Once again, I am so glad that you made these lectures available on RUclips, and that I stumbled upon them🙏 If I would’ve heard you explain Buddhism 15 years ago, when I first became very interested, I think it would’ve made the path to understanding much easier😂 For example, clarifying that Dukkha is not simply a direct translation of suffering, but more like a “unsatisfactory impermanence,” is a much better way of explaining it.
Just to remind that you said in the video that you will provide a link for the next lecture where you will discuss some Buddhist insight into existence of soul. Many thanks for this clear, accessible, yet still profound introduction and I cannot wait to see the next lecture Cheers
If Quine argues there are 8 things in the image, then by that logic doesn't (1+1=2)=3? Each counting also neglects to mention the air, the space they are in (room/floor), and any objects on their person (clothing, jewellery, pocket contents) Thanks so much for posting this series btw!
I like your approach. However, a better translation of "anAtman" is "no/not-the eternal-unchanging, .. essence." Self is an English word that relates more to the mind-body complex than what the Indians mean by "Atman". There is no definition of the english word, "self", that defines it as eternal, unchanging, your essence (meaning not an aggregation), ..... In Hinduism, Indian culture and not just the religions, the Atman is God, the eternal unchanging essence of the universe. If you tell an English speaker, "i am God" -- the Atman -- the English speaker would think you are being philosophical or delusional.
You got the first noble truth wrong. It isn't that life IS suffering, but in life there IS suffering. Pretty big difference there, and your mistake is due to a mistranslation of Dukkha.
What are you talking about? He literally explains that the more nuanced way to understand the first noble truth is that in life there is suffering, and his translation of Duhkha is "unsatisfactory impermanence", and then says (2nd noble truth) that the cause of suffering is the "craving for permanence". Those are good translations, but I don't think he will disagree that you may read it in other way. I think you may need to cultivate the practice of being humble and to respectfully disagree and explain your different reading.
@@FFede-ji9lv The translation of "life IS suffering" is actually a mistranslation. Or put in a better way, we don't have the correct words in English to fully explain the the first Noble truth. However, "life is suffering" is outright not what the Buddha said and is a relic of translation efforts from many decades past. A much closer to accurate statement, in English, about the first Noble Truth is that "in life there IS suffering". For example, in Asia, nobody understands the first Noble Truth as "life is suffering", not a single person. It was only when Buddhism came to the Anglosphere, and translation efforts began, that it started to be interpreted in this way. Bhikhhu Analayo (probably the most respected Buddhist scholar and a monk) has discussed this misinterpretation ad nauseam in his writings. There isn't a more nuanced way to understand something, when the original way you present it as is factually wrong. Also if you know anything about translation work, personal interpretations are not academically valid.
@@trask9100 I agree to what you are saying, and Prof. van Norden agrees with that. That's why he translates dukkha as "unsatisfactory impermanence" and explains that the more nuanced interpretation of the first noble truth is that there is suffering in life. Did you stop the video at the start and not listen to what Prof. van Norden actually thinks as the more "nuanced" interpretation of the noble t.?
I love Buddhism. And this is hilarious. It only further cements how men who study and teach Buddhism really miss half the boat. Buddy here from Vassar used the chocolate cookie as an example to explain reality and experience. He starts with the smell of cookie dough, with a hint of vanilla, in the oven baking, waffling through his senses. Alas, he leaves reality like a dry hump. Before the cookie was in the oven, the cookie was made, probably with love, by a woman, whose concept of relationships is 980 degrees from buddy here from Vassar. Men like to explain the shit out of a turd from a nat. Think about it. Stop. Heal. However, props to Aristotle and Hobbes. Peace out!
@@BryanVanNordenPhilosophy I was not kind in my quest for reason on the existence and hastily failed in my own argument. I did love this lecture, however. I do want to know if Buddhism makes room for sexual identity in relation to how it is being defined and redefined today to include 2SLGBTQIA+. Any thoughts?
One of the silver linings of quarantine is the proliferation of great lectures like this that wouldn't be online otherwise. Thanks, doc!
This series of lectures is a fantastic resource. Your delivery is very conversational and digestible. Thank you for your work!
Once again, I am so glad that you made these lectures available on RUclips, and that I stumbled upon them🙏
If I would’ve heard you explain Buddhism 15 years ago, when I first became very interested, I think it would’ve made the path to understanding much easier😂
For example, clarifying that Dukkha is not simply a direct translation of suffering, but more like a “unsatisfactory impermanence,” is a much better way of explaining it.
Just to remind that you said in the video that you will provide a link for the next lecture where you will discuss some Buddhist insight into existence of soul. Many thanks for this clear, accessible, yet still profound introduction and I cannot wait to see the next lecture
Cheers
Thanks for asking! Here is the next video on the series: ruclips.net/video/Cet6GLLV12M/видео.html
Your videos are excellent!
Many thanks!
Appreciate it professor 👍
Thank you
If Quine argues there are 8 things in the image, then by that logic doesn't (1+1=2)=3?
Each counting also neglects to mention the air, the space they are in (room/floor), and any objects on their person (clothing, jewellery, pocket contents)
Thanks so much for posting this series btw!
What are your primary sources for this lecture?
I like your approach.
However, a better translation of "anAtman" is "no/not-the eternal-unchanging, .. essence."
Self is an English word that relates more to the mind-body complex than what the Indians mean by "Atman".
There is no definition of the english word, "self", that defines it as eternal, unchanging, your essence (meaning not an aggregation), .....
In Hinduism, Indian culture and not just the religions, the Atman is God, the eternal unchanging essence of the universe. If you tell an English speaker, "i am God" -- the Atman -- the English speaker would think you are being philosophical or delusional.
You got the first noble truth wrong. It isn't that life IS suffering, but in life there IS suffering. Pretty big difference there, and your mistake is due to a mistranslation of Dukkha.
What are you talking about? He literally explains that the more nuanced way to understand the first noble truth is that in life there is suffering, and his translation of Duhkha is "unsatisfactory impermanence", and then says (2nd noble truth) that the cause of suffering is the "craving for permanence". Those are good translations, but I don't think he will disagree that you may read it in other way. I think you may need to cultivate the practice of being humble and to respectfully disagree and explain your different reading.
@@FFede-ji9lv The translation of "life IS suffering" is actually a mistranslation. Or put in a better way, we don't have the correct words in English to fully explain the the first Noble truth. However, "life is suffering" is outright not what the Buddha said and is a relic of translation efforts from many decades past. A much closer to accurate statement, in English, about the first Noble Truth is that "in life there IS suffering".
For example, in Asia, nobody understands the first Noble Truth as "life is suffering", not a single person. It was only when Buddhism came to the Anglosphere, and translation efforts began, that it started to be interpreted in this way. Bhikhhu Analayo (probably the most respected Buddhist scholar and a monk) has discussed this misinterpretation ad nauseam in his writings. There isn't a more nuanced way to understand something, when the original way you present it as is factually wrong.
Also if you know anything about translation work, personal interpretations are not academically valid.
@@trask9100 I agree to what you are saying, and Prof. van Norden agrees with that. That's why he translates dukkha as "unsatisfactory impermanence" and explains that the more nuanced interpretation of the first noble truth is that there is suffering in life. Did you stop the video at the start and not listen to what Prof. van Norden actually thinks as the more "nuanced" interpretation of the noble t.?
life is suffering. That is why budda seek to free from this life.
I love Buddhism. And this is hilarious. It only further cements how men who study and teach Buddhism really miss half the boat. Buddy here from Vassar used the chocolate cookie as an example to explain reality and experience. He starts with the smell of cookie dough, with a hint of vanilla, in the oven baking, waffling through his senses. Alas, he leaves reality like a dry hump. Before the cookie was in the oven, the cookie was made, probably with love, by a woman, whose concept of relationships is 980 degrees from buddy here from Vassar. Men like to explain the shit out of a turd from a nat. Think about it. Stop. Heal. However, props to Aristotle and Hobbes. Peace out!
Cookies are only made by women?
@@BryanVanNordenPhilosophy I was not kind in my quest for reason on the existence and hastily failed in my own argument. I did love this lecture, however. I do want to know if Buddhism makes room for sexual identity in relation to how it is being defined and redefined today to include 2SLGBTQIA+. Any thoughts?
@@info4689 t.co/o9UdxlpYe4
@@info4689 Kannon Bodhisattva started out as male and later became female.
And one of the great things about youtube is ... any grandiose idiot can post their harebrained thoughts for the whole world to read !!! (e.g.) ...
Metta Karuna Sharing Dhamma Dana from basicbuddhism.mysticlotus.org