate form of the religion, exists inside of Buddhism too. Sort of inevitable.
@@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
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.
I wonder what Secular Buddhists have to say about the Buddha's teachings regarding ethics and morality. The Western view of Buddhism is heavily focused in meditation and mindfulness, but according to the Buddha's teachings a virtuous behavior is just as important, if not more. One can become very proeficient in meditation and mindful cultivation, but that alone won't lead anyone to liberation. It's even possible to a person very accomplished in meditation to have selfish and unwholesome behavior. The Buddha's cousin Devadatta is the prime example of this in the Pali Cannon (spoiler alert: he ends up in Hell).
Sadly, all they'll say is their idea of Buddhist morality is just to be nice to people because it makes them feel good and feeds their ego. There's no universal point to it at all if you leave out basically 90% of the core teachings on karma/the eight-fold path. It's a shame but hey it's better than wasting time with other religions at least
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.)
@@utenatenjou2139 What???? They have a point. Avalokiteshvara is depicted as either male or female and you can find the male and female versions in the same temple in some Asian countries like Gangaramaya temple in Sri Lanka. What do you mean "wokism"? Huh??
@@user-jt3dw6vv4x I do aware of male/female view of Avalokiteshvara . He/she pronoun doesn't need to be bound to he or she only. I hope this clear you of "what????". Do you get that marking he/she as correct/incorrect is a mood point; hence, demand correctness/incorrectness is slippery slope for wokism.
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.
@@user-jt3dw6vv4xdepends on which Theravada tradition. The Thai forest tradition and its various Western offshoots strictly follows the pali canon and has no reverence whatsoever for Bodhisattvas, even going so far as to consider the concept misguided. One cannot postpone enlightenment. It happens naturally when one's mind is ready.
My first real encounter with Buddhism was attending guided meditations led by a (white, USan) friend who said that Buddhism was more of a philosophy than a religion, and that it would be more accurate to say that one practices Buddhism, rather than saying that one is a Buddhist. I later watched a series of videos on Buddhism on the RUclips channel Linfamy (highly recommend, but this comment is not sponsored) that described all kinds of supernatural beliefs in Buddhism, and I was a bit confused. This breakdown here of the different ways Buddhism is practiced by different cultures and the different approaches to Buddhism made everything make more sense. Thank you!
This same channel already said something to keep in mind many videos ago: religion is always diverse. Pick any religion and you would find lots of congregations with different beliefs.
I would say that he’s both correct and incorrect at the same time - because there never was a formal separation of philosophy from religion in the Eastern world (unlike the Enlightenment that transpired in the West), it’s often difficult to differentiate between philosophical and religious ideas in Eastern belief systems.
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
@@bitofwizdomb7266yes some of the philosophies of Buddhism would act as a useful tool in how to behave towards things. But that's where it would end as the teachings of Jesus Christ come first and primary as it is a discipline of faith. But I wouldn't be opposed to gutting out the Buddhist teachings so as to get the mindfulness practices for Christians to improve their social behaviour.
The Buddha's teachings (Dhamma) have an important goal to lead people out of suffering by abandoning defilements and attachments, which are the root causes of all suffering. These teachings are universal because they are not limited to race, religion, or culture, but can be applied to everyone in the world. This is because the nature of defilements such as greed, anger, and delusion are present in all humans, regardless of culture or era. However, for the Buddha's teachings to teach people all over the world to abandon defilements depends on several factors, such as: 1. Understanding and readiness of the listener: Dhamma can be understood when the listener has the intention to study and practice seriously. Those who are open to learning will be able to access the deep meaning of the teachings. 2. Differences in cultural context: In some cultures, abandoning defilements or Buddhist concepts may seem strange or inconsistent with the way of life in that area. However, the basic principles, such as practicing mindfulness and compassion, can be applied in all contexts. 3. Practice is the key: Abstaining from defilements does not come from just listening or reading. But it requires practice, such as meditation, mindfulness, and the use of wisdom to consider the three characteristics (impermanence, suffering, and non-self) in order to see the truth of nature. 4. Diversity of human minds: Each person has different levels of defilements, interests, and readiness. The same teaching may have different effects depending on the practitioner's background. In conclusion, the Buddha's teachings have the potential to teach the whole world about abandoning defilements, but the success depends on the intention and practice of each person. If many people can open their minds to learn and practice these teachings, the world may become a happier and more peaceful place.
I have always wished to have a video like this to share with others I have studied all of this, but my spiritual beliefs have been hard to share to others, most won't have the time and interest to sit down with me for 3 hours as I explain all of this This was amazingly done. On point, pure information, and not 3 hours long From the bottom of my Buddhist heart, I thank you!
Western Christians whine about ‘persecution’ and have given themselves the authority through agency like USCIRF to lecture others on about freedom of religion and yet totally misrepresent and marginalize Buddhism.
You can say that many Buddhists believed in gods and it didn't necessarily entirely reject the supernatural or anything like that however those things were not the things which were meant to be focused on.I think this is a fairly simple way to sum it all up.
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.
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
@@niket527 , this is my biggest critique of western/medicalized mindfulness. It's really not that mindful at all if the ethics of it are stripped away. Individualism is also antithetical mindfulness and buddhism itself, since interconnectedness makes individualism moot.
This whole confusion stems from the way Europe name things. Religion, gods, atheism, those are all European words to describe European belief systems that don't necessarily apply elsewhere.
By this line of reasoning, I as a non-European person would never be able to describe my Buddhist culture, or for that matter my innermost thoughts which are highly rooted in my cultural upbringing, to others while speaking in European language. Inversely I would also be incapable of fully understanding Western concepts which have been translated into my native Asian tongue, and am obliged to master Greek in order to read Plato, or German to read Nietzche, or French to read Foucault
@truongcahanh8915 Only if you deal in absolutes. Which is what people do when they pose the question "Are Buddhists atheists?" and expect a 'yes or no' answer. We can use borrowed words to talk to people from other cultural backgrounds, but a lot is lost in the translation. "Gods" is a good enough translation for Devas, but without further explanation Europeans will probably think of the Greek pantheon. They will never guess that a human could be reborn as a "god", or the other way around. If I try to explain to you about the African Orixas cultuated here in Brazil I can use words like 'gods' or 'saints' or ' ancestors', but none of these words will carry a precise idea. Because they are borrowed from a different culture. The Europeans had to import Karma into their vocabulary, because they didn't have any word that could translate the concept.
It was mostly because they called every foreign religion that they didn't understood as "Buddhism" that's why they initially knew Christianity as "The European's Buddhism"
Jesus was replaced by his japanese brother Isukiri to die on the cross while he traveled to japan to live out his life. He married and lived the rest of his life in japan with a new identity - Torai Tora Daitenku - a garlic farmer.
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.
Also, Buddhist idea of Nirvana is different from Moksha of Hinduism. Moksha is explained as realising Oneness with the attributeless Truth Brahman or attaining the Supreme Eternal Divine Realm (like Vaikuntha for Vaishnavas)
@@aditshukla nirvana is also a Hindu idea, it’s mentioned in Bhagwad geeta multiple times. It is mentioned as brahma-nirvana, which is the highest form of nirvana. Moksha isn’t the final step. After moksha you attain access to higher realms of reality. Then when you ascend those that’s brahma nirvana. Spirituality is never ending, even after transcending this plane
@TheEnderPearl I said the Buddhist idea of nirvana is different from the Vedic version. and what is this brahma nirvana, how is it different from moksha/mukti?
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 and scientists 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 with, and indeed a continuation of, the Orthodox Buddhist concept of Conditioned Origination when Mahayana Buddhism 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.
I really like going to Theravada Buddhist temples and listening to the chanting of the monks. I went to a Pure Land ceremony once and could not make it through to the end. For me, it is very much "horses for courses," like the difference between Baptist and Orthodox Christian services, I suppose.
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.
It's a bit problematic that it's mostly just foreigners telling locals that their own cultural beliefs about their own traditional religion are somehow flawed or misinterpreted. "Now I understand that you may come from a culture that's been deeply influenced by Buddhism, M'kay. Thousands of years even... But here's why you're wrong M'kay."
@@itsoblivion8124 which makes it all the more interesting, because there are different interpretations and images of figures. e.g. the difference between Hindu Yama and Buddhist Yama.
I’ve practiced Zen Buddhism for over 40 years. The root of all suffering is ego. Since anything I can say or think about God will be a reflection of my ego and contribute to my suffering, I refrain from doing either.
As a Christian, the way I lose my sense of ego is by reverence and trust in God. I can let go of my need to be good enough, and surrender to His will... I don't need to fear the future. I know God loves me, and will bring forth a good outcome in the end.
@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 think this propensity to water down Buddhism is by byproduct of how Westerners tend to view the idea of religion through a monotheistic lens. From an athiestic lens, I think that this also happens because some athiests like some of the ideas of Buddhism and wish to incorporate them into their lives, but ignore the cultural and religious context of those practices because acknowledging that they are aligning their lifestyle around religious practices would cause cognitive dissonance. It's pretty annoying to witness, especially when Buddhist practices are used for commercial purposes.
Sure, but it's not as if Buddhism isn't exploited for all sorts of reasons, including commercial, in actual Buddhist countries. The point is - there are a lot of paths to enlightenment.
I think those kinds of Western atheists who like some Buddhist ideas but aren't comfortable with the cultural and religious contexts are anti-theistic from having been burned by supernatural belief before and feel they've been tricked, played for fools or betrayed. I think that is a trauma they would do well to process. Personally with supernatural things I think there are grains of truth even in that which I can't bring myself to believe, and still find valuable. They can really tell me a lot about the human condition.
They aren't "ignoring" the cultural and religious context. They are rejecting the idea that Buddhism needs to be based in the supernatural. Just because your interpretation of religion is based in superstition doesn't mean everyone else should adopt superstition based religion.
Just labeling that stuff as "superstion" is too arrogant and condescending, better to just agree to disagree rather than claiming intellectual superiority
@@Manticorn Hi. I would not disagree if someone called me an atheistic western Buddhist. I have never been religious and never believed in supernaturalism.
A good survey. I notice you didn't mention Zen much, if at all; my impression is that Westerners tended (for whatever reason) to encounter Zen-related forms of Buddhism, which put less emphasis on anything supernatural. That may also have contributed to the "Buddhism is atheist" impression in the West?
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.
Mostly, generally, I don’t focus on metaphysical or supernatural stuff: but I’ve had a number of instances wherein likelihood and heretofore known things about regular existence say I shouldn’t have survived, and yet here I am typing. Perhaps I was protected by help, things, beings, or something unseen by normal mortal eyes in this realm. I’m not even sure how I feel about existence.
I notice that went u started to talk about secular Buddhism and modernism Buddhism, they sound like someone who is vaguely learning zen but grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant background. I have also noticed that those professors and authors are not Asian and sound very American,and what they espouse sounds very orientalist and cherry picking of what they like and dislike about Buddhism.
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.
From what I understand, as a buddhist living in a predominantly muslim environment, jinns are used more likely to refer to all supernatural beings (brahmas, devas, petas, and even demons). This is just anecdotal tho
I mean maybe? What you're suggesting would require an objective metric for what constitutes a "god" outside of the Buddhist framework. So like, you can have that opinion, but you're never going to get an empiric answer
Funny thing is, my westernized perspective on Buddhism has always viewed Buddha as just the guy who got enlightenment before everyone else did, thus he was not omnipotent and not omnipresent and not impassible and not omnibenevolent (ok maybe the last, but he wasn't ALWAYS omnibenevolent). I've noticed myself, I often choose to just call the Buddha Siddhartha, because calling him his given name gives a sense of him just being a man. Which most Buddhists in Asia don't seem to believe.
@@swagmundfreud666 yeah, the reason why Buddhists in Asia don't take him to be a human is because the tradition never really did. As far back as is observable in the textual and archeological record, a Tathāgata is regarded in Buddhism as exceeding all other categories in excellence. But the image of the human Buddha gained popularity with Buddhist modernism.
I legit thought the title was "Is Buddhism Aesthetic Religion?" and I was like sure since there says many colourful paintings that I saw on the wall whenever I visited a pagoda
9:25 having to go through multiple layers of a hierarchy of those who don’t have answers only for the top person to dodge the question… *Is this an allegory for calling customer service?!*
That's where most amateurs fall face down, in abarahamic religion questioning the God is sin , where in Hinduism or Buddhism it is a whole set of philosophy to debate the existence of all powerful being, its not frowned upon, rather encouraged to find your place and understanding
Abrahamic religions have an "orthodox" approach, meaning that there is only one correct truth/way of life that God intended/revealed, and there is effort to teach scripture and customs to match this understanding, even if people disagree what is the correct way. Dharmic religions and eastern philosophies, at least what I know of, are more on the "orthopraxis" side, as in there is more emphasis in correct moral practices rather than believing something is factual. Buddhism, for example, rarely cares if you believe it is correct or not, what matters is that, in the tradition, the only way to be enlightened is acting well. While in Christianity/Islam, part of the faith is to wholeheartedly embrace the teachings as revelations from God. In the grand scheme of things, neither orthodoxy nor orthopraxy is "better" than one another. We need some degree of orthodoxy, as in to know and believe concretely in the right and fair, while in orthopraxy we find the best way to interact with the world and ourselves. Having knowledge but bad actions is egoistical (and dangerous, in the wrong hands), and action without good knowledge can be misguided or is limited.
I don't know why the west thinks Buddhism is atheistic..... We always worshipped gods..... But the Buddha is the 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.
There are many Buddhist from the east claiming Buddhism is Atheistic too and it really sounds phony. A Sri Lankan guy going around saying his religion is Atheistic got checked by me and he got so triggered till he dosen't want to speak to me anymore plus he also blocked me in all platforms.
Atheistic/Theistic: 1) Lack believe that God(s) exists -> Do not believe in any God(s) via existence of is not warrant enough to further believe in them 2) Believe that God(s) DO NOT exists -> not believe in any God(s) via no such thing to believe 3) Believe that God(s) exists -> not believe in any God(s) 4) Believe that God(s) exists -> believe in any God(s) 5) Believe that God(s) exists -> believe in only one God 6) Lack believe that God(s) exists -> believe in God(s) --> IHMO, I think human can do this even it is illogical 7) Ignorance (I think this is a variance of 1) existence/non-existence of God(s) has no concern to them; hence, believing has no concern ) I think some Buddhists may fall into one or more of above (there can be others criteria possible). I think some Buddhists view God(s) as tools (phony, pascal wager type, half-heart if you may called), whether God(s) existence is irrelevant when asking for helps. a.k.a. anyone please help, logical not applied in the process. @TingTong2568 You can ask and compare definitions then the "check" on concept of "Without God(s)" can be understood on both side.
@@TingTong2568 Someone doesn't just block someone for such a petty reason. There is clearly more to this story and you both were not friends either. The term "atheistic" is incorrect and I think people are simply conflating the fact that Buddhists don't worship deities to gain things with the idea of atheism, that includes people with Asian origins who don't know enough about Buddhism. The Buddha said that worshipping gods will not help achieve liberation and is only a symptom of dukka (suffering). Gods are not a central idea to basic Buddhism. I think this is what confuses people to conflate this with atheism.
@user-jt3dw6vv4x he was never my friend but we know each other since we used work at the same place. He got triggered when i checked him about his claims that Buddhism is an atheistic movement.
I don't get this protestant Buddhism thing. What's the point of Buddhism if you do not believe in reincarnation and in the cycle of samsahra? That's completely missing the main concern of the teachings. All meditation is "empty ritual" if there is nothing to enlighten out of. If any religion works without belief in the supernatural, I feel like it should be hinduism, where enlightenment is not the rejection of an illusion of self, but rather the embrace of the notion that your atman is shared with all other beings in the universe, re-envisioning Brahma not as a god, but as consciousness itself.
Even Hinduism needs the supernatural as the Brahma or consciousness is something that exists outside natural laws, plus this ignores that many Hindus are strongly theistic and the only example of atheists we find are from criticism of them written by other theists. Plus many schools of thought in Hinduism require you to discard your sense of self to obtain communion with the Brahman. Overall, witrhout spiritual or supernatural beleifs most of the religions reduce to actions that have no purpose, without notion of karma there is no enlightenment, and as you said all your meditation is just a waste of time.
A secular Buddhist won't necessarily discount the idea of rebirth/reincarnation. The idea that when you die, you are born again is not as radical as the idea of heavenly beings who you can appease and win favors from. That said, for many Buddhists, even non-secular ones, enlightenment is not necessarily the immediate goal. Some simply want to be the "best versions of themselves" in the immediate future, and find the dharma the best way to do it.
@@AmunRa1 You don't need Buddhism to do that. Being a better version of yourselves I mean. Secondly do secular Buddhism accept the idea of karma without karma believing in reincarnation or rebirth is useless as you will never be able to escape the cycle of death and reincarnation Overall this trend of secular Buddhism will most likely go the same way christian deism and unitarian universalism has gone where stripping all the supernatural aspects leads to a destruction of the connection with practises secular Buddhists use and Buddhism itself
I think karma can also be pretty easily interpreted in a social, psychological sense. If all you give out is negativity and hatred than that's all you're likely to receive in turn. @@battlerushiromiya651
Dear RFB, Thank you for another well researched and developed piece. Like all things Buddhist, the question of whether Buddhism is Atheistic, or not, is completely dependent upon how one defines the belief, or concept of "God". If one is able to assume a definition for what God "Is" then it is possible to answer the question of what relationship Buddhism has to The Divine principle.
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.
Very interesting, what led you to become Buddhist initially? Like, what sparked your interest and convinced you it was the right path for yourself? (I was raised Protestant but eventually changed to a different faith too, and I like hearing others' conversion stories)
Pls find a real teacher. Buddhism is non-theist and has never worshipped external gods. You need to receive teachings on karma, defects of samsara, precious human birth, and liberation. We have never worshiped gods or saints
One point I want to point out. Buddhist modernism is a product of western (white) colonialism, yet Buddhist modernism was mainly advocated by the anti-colonial Buddhist reformers against the colonial Christianity and their superiority complex of Christian missionaries. we can see a bit of dialectics here. It’s sometimes anti-colonial but sometimes a product of whitewashed Buddhist version of colonialism.
your opinion is correct. I am a Theravada Buddhist from Myanmar. There is a sutra called Mahar Thanmaya. In that sutra, Lord buddha mentioned all gods, brahmas , devas and all sorts of supernatural beings. And your right , they are not immortal . Even lord buddha died at the age of 80. according to scriptures , there are many buddhas. In Theravada buddhism , there are 31 realms. 6 god realm, 20 brahma realms, 1 human realm and 4 aapal which includes animal, hell, ashura and hungry ghosts. Human realm is like a gateway to all other realms.If you do good deeds in life, you can go to higher realms but if you do bad deeds, you could end up in lower realms. However it is not like you would be trapped forever, It's somethings like jails, . When your bad deeds are done, you can be freed. Long story short , it's the circle , you will be trapped in those realms until you attain nirvana. To attain nirvana , we have to wait for another buddha. Only buddha can guide us to nirvana. I hope you will understand. Peace.
Finally we have an English video that dives into this. As a Vietnamese, I grew up being taught and learning about all of this so these are very familiar to 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.
That was always how I saw it both from reading the Tripitaka(s) or the Agamas or Mahayana and Vajrayana sutras. The whole point of it is that it doesn't matter, considering impermanence and attachments.
The way to determine if God exists is to look at the evidence from the universe around us and within us. That is part of the rationalist criteria that we Muslims use.
The only worthwhile question to ask "Is believing in a supreme being beneficial?" There's no rational reason to confirm or deny a supreme being (there is literally no evidence for one), so we are left to wonder if the belief is useful. Buddhism says the answer is no. I think the answer is more nuanced than this, but the willingness that people have for allowing a belief in a supreme being to turn into beliefs in many evils (like Christians, Muslims, etc though basically every religion has been used for evil somewhere) that I have a deep respect for Buddha's conclusion on the matter. If you can't think for yourself what is right and wrong and will I stead believe what people tell you (especially from a really old book), I think belief in a supreme being is too dangerous for you.
@@sunkintree I think Buddhism doesn't say no. I think it says neither yes or no, and that in the end it doesn't matter. Which, I guess depending on your outlook could be closer to a no.
24:30 Maybe in some places, but in my experience, there are a lot of black and mestizo people involved in this movement as well as the white people, with a lot of people seeing Buddhism as a peaceful religion with no connection to colonialism, fundamentalism, sexism, authoritarianism, racism or slavery. That's especially the case if we're talking about Soka Gakkai in the United States or Europe. Individualism also is not a theme I have heard praised a lot in secular Buddhist circles. Most secular Buddhists put a huge emphasis on community in my experience. Unfortunately making broad claims about what the specific cultural context of secular Buddhism is can obscure what is happening. People are drawn to this movement for a wide variety of reasons.
"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.
@@olteddersThat’s not what Buddhism teaches, that’s the white washed version for westerners which at that point isn’t even Buddhism. Westerners love to act like they understand Buddhism without ever reading any of his words. Most “Buddha” quotes n the west were never even said by him People say they’re Buddhist but they just meditate sometimes
Wonderful video, please keep up the lectures on Buddhism. You have a knack for taking a vast and complex subject and making it accessible. And I love how respectful your style of teaching is ❤
I explain what happened over the time with budhism Atheists philosophy>jataka story added to budhism>they become mythology>mahayan arrises>they added more mythology means to symbolisation>then came to tibet and become more ritualistic>then came to Europe >filter out mythology in it >meditation
My developed take on the Buddha is that he urged us to simply open our eyes and really see everything for exactly what it is, no more, no less. The problem of life is that we overlook things and don't really understand what things are in themselves, because we don't bother to let them be what they are, and we project our own expectations on them. Nothing else is necessary. The end of your journey is where you are standing. You are a Buddha already, you just have to realize it.
As someone who grew up as a Theravada Buddhist and later became an atheist, I consider Buddha's teachings to be a Philosophy on how to live free from the shackles of society.
Whereas, wouldn’t it be better for a religion to teach that one must work for the benefit and continuation of humankind, rather than escaping from it. Change society for the better, not escape from it by living a useless life pretending not to care.
@@jla1koh No, humanism revolves around caring for people and bettering the human species. Buddhism, like all religions, focuses primarily on the individual. Yes, some in the Buddhist faith may think compassion leads to Nirvana, but it’s compassion for others in order to achieve whatever their version of eternal life might be. It is ultimately selfish and selfishness is ultimately destructive, Real compassion is working for the betterment and longevity of the human species, in the full understanding that one’s own individual life will end and cease to be. Eternal life is possible only for the species, not the individual. Humanist accept that. The religious don’t; they create and believe in myths and fairytales having to do with their own immortality instead.
@longcastle4863 You are uninformed about Buddhism. That's okay though. You remind me of myself circa 2005 when I too was an edgy internet atheist. Still an atheist in 2024, but much less edgy
@@longcastle4863 desiring longevity for one species sounds just as selfish, you're only shifting the pursuit of eternal life from yourself to everybody surrounding you. how can you understand your life will cease and only desire longevity? for things to be meaningful, do they have to last long?
No. There is no such thing as absolutely incorrect usage-humans invent, reinterpret, and expand languages all the time. There is no intrinsic meaning to any word outside of a certain context-The injunction "fire" at a shooting range means something metaphorically similar but still fundamentally different to verb "to be fired" used in an HR meeting. Context matters. Nothing within the context of Buddhism is comparable to the stereotypical Abrahamic tri-omni "God" who defines objective truth, is fully independant of human minds, and yet demands on pain of eternal torment without reprieve to be worshiped in the "right" way(s) at the "right" time(s) in the "right" building(s) by the "right" people(s) wearing the "right" cloth(es) facing the "right" direction(s) in the "right" position(s) for the "right" reason(s) that is 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 at least some authors of at least some 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 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" (Nothingness), "Anattā" (Anti-Eternalalism), "Pratītyasamutpāda" (Dependant Origination)-aka. something akin to "Mereological Nihilism" (this not the same thing as strawman Nihilism so look it up before responding with "ummm, akshually ...")). With the addition of doctrines like "Upaya" (Skillful Means) and "Madhyamāpratipada" (The Middle Way), this means that Buddhism is endlessly adaptable and seemlessly synchronizes with any existing supernatural or non-supernatural tradition, religion, or philosophy it encounters by merely interpretating them as "Saṁvṛti-satya" (Provisional Truths). Furthermore, the Buddha was clear that his teachings were only for those who critically "Upaparikkhati" (Investigated) and "Tuleti" (Scrutinized) them and through this had obtained "Pramāṇa" (Proof)-he encouraged his students to approach him criticality as a teacher and to scrutinize his actions and words (Vīmaṃsaka Sutta). He also remained vague on many supernatural questions posed to him. By this, some Buddhists mean that supernatural experiences _really do exist_ as a type of "Saṃjñā" (Perception) within the synapses and neurons of those brains which genuinely believe they've experienced such things while the supernatural simultaneously _does not exist_ in the brains of those who have not had their neurons excited in such as way as to produce a "Saṃjñā" (Perception) of a supernatural experience-Buddhism is at least _nominally_ and _provisionally_ subjectivist while maintaining that all subjectivity is dependent upon objective externalities like: "Karma" (Dharmic Causes and Effects), "Dharma" (any momentary Phenomenon), "Dukkha" (Dissatisfaction), "Samsara" (Cycle of Karma), etc. Thus, if everyone and everything in Samsara has a different Karma resulting in a different Dharma, then their subjective "Saṃjñā" (Perception) of the underlying objective "Sunyata" (Emptiness) may be such that they're more drawn to naturalistic or supernaturalistic "Saṁvṛti-satyas" (Provisional Truths) but as long as they're convinced of the "Paramārtha-satyas" (Ultimate Truths) then the rather crude term "Buddhist" seems applicable. However, let me be perfectly clear that Buddhism is _technically_ neither naturalist nor supernaturalist nor both nor neither. It is not a compromise between these two extremes nor is it a composite of them. It is _just_ the aforementioned "Paramārtha-satyas" (Ultimate Truths). To me, this is in stark contrast to the: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) of Jesus. Most schools of Buddhism recognize many Buddhas both before and after Shakyamuni. The philosophy/religion itself is what's deemed most sacred, not necessarily the individual who founded it. 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 remember learning about buddhism in social studies classes. My teachers always emphasized that it was more of a philosophy than a religion. I thought a lot about the little I learned about it and came to the conclusion that it was correct about the origins of suffering and how to eliminate them. I didn't pick up any buddhist practices but just always had the notion of buddhism as an inherently factual philosophy in the back of my mind. Thank you for showing me where that all came from RFB!
I LOVE your channel. You're a regular inspiration for me, and The Neighbourhood... podcast... on Spotify. I'm proud of you for the accomplishment of this library of knowledge and wisdom. It's a commendable achievement. Obviously, I Love you and your audience. -SPHC 🧙🏻♂✨🧘🏽
From your description, it sounds to me like Siddhartha Gautama himself considered the whole religion/theism question irrelevant to the pursuit of enlightenment. That seems pretty clear. People layer religion on top of nearly everything, from sports teams to political parties to k-pop bands. That doesn't mean the thing itself is religious, just that it's a clear tendency in humans. I suspect the layers of religious obfuscation are one of the biggest barriers to the enlightenment that Buddha taught was attainable by all beings, divine or otherwise.
the only views we can historically know for sure were gautama buddhas were the attakhavagga, parayanavagga and rhinoceros suttas. all others are too recent to accuratly depict what he declared
@@Purwapada I am woefully ignorant on the subject. If you have more insight, I'd love to hear more about his attitude toward religion and supernatural concerns as expressed in those earliest of records.
@fxm5715 ok sure, you can read them online, or watch videos of people.reading them They are very short texts. Attakhavagga is about abandoning all views (like madhymaka) and the ascetic lifestyle. Parayanavagga is a bunch of questions answered in the attakhavagga. Rhinoceros sutta is about being lone a wondering ascetic like the sturdy horn of an Indian rhinoceros
@@vassanab4243 Good question. I suppose it specifically involves belief in "supernatural" (itself a tricky thing to define) beings and forces that play an important roll in determining the course of human lives. Do you have a different take on it?
That's not correct though. Other religions see their deities as progenitors of creation too... Buddhism is unique in that the mind is considered to be the primal force of all material phenomena, and its essence is emptiness. In this way, everyone that is not a Buddha is trapped in their own mental constructions and previous actions, including every deity that isn't a Buddha
Tks for a great accurate explanation n breakdown for how the Buddha(s) explain the existence of supernatural beings; both gods (devas), ghosts, demons, etc. But in Buddhism we do not rely on / worship them for help but instead practice the Teachings ourselves for self-salvation. But here in Singapore some ppl use the term to describe Buddhism as a 'non-theist' religion, which I think fits Buddhism perfectly. With Metta To All!!!
This "rejection" of any aspect of the Buddha's teaching is not among us. What is among us is following the "Dvasatya" (Two Truths Doctorine) and the "Madhyamāpratipada" (Middle Way Doctorine) between either extreme of Naturalism, Supernaturalism, Both, or Neither-in the ancient Mahāsāṃghika tradition of the Prajñaptivāda school which never left Shakyamuni's homeland of Northern India and Nepal and was practiced in the Himalayas well into 10th Century. The "Dvasatya" (Two Truths Doctorine)-for us this means that "Satya" (Truth) is both/either "Saṁvṛti-satya" (Provisional Truth-i.e. Devas, Asuras, Nagās, etc.) and/or "Paramārtha-satya" (Ultimate Truth-i.e. "Śūnyatā" (Nothingness), "Anicca" (Impemenance), "Anattā" (Anti-Eternalism), "Pratītyasamutpāda" (Dependant Origination), "Dukkha" (Disatisfaction), etc.). When applied to the Sutras, whole words, sentances, sections, etc. of Shakyamuni's teachings of the "Dharma" (Phenomenon) can be classed as Nītārtha (Clear Meaning) and/or Neyartha (Unclear Meaning). This is a practice which we share in common with the Theravadin school. Unlike the Theravadins, we ground our "Upaya" (Useful Means) of the "Dvasatya" (Two Truths Doctorine) in the "Madhyamāpratipada" (Middle Way Doctorine) to produce an interpretation that allows us to also distinguish between "Tattva" (Reality-i.e. a sort of immaterialistic~materialism) and "Prajñapti" (Conceptions-i.e. a sort of materialistic~immaterialism). Doing all this allows us to classify any "Saṁvṛti-satya" (Provisional Truths) in the Sutras as Neyartha (Unclear Meanings) and therefore as "Prajñapti" (Conceptions); and any "Paramārtha-satya" (Ultimate Truths) in the Sutras as Nītārtha (Clear Meanings) and therefore as Tattva" (Reality). As all Sutras are not direct experiences, were written by falible men, and must be read and interpreted through the "Skandhas" (Agragagates) all scripture is classified as "Prajñapti" (Conceptions) by default. Both "Saṁvṛti-satya" and "Paramārtha-satya" are "Satya". But "Satya" is neither "Saṁvṛti-satya" nor "Paramārtha-satya"-There is no "reinterpretation" going on here. We are simply allowing the Buddha to speak about the Dharma through Upaya as was always his intent-it takes virtually zero brainpower to realize that what the Buddha meant by "Gods" was closer to what Mimonides, Spinoza, and Jung meant by "God" than what the Patriarch, Pope, or Luther meant.
I do believe that a practice can take many forms and secular buddhists are not necessarily appropriating or disrespecting the cultures they borrow from... but when someone goes out in public and says that their whitened version of a foreign religion is the "2.0" version of that religion, and claims that the practitioners they took from weren't smart enough to understand their own beliefs, I'm just not gonna call them a real buddhist. That's just so crass. You can adapt a religion for your context without disrespecting the people you took from, doing it this way is the very definition of cultural misappropriation. If they just said "this is my buddhism" no one could criticize. But "this is true buddhism, this is upgraded buddhism", it's an insult
I hear a lot of people dunking on secular Buddhists, but none of the ones I've met have ever actually spoken like that. They simply do not think veneration of unseen heavenly beings or rituals in languages they don't even understand will particularly help them in their journey to enlightenment or self-improvement. I've never heard them say their Buddhism was the "true" or "best" one. It seems like we're intentionally picking the most provocative individuals and making them the unofficial figurehead for all of them. And it's not like the other branches of Buddhism don't do that, either... hell, the term "Mahayana" comes from "greater vehicle" because they thought their teachings were better than the "lesser vehicle", Hinayana.
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.
candrakirti said those who attain good karma and ascend the the deva realm are idiots, just as much as those who do bad deeds and go to avici According to dzogsar khyentse rinpoche
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?
I think it a bit of everything. But I would say it is conceptual. Some cultures are so alien that it's hard to find a point of reference. And often they try to liken it to something from their own culture or religion when they really don't match up. So for example I often have atheist ask me why I believe in the Christian God and not other gods like Zeus. To which I reply that are nothing alike. Put a god from every religion right next to eachother and you will find that the only thing they have in common is that they are worshiped. Even in one religion like with the Greeks beings like the primordials titans and Olympians are all gods yet can be different kinds of creatures. Also the limited time. It can take years and years for someone to understand their own religion let alone a foreign one in a limited amount of time.
Cultural differences and overall evolution of the said society 100%. For example, Buddhism and Hinduism don't fit the western definition of religion as it is a way of living. Lots of stories are metaphors for life but if taken literally, they become 'mythical'.
i would add another dimension even: a _counter-cultural_ lense if you will, something about how they try to distance themselves from _some_ aspects of their respective current culture (also influenced by personal beliefs, hopes, etc.) the ideas of Huxley and Davies seemed a lot like they were essentially _looking_ (or maybe longing) for some more rational alternative to the religious frameworks they knew from home (which were also getting more radicalised in the 19th century). you might also call this dimension "projection"
@@sanku1999i reckon that statement, while i get what you're trying to say and somewhat agree with it, is selling it in a way that overshoots the target almost equally far in the other direction. the thing is that especially evangelical Christians love to emphasize faith and (alleged) individuality, but there is a bunch of codified performative behaviour going on (that they aren't even aware of, depending on the person). so you could classify Christianity just as much as a "way of life" and a quite different one depending on the individual confession or even local group.
everyone is free to practice how they feel comfortable, but i find it supremely disrespectful to advocate destroying the religious parts of buddhism while appropriating the parts you like.
@@IPlayWithFire135superman is supposed to be a symbol. If he's only strong (since that's what you like) If you don't acknowledge all the other traits, he's no longer superman. You have to take all the character (ideology)
So you permit people to do as is comfortable for them while condemning them for doing as is comfortable for them. So what if they reject elements of the Buddhadharma? If Buddhadharma is real their rejection will do nothing to it and they will repeat until awakening. If it is not real then they would be fools to accept it as real. If they accept it in part by practicing kindness and compassion and it is real then surely that results in some merit accumulated for the good of all.
I think part of our confusion derives from the fact that, when we think about religion, we think about the three abrahamic religions or, in second instance, about the classic Greek pantheon. Those form of religion are the institutional forms of religion, the result of centuries of adaptation between the supernatural and the everyday, political world of men. There are earlier forms of religion, those based on the worship of small, local deities that are especially common in rural societies. We find abundant traces of them in the form of nymphs, dryads, gnomes, selkies and all of those supernatural creatures that people still believed in in the middle ages and that the official church either considered superstition or the devil's spawn. I deem it probable that Buddhism, at its birth, found itself in this kind of environment, with people believing in a myriad of local entities, either benevolen or malevolent. As these beliefs were in no direct contradiction to the orginal teachings, Buddhism was probably indifferent to them at the beginning and ended by incorporating them later on.
I think perhaps a key difference between traditional non-modernist forms of Buddhism. Is that while some forms of Buddhism might highlight how different moods might shape how the gods appear, the thing is everything in the Buddhist cosmos is connected. Thus, whereas the modern Atheist would want to say that we are real and the gods are our projections. Whereas the Buddhist view is more that, humans and the gods are both each other's projections and are as real as each other
23:37 "others have questioned if we can even call it buddhism after discarding so many elements of buddhism classically defined" the skandhas of buddhism itself XD Very good video! It's great seeing how essays about how buddhism is perceived in the west vs what it classically/historically has been are getting spread, and i specially like this one!
Register for our class "Who are the Hungry Ghosts?:" religionforbreakfast.eventbrite.com/
Edit: If you missed this class, subscribe here to be notified about new classes!: classes.religionforbreakfast.com
Excellent video educating as to why secular buddhism is colonialist drivel
How do devas decide who's paying child support?
A galaxy has 3 to 1000 Sakwalas (world systems with layers). Texts mentioned 1000000000 Sakwalas in the universe.
@@Carlos-bz5oo That's not at all what the video said.
They buy them work boots and say "get to work child" @@TheMrcassina
As a life long Buddhist my understanding is
>Buddhism enters a new country/society.
>people “Cool,cool,cool…… Can we keep these gods around as well.”
>”sure, ig”
>People “Yay”
The number of 'Jesus was a Boddhisatva' discussions western Buddhists have proves this pretty handily.
It's almost like any religion naturally shapes itself anew when it passes through new cultures, and that this is perfectly fine. Think about this when a hard-line Buddhist gets upset with you for choosing the secular Buddhist path. You can imagine they are a Catholic or a protestant upset that you didnt pick exactly everything they chose to believe in
Yay! Gods do exist!
@@LybertyZ which one do
@@rishikeshkumar7103 of course the god of your local beliefs. We all know rest are just made up.
As a Japanese (so I might be biased, mind you), I think the original Buddhism thought was similar to "I can neither prove nor disprove the gods' existence (or, their influence on our lives), so leave it for the time being. we have too many things to mind."
I think that's what is mentioned in one of the suttas in the Tripitaka
Buddhism is just one of the many schools of philosophy that exists in India. You can belong to more than one at the same time. The modern distinction of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism is fake. These are the same Sanatan Dharma.
Sanatan Dharma has many branches and it's very diverse. It is a way of life. Athiesm, Animism, Monoethism, Polyesthism all are accepted in Sanatan Dharma.
@@anonymousperson9929 more people need to see this
@@anonymousperson9929 so basically philosophy right?
@@anonymousperson9929it is not the same, buddhists reject the authority of the vedas
People always called me crazy for refusing to have premarital eye contact. Well who's crazy now?
You.
(oh sorry did I say that out loud?)
Bro thinks he's a deva
Neurotypicals!! snap
@@tashkashka I see what you did there.
Gods are born powerful.
So it is not like they need to worry about childcare.
I remember I had a discussion with a Buddhist monk in Japan, who happened to speak English, and I told him that one thing I liked about Buddhism was how the Buddha was just a man, and he looked at me and said very simply, with a bit of a laugh, 'The Buddha was NOT just a man'.
On the other hand I remember when a radio presenter (new age radio show) was interviewing my husband (Shin Buddhist) and two zen priests on the occasion of a big Buddhist gathering in Anchorage Alaska, asked “when you meditate do you connect with the Buddha?” There was a pause, then my husband answered, “the Buddha is dead”. More silence. The priests like the answer.
His point wasn't that buddha was not human it was that while still a man he was much much more than that.
Giving the monk the benefit of the doubt, it might be the "just" that irked him.
I.e. he didn't mean to imply "the Buddha was far more than a man", but "the Buddha was an extraordinary man".
Similar to how sports fans would take it the wrong way of you call their favorite world class athlete "just" a man.
Then again, you'd think he'd get your drift that your statement was meant as a compliment.
I guess no matter how secular a religion claims to be, if you devote your life to it you're bound to elevate the important figures in it to a higher status.
(Even if that figure emphasizes to not do that very thing.)
@@LinkEX He did take it complimentary, I think. He mostly thought it was a funny thing for me to say.
What a stupid thing to say to a monk
I'm from Sri Lanka and according to the teachings taught here, Bodhisattvas are not beings that deliberately postpone their enlightenment to help others!
They are on a path from one rebirth to the next in order for them to finally reach enlightenment. They may help people along the way in these rebirths and since they are beings of compassion and kindness they do so without hesitation. Theravada buddhists generally do not worship any sort of bodhisattva's.
The general notion we have about the devas is that the idea of Devas were introduced in order for the teachings of the Buddha to be better understood by the people who lived during that time who were brought up in a Jina or Hindu religious background.
Buddhist traditions are common in Sri Lanka, ranging from watering trees, to building statues etc. However, more or less people here are aware that the core of Buddhism does not involve all the traditions. Traditions were introduced as means of longevity of the religion, political manipulation and blind faith.
Buddhism in its true form is quite simple yet profound. What we learn here in Sri Lanka is that your whole life revolves around your mind which is quite untethered in most people. In order to tether it to yourself or ground it of sorts, we practice meditation to try and calm the mind. Our pursuit of enlightenment does not involve and Devas or supernatural beings.
Guys from the Western world believe that three letters make them an authority of knowledge (phd). Alan Watts was much more humble and precise!
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 remember being taught a lot of these misconceptions during high school, and it was a luxury that we even had a course to teach us about religions and traditions at all. Thank you for the lesson!
Lol my American public school banned all teaching about other religions and only allowed learning christian stories and jewish pronouns and fairy tale horse/bullshiet
It’s stupid they don’t teach about these things anymore. It’s not like the world stopped having religious people just because we made the concept of teaching about it political. It’s only a problem when you only teach one religion and you teach it like it’s fact that supersedes everything else; But actually learning about different cultures, *especially* ones you don’t believe in, is extremely important. People fear and disrespect things they don’t understand and that creates problems throughout society.
I didnt learn these things until college at 31, lmbo😂
These are not "misconceptions", they are *different* conceptions. By the same token as some people wrongly assume a kind of universal rationalism Buddhism, others falsely assume Buddhism to have an "orthdoxy" -it simply doesn't have. There is no Buddhist Vatican with a worldwide authority. While there are strong feelings about upholding correct practice and belief in some quarters, there's yet to be a Buddhist Inquisition, or a Buddhist fatwa that means anything beyond a single country.
@@dxtxzbunchanumbersthis is the correct reply
As a Thai person who is raised in a country where Theravada Buddhism is the official religion, viewing anti-ritualism as purely a Western invention seems not entirely accurate.
Over here, just within Theravada Buddhism, we make distinctions of two kinds of temples and two kinds of monks that practice in them: city and forest. The city temples focus more on rituals and things to do with the community of believers, while the forest temples focuses more on individual practice. Generally, forest temples and their monks are viewed with more respect and is seen as closer to true Buddhist practice.
Some specific Nikaya in the city is actually viewed with derision. One of them allowing you to buy land in the heaven for your afterlife. Peak commercialization of Buddhism. And perhaps undeniably something untrue to any respectable Buddhist text.
Maybe when the foreigners came, they get to see all the different Nikayas and so gets to choose what they think is best to follow. And what is best, if not to treat it as Philosophy and to reject all parts incompatible with science.
Agreed. There seems to be this idea that Buddhism as practiced in Asian countries is completely ritual-based and that anti-ritualism is Western which is very strange considering that Buddhism in all its forms was formed in Asia.
Same case in Sri Lanka. We perceive the organized sangha in Corlty as more materialistic than monks who reside in the wana aramayas or forest monastries.
Same in Myanmar
Buddhism is somewhat flexible. Religious rites is never a requirement. However the practice is allow if it is to help teaching of Buddhism to those who is hard to understand from read/listening alone.
Totally Agree. This same practice is there in Sri Lanka. Where the monks in the city live luxurious lives while people have more respect for the recluse forest monks.
Western/Secular Buddhism sounds a lot like Unitarian Universalism, which strips away the superstitious/religious parts of Christianity.
Thats a great comparison I think
I was just thinking the same.
Which is laughable
@@tabryis Mostly in the sense that hypocritical athiests like Harris embrace secular Buddhism while dismissing the exact same concept applied to Christianity.
I've noticed that there is a kind of Neo-Gnostic Christianity that has been bubbling on the r/gnosticism subreddit which I can only describe as secular gnosticism.
I went through a big Buddhist phase in my 20s (about 20 years ago). I remember being consistently baffled and flustered at all the secular, western, caucasian practitioners and groups who would insist that Buddhism was just a mental practice even while they were kneeling on zafutons in front of icons and effigies and chanting what one could describe as prayers.
😂
I constantly hear from Westerners that Buddhist is a philosophy not a religion, that it can't be a religion because x, that they don't believe in gods. I live in Thailand, so this is always amusing to me. Q: Which gods do you believe in? Thai Buddhist A: Yes
@@Sparhafoc Secular Buddhism might be more palatable for many.
@@Sparhafoc buddhism is nothing but an exportable sect Hinduism had to offer. Hindu philosophy were plagiarised by buddha and made athiest
@@Sparhafocmahayana is kind of more like that tbh since bodhisattvas arent gods. mahayana buddhists usually only pray to their ancestors as well and only interact with bodhisattvas and deities for guidance and protection
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
Buddhism, Hinduism and other Eastern religions are deeply intertwined. The prevalence of Hindu-derived deity worship in various parts of Buddhist Asia is because of the Hindu influence. Phra Phrom (Thai depiction of Brahma) as featured in the video at 10:52 cannot be tied to Buddhism but more broadly to the general Dharmic/Indic culture that exists in Thailand. Thai people also popularly worship Ganesha, a deity that does not exist in Buddhist cosmology and Thai people also visit Hindu temples in Thailand. Some of the largest Ganesha statues outside of India are located in Thailand. Phra Phrom in Thai-style is also worshipped by ethnic Chinese across Southeast Asia and southern China. In Hong Kong, there is a famous Phra Phrom statue that is frequented by Chinese people. In Japan, there are Japanese versions of Ganesha, Shiva and Skanda and in Sri Lanka, you will find Buddhist people worshipping local folk gods as well as Hindu gods inside some Buddhist temples like Seema Malaka. The same thing applies to other Buddhist groups in Asia.
So correlating it to Buddhism is incorrect because some of these devas don't even exist in Buddhism. The reason people worship them in Asia is because of the pre-existing Hindu influence and the general overlap that Eastern religions share with one another. Thailand was previously a Hindu nation, these Hindu practices were simply carried over after Theravada Buddhism was brought to the country from Sri Lanka. There is no restriction to how people must practice Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism etc. so people mix them together.
Bs
@@privilegedindiansrworsthum8408 What part of my comment is "BS"? Be specific.
@@user-jt3dw6vv4x The modern socio-political element within him made say so, which cant digest the fact that Hinduism and Buddhism have existed together for centuries.
Hinduism is a scam and vinayak is worshipped in vajrayan Buddhism and in old hindi script they said those who worship Ganesha or vinayak don't invite them for yagya (fire sacrifice) later hindu appropriated Ganesh during bak Gangadhar Tilak time when he started Ganesh visharjan in last less than 200 years
@@DB03584 There are Hindu temples dedicated to Ganesha dating long, long before Tilak's time.
You have been successfully scammed by your bahujan political masters.😅😅
Now you will spend your entire life trying to make everything about Sanatan Dharm into blue-tinted Buddhism. Sad.
In Thailandd we think of deva as more of an angle than a god, but some Buddhists do worship Hindu Gods
Yeah the Hindu worship is because of the Hindu influence across Buddhist Asia. I think people don't realise that in Buddhist Asian cultures, people mix Buddhism with other similar religions like Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism and folk religions.
@@user-jt3dw6vv4x hindu is a brahminism and bileve in caste system. There is nothing hindu or hinduism is a made concept. Brahminism is actually pratuce in shadow of Hinduism. Stop accociate buddism to hindusim.
I know that in the 1600s the Vedic faiths began to acknowledge the Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu - this led to the decline of Buddhism as an independent religion in the Indian subcontinent, but allowed many followers of Buddhist teachings to return to their Hindu families without compromising their values as they no longer had to choose between the two religions.
God is western concept...there is nothing called Hindu god, Hindu itself is name of river. Dev means the one who shines and the one who protect. Gautam budh is just another guru like thousands of them in India. It has turned into religion pr0paganda.
@@wilberwhateley7569 there has been so many guru in India. Different guru has been teaching different things, doesn't mean they start calling themselves a different religion. The people who call budhist, sikh, Hindu, jain religion, then they just fail the basic concept of Dharma.
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
well theres even more information out there thats just outright doodoo. real pooopy. like reeeealy bad. i just think its important to consider and we shouldnt forget that.
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.
All of religion is an interpretation based on each persons bias. Sometimes it’s an improvement.
Yeah that is the most annoying thing of all, western scholars from christian europe who reduce buddhism to only meditation supposedly know more about buddhism than people who actually created it.
No... Western "Buddhism" is not Arya and in line with the practices followed by the Arya Sakyamuni. Mlecchafication is highly frowned upon.
Yeah but that's kind of exactly what happens with all religion. My religion is the original, most connected to the "prophet", most accurate form of the religion, exists inside of Buddhism too. Sort of inevitable.
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
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.
I wonder what Secular Buddhists have to say about the Buddha's teachings regarding ethics and morality. The Western view of Buddhism is heavily focused in meditation and mindfulness, but according to the Buddha's teachings a virtuous behavior is just as important, if not more.
One can become very proeficient in meditation and mindful cultivation, but that alone won't lead anyone to liberation. It's even possible to a person very accomplished in meditation to have selfish and unwholesome behavior. The Buddha's cousin Devadatta is the prime example of this in the Pali Cannon (spoiler alert: he ends up in Hell).
Sadly, all they'll say is their idea of Buddhist morality is just to be nice to people because it makes them feel good and feeds their ego. There's no universal point to it at all if you leave out basically 90% of the core teachings on karma/the eight-fold path. It's a shame but hey it's better than wasting time with other religions at least
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.
Noted: this is a joke btw: try stay away with pronouns, Buddhism is about awakening, not wokism.
@@utenatenjou2139 What???? They have a point. Avalokiteshvara is depicted as either male or female and you can find the male and female versions in the same temple in some Asian countries like Gangaramaya temple in Sri Lanka. What do you mean "wokism"? Huh??
@@user-jt3dw6vv4x I do aware of male/female view of Avalokiteshvara . He/she pronoun doesn't need to be bound to he or she only. I hope this clear you of "what????". Do you get that marking he/she as correct/incorrect is a mood point; hence, demand correctness/incorrectness is slippery slope for wokism.
Yeah He can be male / Female
But i believe avalokitesvahara as a Male.
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.
Bodhisattva is just Buddha before becoming enlightenment as Buddha, as least thats what the meaning is in the Pali Canon
Sect differences don't mean much in Buddhism. Bodhisattvas are also widely revered in Theravada Buddhist cultures due to the Mahayana influence.
@@user-jt3dw6vv4xdepends on which Theravada tradition. The Thai forest tradition and its various Western offshoots strictly follows the pali canon and has no reverence whatsoever for Bodhisattvas, even going so far as to consider the concept misguided. One cannot postpone enlightenment. It happens naturally when one's mind is ready.
My first real encounter with Buddhism was attending guided meditations led by a (white, USan) friend who said that Buddhism was more of a philosophy than a religion, and that it would be more accurate to say that one practices Buddhism, rather than saying that one is a Buddhist. I later watched a series of videos on Buddhism on the RUclips channel Linfamy (highly recommend, but this comment is not sponsored) that described all kinds of supernatural beliefs in Buddhism, and I was a bit confused. This breakdown here of the different ways Buddhism is practiced by different cultures and the different approaches to Buddhism made everything make more sense. Thank you!
This same channel already said something to keep in mind many videos ago: religion is always diverse. Pick any religion and you would find lots of congregations with different beliefs.
Yeah cause this guy actually studied and understands religion lol
Buddhism is all about mind control in every single aspect of that.
@@bonniemagpie9960 yeah but mind control in the good sense -- self control of ones own mind.. ;-).
I would say that he’s both correct and incorrect at the same time - because there never was a formal separation of philosophy from religion in the Eastern world (unlike the Enlightenment that transpired in the West), it’s often difficult to differentiate between philosophical and religious ideas in Eastern belief systems.
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
Most of the Renaissance scholars of Buddhism were Catholic monks, especially Jesuits.
yep, me too
@@bitofwizdomb7266yes some of the philosophies of Buddhism would act as a useful tool in how to behave towards things. But that's where it would end as the teachings of Jesus Christ come first and primary as it is a discipline of faith. But I wouldn't be opposed to gutting out the Buddhist teachings so as to get the mindfulness practices for Christians to improve their social behaviour.
The Buddha's teachings (Dhamma) have an important goal to lead people out of suffering by abandoning defilements and attachments, which are the root causes of all suffering. These teachings are universal because they are not limited to race, religion, or culture, but can be applied to everyone in the world. This is because the nature of defilements such as greed, anger, and delusion are present in all humans, regardless of culture or era.
However, for the Buddha's teachings to teach people all over the world to abandon defilements depends on several factors, such as:
1. Understanding and readiness of the listener: Dhamma can be understood when the listener has the intention to study and practice seriously. Those who are open to learning will be able to access the deep meaning of the teachings.
2. Differences in cultural context: In some cultures, abandoning defilements or Buddhist concepts may seem strange or inconsistent with the way of life in that area. However, the basic principles, such as practicing mindfulness and compassion, can be applied in all contexts.
3. Practice is the key: Abstaining from defilements does not come from just listening or reading. But it requires practice, such as meditation, mindfulness, and the use of wisdom to consider the three characteristics (impermanence, suffering, and non-self) in order to see the truth of nature.
4. Diversity of human minds: Each person has different levels of defilements, interests, and readiness. The same teaching may have different effects depending on the practitioner's background.
In conclusion, the Buddha's teachings have the potential to teach the whole world about abandoning defilements, but the success depends on the intention and practice of each person. If many people can open their minds to learn and practice these teachings, the world may become a happier and more peaceful place.
I have always wished to have a video like this to share with others
I have studied all of this, but my spiritual beliefs have been hard to share to others, most won't have the time and interest to sit down with me for 3 hours as I explain all of this
This was amazingly done. On point, pure information, and not 3 hours long
From the bottom of my Buddhist heart, I thank you!
Western Christians whine about ‘persecution’ and have given themselves the authority through agency like USCIRF to lecture others on about freedom of religion and yet totally misrepresent and marginalize Buddhism.
You can say that many Buddhists believed in gods and it didn't necessarily entirely reject the supernatural or anything like that however those things were not the things which were meant to be focused on.I think this is a fairly simple way to sum it all up.
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.
It is actually none of the four as well 😉
@andrewyam7938 We're out here reinventing the pentalemma.
@@AdwinLauYuTan dude in hindi / sanskrit upaya literally means solution so it is interesting
Sounds like Hinduism .. ngl
Those fabricated chinese texts can't be traced to the historical Gatuma, if we even admit his dubious existence.
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
@@niket527 , this is my biggest critique of western/medicalized mindfulness. It's really not that mindful at all if the ethics of it are stripped away. Individualism is also antithetical mindfulness and buddhism itself, since interconnectedness makes individualism moot.
This whole confusion stems from the way Europe name things. Religion, gods, atheism, those are all European words to describe European belief systems that don't necessarily apply elsewhere.
This. Always makes me chuckle when when westerns try to see everything that is non western only thro8gh their own lens.
By this line of reasoning, I as a non-European person would never be able to describe my Buddhist culture, or for that matter my innermost thoughts which are highly rooted in my cultural upbringing, to others while speaking in European language. Inversely I would also be incapable of fully understanding Western concepts which have been translated into my native Asian tongue, and am obliged to master Greek in order to read Plato, or German to read Nietzche, or French to read Foucault
@truongcahanh8915 Only if you deal in absolutes. Which is what people do when they pose the question "Are Buddhists atheists?" and expect a 'yes or no' answer.
We can use borrowed words to talk to people from other cultural backgrounds, but a lot is lost in the translation. "Gods" is a good enough translation for Devas, but without further explanation Europeans will probably think of the Greek pantheon. They will never guess that a human could be reborn as a "god", or the other way around. If I try to explain to you about the African Orixas cultuated here in Brazil I can use words like 'gods' or 'saints' or ' ancestors', but none of these words will carry a precise idea. Because they are borrowed from a different culture.
The Europeans had to import Karma into their vocabulary, because they didn't have any word that could translate the concept.
YES, I'm Hindu and I see some people seeing Hinduism concepts through Western lens..
@@percyweasley9301these abrahamics will never understand.
Old Japanese texts about Christians would talk about Jesus/the Father as their ‘Buddha’.
It was mostly because they called every foreign religion that they didn't understood as "Buddhism" that's why they initially knew Christianity as "The European's Buddhism"
True it was an interchangeable word from religion at the time
@@HeRa06Ram
Jesus was replaced by his japanese brother Isukiri to die on the cross while he traveled to japan to live out his life. He married and lived the rest of his life in japan with a new identity - Torai Tora Daitenku - a garlic farmer.
This was really interesting, I learned a lot of new things about Buddhism. Thank you :)
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.
Also, Buddhist idea of Nirvana is different from Moksha of Hinduism. Moksha is explained as realising Oneness with the attributeless Truth Brahman or attaining the Supreme Eternal Divine Realm (like Vaikuntha for Vaishnavas)
@@aditshuklathat is formless realm according to Buddhism.
@@aditshukla nirvana is also a Hindu idea, it’s mentioned in Bhagwad geeta multiple times.
It is mentioned as brahma-nirvana, which is the highest form of nirvana.
Moksha isn’t the final step. After moksha you attain access to higher realms of reality.
Then when you ascend those that’s brahma nirvana.
Spirituality is never ending, even after transcending this plane
@TheEnderPearl I said the Buddhist idea of nirvana is different from the Vedic version.
and what is this brahma nirvana, how is it different from moksha/mukti?
@@aditshukla you will have to read geeta to understand that, I can’t explain better than Krishna
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 and scientists 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 with, and indeed a continuation of, the Orthodox Buddhist concept of Conditioned Origination when Mahayana Buddhism 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.
ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते and पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते.
And the buddah was a upanishad
your eyebrow work has become sublime, my friend
😂
I really like going to Theravada Buddhist temples and listening to the chanting of the monks. I went to a Pure Land ceremony once and could not make it through to the end. For me, it is very much "horses for courses," like the difference between Baptist and Orthodox Christian services, I suppose.
You should also do some research on the Six Dharshanas of Hinduism. Especially Nyayasutra would be very interesting.
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.
Oh wow. That is interesting!
The part of buddhist modernism was very interesting.
It's a bit problematic that it's mostly just foreigners telling locals that their own cultural beliefs about their own traditional religion are somehow flawed or misinterpreted.
"Now I understand that you may come from a culture that's been deeply influenced by Buddhism, M'kay. Thousands of years even... But here's why you're wrong M'kay."
I'm amazed by knowledge of the Buddhist texts, cosmology and devas! Thank you for this wonderful video! Well done!
I wish more people knew about the cosmology of Buddhism. It is so cool!
And all indian religions because they are deeply interconnected
@@VARMOT123no thanks!
Cosmology is same in all indian religions.
@@itsoblivion8124 which makes it all the more interesting, because there are different interpretations and images of figures. e.g. the difference between Hindu Yama and Buddhist Yama.
@@micahdunwoody6555 there's also indra net which contains myriads of universes.
"Hungry Ghosts" -- Great name for a band.
The jazz fusion musicians Melhdau and Guilliana already named one of their songs, “Hungry Ghost.”
Look it up….GREAT drum and keyboard duet.
Almost anything you can think of, has already been a band name, it’s crazy.
I’ve practiced Zen Buddhism for over 40 years. The root of all suffering is ego. Since anything I can say or think about God will be a reflection of my ego and contribute to my suffering, I refrain from doing either.
As a Christian, the way I lose my sense of ego is by reverence and trust in God. I can let go of my need to be good enough, and surrender to His will... I don't need to fear the future. I know God loves me, and will bring forth a good outcome in the end.
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
My fellow enjoyer of skepticism 😎
@@jacksonelmore6227 A thousand skeptics!
Someone should send this video to Alex!
Thank you. I’m Buddhist and I enjoy your Buddhist videos a lot.
Comedy?
Great!🎉
I think this propensity to water down Buddhism is by byproduct of how Westerners tend to view the idea of religion through a monotheistic lens.
From an athiestic lens, I think that this also happens because some athiests like some of the ideas of Buddhism and wish to incorporate them into their lives, but ignore the cultural and religious context of those practices because acknowledging that they are aligning their lifestyle around religious practices would cause cognitive dissonance.
It's pretty annoying to witness, especially when Buddhist practices are used for commercial purposes.
Sure, but it's not as if Buddhism isn't exploited for all sorts of reasons, including commercial, in actual Buddhist countries. The point is - there are a lot of paths to enlightenment.
I think those kinds of Western atheists who like some Buddhist ideas but aren't comfortable with the cultural and religious contexts are anti-theistic from having been burned by supernatural belief before and feel they've been tricked, played for fools or betrayed. I think that is a trauma they would do well to process. Personally with supernatural things I think there are grains of truth even in that which I can't bring myself to believe, and still find valuable. They can really tell me a lot about the human condition.
They aren't "ignoring" the cultural and religious context. They are rejecting the idea that Buddhism needs to be based in the supernatural. Just because your interpretation of religion is based in superstition doesn't mean everyone else should adopt superstition based religion.
Just labeling that stuff as "superstion" is too arrogant and condescending, better to just agree to disagree rather than claiming intellectual superiority
@@Manticorn Hi. I would not disagree if someone called me an atheistic western Buddhist.
I have never been religious and never believed in supernaturalism.
A good survey. I notice you didn't mention Zen much, if at all; my impression is that Westerners tended (for whatever reason) to encounter Zen-related forms of Buddhism, which put less emphasis on anything supernatural. That may also have contributed to the "Buddhism is atheist" impression in the West?
I suspect the same. 👍
No
@@sacrface420 mu?
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.
I've heard them called dharma protectors or dharmapalas which are considered tamed devas. Not all devas have our best interests at heart.
Mostly, generally, I don’t focus on metaphysical or supernatural stuff: but I’ve had a number of instances wherein likelihood and heretofore known things about regular existence say I shouldn’t have survived, and yet here I am typing. Perhaps I was protected by help, things, beings, or something unseen by normal mortal eyes in this realm. I’m not even sure how I feel about existence.
I notice that went u started to talk about secular Buddhism and modernism Buddhism, they sound like someone who is vaguely learning zen but grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant background. I have also noticed that those professors and authors are not Asian and sound very American,and what they espouse sounds very orientalist and cherry picking of what they like and dislike about Buddhism.
Please do a video on chinese folk religion like you did for shinto
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.
From what I understand, as a buddhist living in a predominantly muslim environment, jinns are used more likely to refer to all supernatural beings (brahmas, devas, petas, and even demons). This is just anecdotal tho
I mean maybe? What you're suggesting would require an objective metric for what constitutes a "god" outside of the Buddhist framework. So like, you can have that opinion, but you're never going to get an empiric answer
In this sense, the Tathagatagarbha is not at all dissimilar from the "One" of Neoplatonism.
Funny thing is, my westernized perspective on Buddhism has always viewed Buddha as just the guy who got enlightenment before everyone else did, thus he was not omnipotent and not omnipresent and not impassible and not omnibenevolent (ok maybe the last, but he wasn't ALWAYS omnibenevolent).
I've noticed myself, I often choose to just call the Buddha Siddhartha, because calling him his given name gives a sense of him just being a man. Which most Buddhists in Asia don't seem to believe.
@@swagmundfreud666 yeah, the reason why Buddhists in Asia don't take him to be a human is because the tradition never really did. As far back as is observable in the textual and archeological record, a Tathāgata is regarded in Buddhism as exceeding all other categories in excellence. But the image of the human Buddha gained popularity with Buddhist modernism.
Had to click on the notif.
I legit thought the title was "Is Buddhism Aesthetic Religion?" and I was like sure since there says many colourful paintings that I saw on the wall whenever I visited a pagoda
9:25 having to go through multiple layers of a hierarchy of those who don’t have answers only for the top person to dodge the question… *Is this an allegory for calling customer service?!*
Kafkaesque 😆
Great work again! Love the Buddhism videos, especially!!!
That's where most amateurs fall face down, in abarahamic religion questioning the God is sin , where in Hinduism or Buddhism it is a whole set of philosophy to debate the existence of all powerful being, its not frowned upon, rather encouraged to find your place and understanding
Abrahamic religions have an "orthodox" approach, meaning that there is only one correct truth/way of life that God intended/revealed, and there is effort to teach scripture and customs to match this understanding, even if people disagree what is the correct way.
Dharmic religions and eastern philosophies, at least what I know of, are more on the "orthopraxis" side, as in there is more emphasis in correct moral practices rather than believing something is factual. Buddhism, for example, rarely cares if you believe it is correct or not, what matters is that, in the tradition, the only way to be enlightened is acting well. While in Christianity/Islam, part of the faith is to wholeheartedly embrace the teachings as revelations from God.
In the grand scheme of things, neither orthodoxy nor orthopraxy is "better" than one another. We need some degree of orthodoxy, as in to know and believe concretely in the right and fair, while in orthopraxy we find the best way to interact with the world and ourselves. Having knowledge but bad actions is egoistical (and dangerous, in the wrong hands), and action without good knowledge can be misguided or is limited.
I don't know why the west thinks Buddhism is atheistic..... We always worshipped gods..... But the Buddha is the 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.
There are many Buddhist from the east claiming Buddhism is Atheistic too and it really sounds phony. A Sri Lankan guy going around saying his religion is Atheistic got checked by me and he got so triggered till he dosen't want to speak to me anymore plus he also blocked me in all platforms.
Atheistic/Theistic:
1) Lack believe that God(s) exists -> Do not believe in any God(s) via existence of is not warrant enough to further believe in them
2) Believe that God(s) DO NOT exists -> not believe in any God(s) via no such thing to believe
3) Believe that God(s) exists -> not believe in any God(s)
4) Believe that God(s) exists -> believe in any God(s)
5) Believe that God(s) exists -> believe in only one God
6) Lack believe that God(s) exists -> believe in God(s) --> IHMO, I think human can do this even it is illogical
7) Ignorance (I think this is a variance of 1) existence/non-existence of God(s) has no concern to them; hence, believing has no concern )
I think some Buddhists may fall into one or more of above (there can be others criteria possible). I think some Buddhists view God(s) as tools (phony, pascal wager type, half-heart if you may called), whether God(s) existence is irrelevant when asking for helps. a.k.a. anyone please help, logical not applied in the process.
@TingTong2568 You can ask and compare definitions then the "check" on concept of "Without God(s)" can be understood on both side.
@@TingTong2568 Someone doesn't just block someone for such a petty reason. There is clearly more to this story and you both were not friends either. The term "atheistic" is incorrect and I think people are simply conflating the fact that Buddhists don't worship deities to gain things with the idea of atheism, that includes people with Asian origins who don't know enough about Buddhism. The Buddha said that worshipping gods will not help achieve liberation and is only a symptom of dukka (suffering). Gods are not a central idea to basic Buddhism. I think this is what confuses people to conflate this with atheism.
@user-jt3dw6vv4x he was never my friend but we know each other since we used work at the same place. He got triggered when i checked him about his claims that Buddhism is an atheistic movement.
I don't get this protestant Buddhism thing.
What's the point of Buddhism if you do not believe in reincarnation and in the cycle of samsahra? That's completely missing the main concern of the teachings. All meditation is "empty ritual" if there is nothing to enlighten out of.
If any religion works without belief in the supernatural, I feel like it should be hinduism, where enlightenment is not the rejection of an illusion of self, but rather the embrace of the notion that your atman is shared with all other beings in the universe, re-envisioning Brahma not as a god, but as consciousness itself.
Even Hinduism needs the supernatural as the Brahma or consciousness is something that exists outside natural laws, plus this ignores that many Hindus are strongly theistic and the only example of atheists we find are from criticism of them written by other theists.
Plus many schools of thought in Hinduism require you to discard your sense of self to obtain communion with the Brahman.
Overall, witrhout spiritual or supernatural beleifs most of the religions reduce to actions that have no purpose, without notion of karma there is no enlightenment, and as you said all your meditation is just a waste of time.
A secular Buddhist won't necessarily discount the idea of rebirth/reincarnation. The idea that when you die, you are born again is not as radical as the idea of heavenly beings who you can appease and win favors from.
That said, for many Buddhists, even non-secular ones, enlightenment is not necessarily the immediate goal. Some simply want to be the "best versions of themselves" in the immediate future, and find the dharma the best way to do it.
@@AmunRa1 You don't need Buddhism to do that. Being a better version of yourselves I mean.
Secondly do secular Buddhism accept the idea of karma without karma believing in reincarnation or rebirth is useless as you will never be able to escape the cycle of death and reincarnation
Overall this trend of secular Buddhism will most likely go the same way christian deism and unitarian universalism has gone where stripping all the supernatural aspects leads to a destruction of the connection with practises secular Buddhists use and Buddhism itself
exactly secular Buddhism is a joke because at that point a bullet to the head is pretty much equal to nirvana
I think karma can also be pretty easily interpreted in a social, psychological sense. If all you give out is negativity and hatred than that's all you're likely to receive in turn. @@battlerushiromiya651
Your videos are endlessly fascinating! Thank you for all your work.
Phenomenal work! Buddham Dhammam Sangham Namasami 🙏🙏🙏
Dear RFB, Thank you for another well researched and developed piece. Like all things Buddhist, the question of whether Buddhism is Atheistic, or not, is completely dependent upon how one defines the belief, or concept of "God". If one is able to assume a definition for what God "Is" then it is possible to answer the question of what relationship Buddhism has to The Divine principle.
i know this is meaningless to the great video, but is the buddha in the background at 1:47 wearing a snapback? man looking like ken griffey jr
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.
Very interesting, what led you to become Buddhist initially? Like, what sparked your interest and convinced you it was the right path for yourself? (I was raised Protestant but eventually changed to a different faith too, and I like hearing others' conversion stories)
I haven’t seen that many Mexican converts to Buddhism wow
None of the bodhisattvas, wrathful or peaceful, are individual entities. They are all emanations of bodhicitta, which is within yourself.
Pls find a real teacher. Buddhism is non-theist and has never worshipped external gods. You need to receive teachings on karma, defects of samsara, precious human birth, and liberation. We have never worshiped gods or saints
@@nakreīyn0205 that is absolutely true, they are just part of our inherent Buddha nature.
One point I want to point out.
Buddhist modernism is a product of western (white) colonialism, yet Buddhist modernism was mainly advocated by the anti-colonial Buddhist reformers against the colonial Christianity and their superiority complex of Christian missionaries.
we can see a bit of dialectics here. It’s sometimes anti-colonial but sometimes a product of whitewashed Buddhist version of colonialism.
your opinion is correct. I am a Theravada Buddhist from Myanmar. There is a sutra called Mahar Thanmaya. In that sutra, Lord buddha mentioned all gods, brahmas , devas and all sorts of supernatural beings. And your right , they are not immortal . Even lord buddha died at the age of 80. according to scriptures , there are many buddhas. In Theravada buddhism , there are 31 realms. 6 god realm, 20 brahma realms, 1 human realm and 4 aapal which includes animal, hell, ashura and hungry ghosts. Human realm is like a gateway to all other realms.If you do good deeds in life, you can go to higher realms but if you do bad deeds, you could end up in lower realms. However it is not like you would be trapped forever, It's somethings like jails, . When your bad deeds are done, you can be freed. Long story short , it's the circle , you will be trapped in those realms until you attain nirvana. To attain nirvana , we have to wait for another buddha. Only buddha can guide us to nirvana. I hope you will understand. Peace.
yesss I've been waiting for this video
great content. the mental gymnastics western atheists go through just so they can feel comfortable meditating is incredible.
I'm a new subscriber and this channel has been a blessing. Thank you for your knowledge and delivery, Dr.
This is a great summary and showcase of the eternal debate and comparison between Theravada vs Mahayana vs Western "Secular" Buddhism
Finally we have an English video that dives into this. As a Vietnamese, I grew up being taught and learning about all of this so these are very familiar to 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.
That was always how I saw it both from reading the Tripitaka(s) or the Agamas or Mahayana and Vajrayana sutras.
The whole point of it is that it doesn't matter, considering impermanence and attachments.
The way to determine if God exists is to look at the evidence from the universe around us and within us. That is part of the rationalist criteria that we Muslims use.
@@JohnSmith-gv7qmi think that’s fair I just think the issue is agreeing on what “god” is or could be
The only worthwhile question to ask "Is believing in a supreme being beneficial?" There's no rational reason to confirm or deny a supreme being (there is literally no evidence for one), so we are left to wonder if the belief is useful. Buddhism says the answer is no. I think the answer is more nuanced than this, but the willingness that people have for allowing a belief in a supreme being to turn into beliefs in many evils (like Christians, Muslims, etc though basically every religion has been used for evil somewhere) that I have a deep respect for Buddha's conclusion on the matter.
If you can't think for yourself what is right and wrong and will I stead believe what people tell you (especially from a really old book), I think belief in a supreme being is too dangerous for you.
@@sunkintree I think Buddhism doesn't say no. I think it says neither yes or no, and that in the end it doesn't matter.
Which, I guess depending on your outlook could be closer to a no.
24:30 Maybe in some places, but in my experience, there are a lot of black and mestizo people involved in this movement as well as the white people, with a lot of people seeing Buddhism as a peaceful religion with no connection to colonialism, fundamentalism, sexism, authoritarianism, racism or slavery. That's especially the case if we're talking about Soka Gakkai in the United States or Europe. Individualism also is not a theme I have heard praised a lot in secular Buddhist circles. Most secular Buddhists put a huge emphasis on community in my experience. Unfortunately making broad claims about what the specific cultural context of secular Buddhism is can obscure what is happening. People are drawn to this movement for a wide variety of reasons.
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.
@@olteddersThat’s not what Buddhism teaches, that’s the white washed version for westerners which at that point isn’t even Buddhism. Westerners love to act like they understand Buddhism without ever reading any of his words.
Most “Buddha” quotes n the west were never even said by him
People say they’re Buddhist but they just meditate sometimes
What the secular Buddhist really believes in is his own reason, and Buddha is just an accessory to him, not a refuge
@@oltedders Yah, we know that.
Profoundly helpful, many thanks!🙏
great video! as always :D
that first image is a Hungry Ghost, the inspiration for the Bloodlickers in Bloodborne
good video yet again, I would only add for people to read 'Magnetic Aura' from Talesio helped me a tonnn
Ton
Wonderful video, please keep up the lectures on Buddhism. You have a knack for taking a vast and complex subject and making it accessible. And I love how respectful your style of teaching is ❤
might be accessible but video starts off with a massive error in the names of deities and their respective functions
I explain what happened over the time with budhism
Atheists philosophy>jataka story added to budhism>they become mythology>mahayan arrises>they added more mythology means to symbolisation>then came to tibet and become more ritualistic>then came to Europe >filter out mythology in it >meditation
My developed take on the Buddha is that he urged us to simply open our eyes and really see everything for exactly what it is, no more, no less.
The problem of life is that we overlook things and don't really understand what things are in themselves, because we don't bother to let them be what they are, and we project our own expectations on them.
Nothing else is necessary.
The end of your journey is where you are standing.
You are a Buddha already, you just have to realize it.
As someone who grew up as a Theravada Buddhist and later became an atheist, I consider Buddha's teachings to be a Philosophy on how to live free from the shackles of society.
Whereas, wouldn’t it be better for a religion to teach that one must work for the benefit and continuation of humankind, rather than escaping from it. Change society for the better, not escape from it by living a useless life pretending not to care.
@@longcastle4863 buddhism revolves around compassion and helping people, does this not change society for the better?
@@jla1koh No, humanism revolves around caring for people and bettering the human species. Buddhism, like all religions, focuses primarily on the individual. Yes, some in the Buddhist faith may think compassion leads to Nirvana, but it’s compassion for others in order to achieve whatever their version of eternal life might be. It is ultimately selfish and selfishness is ultimately destructive, Real compassion is working for the betterment and longevity of the human species, in the full understanding that one’s own individual life will end and cease to be. Eternal life is possible only for the species, not the individual. Humanist accept that. The religious don’t; they create and believe in myths and fairytales having to do with their own immortality instead.
@longcastle4863
You are uninformed about Buddhism.
That's okay though. You remind me of myself circa 2005 when I too was an edgy internet atheist. Still an atheist in 2024, but much less edgy
@@longcastle4863 desiring longevity for one species sounds just as selfish, you're only shifting the pursuit of eternal life from yourself to everybody surrounding you. how can you understand your life will cease and only desire longevity? for things to be meaningful, do they have to last long?
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 expand languages all the time. There is no intrinsic meaning to any word outside of a certain context-The injunction "fire" at a shooting range means something metaphorically similar but still fundamentally different to verb "to be fired" used in an HR meeting. Context matters.
Nothing within the context of Buddhism is comparable to the stereotypical Abrahamic tri-omni "God" who defines objective truth, is fully independant of human minds, and yet demands on pain of eternal torment without reprieve to be worshiped in the "right" way(s) at the "right" time(s) in the "right" building(s) by the "right" people(s) wearing the "right" cloth(es) facing the "right" direction(s) in the "right" position(s) for the "right" reason(s) that is 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 at least some authors of at least some 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 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" (Nothingness), "Anattā" (Anti-Eternalalism), "Pratītyasamutpāda" (Dependant Origination)-aka. something akin to "Mereological Nihilism" (this not the same thing as strawman Nihilism so look it up before responding with "ummm, akshually ...")).
With the addition of doctrines like "Upaya" (Skillful Means) and "Madhyamāpratipada" (The Middle Way), this means that Buddhism is endlessly adaptable and seemlessly synchronizes with any existing supernatural or non-supernatural tradition, religion, or philosophy it encounters by merely interpretating them as "Saṁvṛti-satya" (Provisional Truths).
Furthermore, the Buddha was clear that his teachings were only for those who critically "Upaparikkhati" (Investigated) and "Tuleti" (Scrutinized) them and through this had obtained "Pramāṇa" (Proof)-he encouraged his students to approach him criticality as a teacher and to scrutinize his actions and words (Vīmaṃsaka Sutta). He also remained vague on many supernatural questions posed to him.
By this, some Buddhists mean that supernatural experiences _really do exist_ as a type of "Saṃjñā" (Perception) within the synapses and neurons of those brains which genuinely believe they've experienced such things while the supernatural simultaneously _does not exist_ in the brains of those who have not had their neurons excited in such as way as to produce a "Saṃjñā" (Perception) of a supernatural experience-Buddhism is at least _nominally_ and _provisionally_ subjectivist while maintaining that all subjectivity is dependent upon objective externalities like: "Karma" (Dharmic Causes and Effects), "Dharma" (any momentary Phenomenon), "Dukkha" (Dissatisfaction), "Samsara" (Cycle of Karma), etc.
Thus, if everyone and everything in Samsara has a different Karma resulting in a different Dharma, then their subjective "Saṃjñā" (Perception) of the underlying objective "Sunyata" (Emptiness) may be such that they're more drawn to naturalistic or supernaturalistic "Saṁvṛti-satyas" (Provisional Truths) but as long as they're convinced of the "Paramārtha-satyas" (Ultimate Truths) then the rather crude term "Buddhist" seems applicable.
However, let me be perfectly clear that Buddhism is _technically_ neither naturalist nor supernaturalist nor both nor neither. It is not a compromise between these two extremes nor is it a composite of them. It is _just_ the aforementioned "Paramārtha-satyas" (Ultimate Truths).
To me, this is in stark contrast to the: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) of Jesus.
Most schools of Buddhism recognize many Buddhas both before and after Shakyamuni. The philosophy/religion itself is what's deemed most sacred, not necessarily the individual who founded it.
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!
No standard answer as per academic texts and research in India is Buddha observed silence when asked about existence of God
I wish everyone watching this video peace and luck.
I remember learning about buddhism in social studies classes. My teachers always emphasized that it was more of a philosophy than a religion. I thought a lot about the little I learned about it and came to the conclusion that it was correct about the origins of suffering and how to eliminate them. I didn't pick up any buddhist practices but just always had the notion of buddhism as an inherently factual philosophy in the back of my mind. Thank you for showing me where that all came from RFB!
I LOVE your channel. You're a regular inspiration for me, and The Neighbourhood... podcast... on Spotify. I'm proud of you for the accomplishment of this library of knowledge and wisdom. It's a commendable achievement. Obviously, I Love you and your audience. -SPHC 🧙🏻♂✨🧘🏽
From your description, it sounds to me like Siddhartha Gautama himself considered the whole religion/theism question irrelevant to the pursuit of enlightenment. That seems pretty clear. People layer religion on top of nearly everything, from sports teams to political parties to k-pop bands. That doesn't mean the thing itself is religious, just that it's a clear tendency in humans. I suspect the layers of religious obfuscation are one of the biggest barriers to the enlightenment that Buddha taught was attainable by all beings, divine or otherwise.
the only views we can historically know for sure were gautama buddhas were the attakhavagga, parayanavagga and rhinoceros suttas. all others are too recent to accuratly depict what he declared
@@Purwapada I am woefully ignorant on the subject. If you have more insight, I'd love to hear more about his attitude toward religion and supernatural concerns as expressed in those earliest of records.
@fxm5715 ok sure, you can read them online, or watch videos of people.reading them
They are very short texts.
Attakhavagga is about abandoning all views (like madhymaka) and the ascetic lifestyle.
Parayanavagga is a bunch of questions answered in the attakhavagga.
Rhinoceros sutta is about being lone a wondering ascetic like the sturdy horn of an Indian rhinoceros
What is your definition of religion?
@@vassanab4243 Good question. I suppose it specifically involves belief in "supernatural" (itself a tricky thing to define) beings and forces that play an important roll in determining the course of human lives. Do you have a different take on it?
Definite theism:
1. Specifically the Abrahamic idea of God? Then: obviously NO.
2. The wider understanding of deities? Then: obviously YES.
Has any religion ever presented the correct view of God, or do you prefer the ones that allow you to speculate and make Him in your desired image?
@@black-crossWhat's the correct view of God?
@@fronteredar7355 the only One who claims to have created the universe and humbled Himself becoming man and dying for our sins.
@@black-cross Was that Hinduism?
That's not correct though. Other religions see their deities as progenitors of creation too... Buddhism is unique in that the mind is considered to be the primal force of all material phenomena, and its essence is emptiness. In this way, everyone that is not a Buddha is trapped in their own mental constructions and previous actions, including every deity that isn't a Buddha
Tks for a great accurate explanation n breakdown for how the Buddha(s) explain the existence of supernatural beings; both gods (devas), ghosts, demons, etc.
But in Buddhism we do not rely on / worship them for help but instead practice the Teachings ourselves for self-salvation.
But here in Singapore some ppl use the term to describe Buddhism as a 'non-theist' religion, which I think fits Buddhism perfectly.
With Metta To All!!!
This "rejection" of any aspect of the Buddha's teaching is not among us. What is among us is following the "Dvasatya" (Two Truths Doctorine) and the "Madhyamāpratipada" (Middle Way Doctorine) between either extreme of Naturalism, Supernaturalism, Both, or Neither-in the ancient Mahāsāṃghika tradition of the Prajñaptivāda school which never left Shakyamuni's homeland of Northern India and Nepal and was practiced in the Himalayas well into 10th Century.
The "Dvasatya" (Two Truths Doctorine)-for us this means that "Satya" (Truth) is both/either "Saṁvṛti-satya" (Provisional Truth-i.e. Devas, Asuras, Nagās, etc.) and/or "Paramārtha-satya" (Ultimate Truth-i.e. "Śūnyatā" (Nothingness), "Anicca" (Impemenance), "Anattā" (Anti-Eternalism), "Pratītyasamutpāda" (Dependant Origination), "Dukkha" (Disatisfaction), etc.).
When applied to the Sutras, whole words, sentances, sections, etc. of Shakyamuni's teachings of the "Dharma" (Phenomenon) can be classed as Nītārtha (Clear Meaning) and/or Neyartha (Unclear Meaning). This is a practice which we share in common with the Theravadin school. Unlike the Theravadins, we ground our "Upaya" (Useful Means) of the "Dvasatya" (Two Truths Doctorine) in the "Madhyamāpratipada" (Middle Way Doctorine) to produce an interpretation that allows us to also distinguish between "Tattva" (Reality-i.e. a sort of immaterialistic~materialism) and "Prajñapti" (Conceptions-i.e. a sort of materialistic~immaterialism).
Doing all this allows us to classify any "Saṁvṛti-satya" (Provisional Truths) in the Sutras as Neyartha (Unclear Meanings) and therefore as "Prajñapti" (Conceptions); and any "Paramārtha-satya" (Ultimate Truths) in the Sutras as Nītārtha (Clear Meanings) and therefore as Tattva" (Reality). As all Sutras are not direct experiences, were written by falible men, and must be read and interpreted through the "Skandhas" (Agragagates) all scripture is classified as "Prajñapti" (Conceptions) by default.
Both "Saṁvṛti-satya" and "Paramārtha-satya" are "Satya". But "Satya" is neither "Saṁvṛti-satya" nor "Paramārtha-satya"-There is no "reinterpretation" going on here. We are simply allowing the Buddha to speak about the Dharma through Upaya as was always his intent-it takes virtually zero brainpower to realize that what the Buddha meant by "Gods" was closer to what Mimonides, Spinoza, and Jung meant by "God" than what the Patriarch, Pope, or Luther meant.
I do believe that a practice can take many forms and secular buddhists are not necessarily appropriating or disrespecting the cultures they borrow from... but when someone goes out in public and says that their whitened version of a foreign religion is the "2.0" version of that religion, and claims that the practitioners they took from weren't smart enough to understand their own beliefs, I'm just not gonna call them a real buddhist. That's just so crass. You can adapt a religion for your context without disrespecting the people you took from, doing it this way is the very definition of cultural misappropriation. If they just said "this is my buddhism" no one could criticize. But "this is true buddhism, this is upgraded buddhism", it's an insult
I hear a lot of people dunking on secular Buddhists, but none of the ones I've met have ever actually spoken like that.
They simply do not think veneration of unseen heavenly beings or rituals in languages they don't even understand will particularly help them in their journey to enlightenment or self-improvement. I've never heard them say their Buddhism was the "true" or "best" one.
It seems like we're intentionally picking the most provocative individuals and making them the unofficial figurehead for all of them.
And it's not like the other branches of Buddhism don't do that, either... hell, the term "Mahayana" comes from "greater vehicle" because they thought their teachings were better than the "lesser vehicle", Hinayana.
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.
candrakirti said those who attain good karma and ascend the the deva realm are idiots, just as much as those who do bad deeds and go to avici
According to dzogsar khyentse rinpoche
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?
I think it a bit of everything. But I would say it is conceptual. Some cultures are so alien that it's hard to find a point of reference. And often they try to liken it to something from their own culture or religion when they really don't match up. So for example I often have atheist ask me why I believe in the Christian God and not other gods like Zeus. To which I reply that are nothing alike. Put a god from every religion right next to eachother and you will find that the only thing they have in common is that they are worshiped. Even in one religion like with the Greeks beings like the primordials titans and Olympians are all gods yet can be different kinds of creatures. Also the limited time. It can take years and years for someone to understand their own religion let alone a foreign one in a limited amount of time.
Cultural differences and overall evolution of the said society 100%.
For example, Buddhism and Hinduism don't fit the western definition of religion as it is a way of living. Lots of stories are metaphors for life but if taken literally, they become 'mythical'.
i would add another dimension even: a _counter-cultural_ lense if you will, something about how they try to distance themselves from _some_ aspects of their respective current culture (also influenced by personal beliefs, hopes, etc.)
the ideas of Huxley and Davies seemed a lot like they were essentially _looking_ (or maybe longing) for some more rational alternative to the religious frameworks they knew from home (which were also getting more radicalised in the 19th century).
you might also call this dimension "projection"
@@sanku1999i reckon that statement, while i get what you're trying to say and somewhat agree with it, is selling it in a way that overshoots the target almost equally far in the other direction.
the thing is that especially evangelical Christians love to emphasize faith and (alleged) individuality, but there is a bunch of codified performative behaviour going on (that they aren't even aware of, depending on the person). so you could classify Christianity just as much as a "way of life" and a quite different one depending on the individual confession or even local group.
everyone is free to practice how they feel comfortable, but i find it supremely disrespectful to advocate destroying the religious parts of buddhism while appropriating the parts you like.
Why? That’s part of its evolution as a real, living form of thought in the places that that’s being done.
Exactly. Either youre all in or find something else. Cultural Christianity is foolish
@@IPlayWithFire135superman is supposed to be a symbol. If he's only strong (since that's what you like) If you don't acknowledge all the other traits, he's no longer superman. You have to take all the character (ideology)
It’s spiritually lazy gentrification
So you permit people to do as is comfortable for them while condemning them for doing as is comfortable for them. So what if they reject elements of the Buddhadharma? If Buddhadharma is real their rejection will do nothing to it and they will repeat until awakening. If it is not real then they would be fools to accept it as real. If they accept it in part by practicing kindness and compassion and it is real then surely that results in some merit accumulated for the good of all.
I think part of our confusion derives from the fact that, when we think about religion, we think about the three abrahamic religions or, in second instance, about the classic Greek pantheon.
Those form of religion are the institutional forms of religion, the result of centuries of adaptation between the supernatural and the everyday, political world of men.
There are earlier forms of religion, those based on the worship of small, local deities that are especially common in rural societies. We find abundant traces of them in the form of nymphs, dryads, gnomes, selkies and all of those supernatural creatures that people still believed in in the middle ages and that the official church either considered superstition or the devil's spawn.
I deem it probable that Buddhism, at its birth, found itself in this kind of environment, with people believing in a myriad of local entities, either benevolen or malevolent.
As these beliefs were in no direct contradiction to the orginal teachings, Buddhism was probably indifferent to them at the beginning and ended by incorporating them later on.
I think perhaps a key difference between traditional non-modernist forms of Buddhism. Is that while some forms of Buddhism might highlight how different moods might shape how the gods appear, the thing is everything in the Buddhist cosmos is connected. Thus, whereas the modern Atheist would want to say that we are real and the gods are our projections. Whereas the Buddhist view is more that, humans and the gods are both each other's projections and are as real as each other
23:37 "others have questioned if we can even call it buddhism after discarding so many elements of buddhism classically defined" the skandhas of buddhism itself XD
Very good video! It's great seeing how essays about how buddhism is perceived in the west vs what it classically/historically has been are getting spread, and i specially like this one!
theravada is not older than mahayana, many parts of the canon are very recent
The idea of a non-omniscient god sounds interesting.
Dude, changing title and thumbnail like crazy.Props for great video