✅ Check out this video next on the practice of the Four Noble Truths - ruclips.net/video/gKIlz5I_0HA/видео.html 🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂
The Buddha said (Pali verse:) "manō pubbaṅgamā dhammā" ("The mind is the root cause in dhamma, (not matter)."). It doesn't say that there were no matter before the mind. It just says that our actions are based on the mind and not only on matter. And according to abhidhamma there are 4 fundamental natures in the universe called "Paramartha Dharma". Those four (4) concepts are known as Rupa (4 fundamental + 24 material phenomena in number), Chaitasika (52) Chittha and Nibbana. According to Abhidhamma the mind is based on fields (like beautiful paintings) called Chitta Bhumi.
@@tesstess7005 why are we here? A fundamental question, or was it a statement. We can spend our days, indeed lifetime meditating on this one thought, or we could not delay and just get on with the business of life and learning without wasting a single moment. Maybe we could do both, maybe neither, or maybe neither both nor neither.
Thanks Doug for giving a summary of the philosophical development of Buddhism in the early CE period and shining a light on it. I've always found it very dense and hard to navigate.
Hey Doug you seem to have found a new level of peace you sound much more at ease than you normally do not that you haven't always sounded at ease just calmer thank you for being a good teacher watching your videos has helped me greatly in my life may the universe continue to bless you in your path to enlightenment
Your channel is very helpful, especially with these kinds of videos where you give a simple, concise explanation of a concept in Buddhism that I can build upon. Formerly a Trinitarian Christian, when that didn't work for me anymore, I did a study of comparative religion and ended up a 12er Shi'ite Muslim. However, Buddhism still caught my interest. I believe Imperialism and fundamentalist extremism nullifies anything good a particular faith or philosophy has to offer. Emptiness or Sunyata is a concept in Buddhism that really is of interest to me. The Five Precepts and the concept of the Bodhisattva do as well. This video helped me to understand a little more how Nagarjuna's thought impacted later Buddhist schools.
Well explained Doug! Been learning Abhidharma since childhood. But never truly understood it. Realising it’s more theoretical than practical. However it’s helpful in situations where you need a deeper understanding for Vipassana meditation. Anyway I have realised a cause and effect approach is more comprehensible.
Again, reading through the first part of Buddhist Philosophy Essential Readings where this is laid out. Thank you for putting a understanding voice to what I'm reading. Sometimes at first glance this is a lil hard to chew. Your videos makes things easier for me to grasp.
Great summary of this central concept in Buddhism. In my mind the very first time the Buddha explicitly explained the nature of reality was in the Anatta-lakkhaṇa-sutta, the second sermon after the first teaching of the four Nobel truths. If you carefully read it, it is pretty much a precursor of the Prajnaparamita. Really Nagajurna’s concept was pretty much the next level of the Buddha’s teaching starting at his second sermon.
Thank you Doug for this brilliant video. Nāgārjuna's handling and reinterpretation of the two truths is an incredibly slippery topic and I've never before seen it explained so clearly. Thank you sincerely from a very, very grateful student :)
I heard about Nagarjuna a few weeks ago on a podcast, fascinating philosopher. The funny thing is that every description of Nagarjuna's concept of emptiness is different. Reminds me of the Jain idea about perspectives
great explanation of very deep topics. first time i heard about Nagarjuna . wasnt interested to know who that was until now. I will look at more of you DeeperDhamma explanation videos later ( since you do an excelet job of providing high level overviews
Thanks for you video, Doug. You basically put into words everything I thought about this topic and added a little more insight. Yes, there is an irony in the number of academic - and as you say formerly scholastic - articles that have been published and continue to be published on Nagarjuna. Personally I like the way that the Middle Way gets spoken about in Tibetan Buddhism as an empty space that is always self-aware.
Nagarjuna's teachings on the "emptiness of emptiness" from his two truths doctrine stand out as among the most profound, innovative, and radical teachings. Yet, when comprehended thoroughly, are the most pragmatic teachings ever on enlightenment. These teachings assert that there exists no ultimate phenomenon or reality outside of our everyday conventional reality. According to this perspective, our conventional reality constitutes the entirety of existence, and recognizing its inherent emptiness is the ultimate truth, the state of nirvana ie. emptiness is not a separate truth but is the emptiness of the conventional reality. This interconnects the realms of conventional truth (samsara) and ultimate truth (emptiness/nirvana) like two sides of the same coin, effectively dissolving dualities between them. In doing so, these teachings dispel the metaphysical constructs often found in other religions, because of the ultimate reality or enlightenment being depicted as distinct from our ordinary world. Nagarjuna via "emptiness of emptiness" identifies two primary issues associated with presenting ultimate reality in this manner: 1. Logical Concern: If ultimate truth or enlightenment is considered an entirely separate phenomenon, it becomes perpetually elusive because our access is confined to conventional reality. This perspective implies that even if ultimate truth exists, it remains forever beyond our grasp. As a result, it risks becoming a mere metaphysical concept with no tangible relevance (like Brahman of Advait Vedanta or Heaven concept of Abrahamic religions). 2. Ethical Concern: Viewing ultimate truth as a distinct, metaphysical reality can lead to ethical issues. When enlightenment is presented in such terms, it transforms from a direct experiential realization into a doctrinal concept. Consequently, this interpretation can foster sectarian divisions, undermining the actual realization. This may result in individuals identifying with specific religious labels without progressing towards genuine enlightenment where Buddhists will remain Buddhists, never a Buddha. In contrast, Nagarjuna's viewpoint offers a pragmatic, inclusive portrayal of enlightenment. With his non-dual picture of samsara/nirvana relationship, he guides us away from perceiving enlightenment as a mystical encounter in a remote future or separate realm. Instead, he proposes that enlightenment-nirvana-is comprehending the emptiness inherent in all aspects of our daily existence. This conception redefines enlightenment as an immediate, intrinsic realization rather than a remote, elusive state.
Love the videos Doug. Longtime viewer. Was wondering if in your studies you have looked into the lineage transmission lines of different Buddhist sects. I know schools such as Zen an Tibetan place strong emphasis on lineage that takes origin in the historical buddha. Could you do a video on this in the future?
Right well lineage is very important in many schools of Buddhism. It's something I might discuss eventually. (It's something that also came up in my recent video on the controversy over nuns in Buddhism).
Do you think the doctrine of the two truths could have a precedent in the Buddha saying there are two kinds of right - one with effluence, siding with merit, and one connected with knowledge of the four noble truths?
From a text by Thomas Cleary entitled "The Ecstasy of Enlightenment" translating from Tantric Buddhist texts he translates that the Buddha DID say that there was an "Ultimately Reality" but that it is not "Intellectually Observable".
Thanks Doug. I’m sure you know this but I think it would be worth mentioning that the abhidharma system discussed by nagarjuna was very much confined mainly to the Sarvastivadin theory of “all exists” (in the three period of time). Other systems like Theravada doesn’t take abhidharma as being entirely ultimate, that is, the dharmas still arise and cease according to causes and conditions (empty) as opposed to Sarvastivada version of dharmas which argues that all dharmas exists ultimate as its own being in all three periods of time. Indeed, Theravada system was also very much against the Sarvastivadin system of Abhidharma as outlined in Kathavathu.
I picked up a book at a thrift store called “The End of Suffering” by Russell Targ and J. J. Hurtak that talks about non-duality and Nararjuna’s teachings, and how realizing them helps you to reach your fullest potential in life. Great book, I highly recommend, (if you can find it anywhere haha).
Sorry for being late. I just watched this very good video. Your presentation on Nagarjuna made me remember David J. Kalupahana's interpretation on Nagarjuna as radical empiricist like The Buddha. I read it in The History of Buddhist Philosophy. Thank you. Good job. 😄
Hi Doug, thanks for this clear, concise account on what is generally a rather mind-twisting topic. Since your video on 4 books that peaked your interest in Buddhism included the Mulamadhyamakakarika and because you studied philosophy in university, I was actually curious to ask how much you've looked into Indian philosophy, as in what other texts have you read or found fascinating? I imagine you'd dig Nagarjuna's Vigrahavyavartani, as well as possibly Jaina epistemology on anekantavada. I take anekantavada as being almost like an affirmative version of Buddhist shunyata. Whereas as the Buddhist takes the position of the skeptic referring to all philosophical positions as being null and void, the Jaina takes the position of a syncretist claiming that all philosophical positions are true but only from a certain perspective.
Image is a name that falls in different meanings. Most of the name of image is used on the bodies. The name of the body is mostly used in the bodies of the gods of human ancestors. Here the body is called divineness, shortness, roundness, squareness, old notes, small baws, fat baws, old dimensions, color, animal, not animal, for all. God's man's animal's body. Stones, trees, buried, leaves and nuts are the same. Fire, water, wind and sun are the same bodies. Mental mythical religions are not bodies because they are a dose of vana and don't show a note in groups, emotional mythics are bodies: "Durangaman Ekcharang - Asareerang caves Yeh Chiththan Sangamesanthi - Mokkhanti Marabandhana Also shows in the word that goes on. Even though the images are overwhelmed, the earthly acts, many of them show a body or a substance which has a certain note in the same time. All the things in the world that are treated as substance or physically are the groups of earthly germs. The substance or the body is not atrocity. A bunch of earthly tooths finder who actually finds the substance facts in the saty. Since they look like non alcohol bodies without alcohol, they are also called the image that they use to call bodies. Paramartha Dharma is divine in name. The three paramartha dharma which does not get a body frequency from them cannot be seen by the body, as the body should not be able to hear the name alone and teeth according to the name. The Paramartha Dhamma part which appeared a body or an image when many were at one place. The image can be seen as the teeth according to the image. The images are the Paramartha Dhamma part which came in groups and showed a body frequency. This is an introduction of image paramount in one way. The image is introduced by the phenomenon, the word image is described by a deeper method. "Ruppathithi kho bhikhwe! Thasma Rupanthi Vachchathi" is how the Lord of theaths complimented the image. "Lady, image is called because it is images" is what it means. Now the teeth should be what makeup is. Dam Senevi Sariyuth Maha Thirun. The term "Ruppapati" was praised in the words "Kuppati Ghattiyathi Peeliyathi" while praising the luscious form. Those words mean "Kipay, attacked by opposition, suffered by opposition". If you know who is the image of it, it should be said that the image of the Dhamma which was attacked by the opposition. The opposite truth is Sheetoshnadiya. Rupaya's cutting is the snake of the cobra, the tiger's cutting, the king's cutting is not a venna, the air shutting, the pitha shutting etc. It's a result of being attacked and suffered from the opposition. The emotional thethics are very delicate and they don't last long enough to be chased by another religion. The life time of the image is sixteen times more than the lifetime, so they are under the opposition's custody. Therefore a figure is only in the image. Image originated by zones or mass mesmerization. It is the nature of many image zones to create another or more image zones of their own nation in order to be ignorant. Imagine artists who were caught by the opposition fail to create similar portrait zones to their generation. Candle image zones are opposed to the heat, but they fail to create similar cut image zones. So after touching the heat, they can produce to themselves and unequal. Here's the diving is to come to fail to create similar image. The wax that was cut before is not meant to come into the beasts. The wax is a result of the form of the wax which was cut before it came into candles. It is anti-dharma that Ruppanaya is going to come to a moment of Rupaya. A supreme dharma has three situations of uprising, status, motion. They don't have a fourth chance. If an image with the touch of winter comes to another misunderstanding, it is a fourth chance of the image. Don't take that bond because you don't get it. This is a deep fact to understand. This is because it's been messed up in many books. Read this over and over and try to understand the point well..
Guy Newland has several videos on nagarjuna that are very good. These were taken at sravasti abbey on youtube. Also has a book intro to emptiness that is very good.
It's like as if a pot we're continually being created only to be smashed upon completion to clearly see the emptiness inside. Some people like to think about the implications of the practice and others like to do the practice.
hello, i am looking for a good translation of Nagarjuna's mulamadhyamakakarika, what is an english translation you suggest as reliable and well translated.
There are a lot of them, but I think one of the best is supposed to be: Mark Siderits, Shoryu Katsura, Nāgārjuna's Middle Way -- amzn.to/3FSZKLr (affiliate link).
I wish to all of you with all my heart that you can create this sort of videos based on your own experience. If you follow the 8-fold path naturally, you will see a beautiful building in front of you (Dharma). You have to make a decision now. Do you want to learn a lot of words that describe the process of building the house, including the structure of it, the composition of the walls and the origin of the materials? Or do you want to enter the house and experience what it is like to be inside? If you choose the latter, simply follow these basic steps. Sit and make a firm decision that during this meditation you are ready to die. Listen to your intuition. Decide to leave everything you know, you have achieved, you have loved behind and take nothing with you. Be absolutely delighted with the beauty of the house in front of you and feel the joy of that beauty in your chest (Píti). Take four steps towards the house's only entrance (4 Noble Truth). Take the door handle and feel the three movements needed to open it (Anicca, Anatta, Dukkha). You will find that the door is always open to those who have followed this simple procedure. Let your consciousness follow this process passively with great focuss (Vipassana). Then you can walk in and experience the true reality hidden inside. Of course, it starts with waking up from a dream into true reality, separating your mind from consciousness, immersing yourself in perfect peace without any changes, karma being interrupted, no space, no time, final truth without beginning and end, etc., etc., etc. Do it😊.
You can search for the ultimate truth your whole life, it is only at the moment where you stop searching for it that you find it. Give it up and look at what you gain!
This is an interesting and helpful video. Thanks. One thing it has me thinking about are the (seeming) similarities between Nagarjuna's idea of emptiness and Nietzshe's idea of "true world theories". Each seems to be saying that what people - dogmatists ultimately - seem to want is to say that there is the reality we see around us and some 'deeper' reality that we can somehow discover and get to (especially in the cases of religoins) if we reason, have faith, etc, hard enough. For both Nagarjuna and Nietzsche, it seems like they are both saying that we would be best served to get beyond this longing for that deeper reality, because that way, we are more receptive to the world we actually have access to, the only one we have access to. Does that seem like a good comparison?
Perhaps so, though I don't really know enough about Nietzsche's view here to be sure. Nāgārjuna can be read various ways, one of those ways is that he is indeed spelling out the "deeper" or even "deepest" reality, which is emptiness. Another way is as you suggest that he is saying there is no such deeper reality.
The emptiness of emptiness really puzzled me at first when I came upon it on Mahayana philosophy books and later i interpreted it as the emptiness of form being dependent on form itself since without the form there is no emptiness. Don't know if my interpretation is right though?
Well I think the idea is broader than that: it's that the very concept of emptiness it itself empty, it's not a permanent, unchanging "thing" or "way things are". It's an absence of such permanence.
@@sonamtshering194 Two reason. 1) Emptiness describe in Mahayana doesn't contradict any other existence. 2) It is not a different entity in compare to other existence ( Emptiness in mahayana is not a existence. It is just a command char shared by everything.)
Most of what I focus on is early Buddhism. I have done videos that touched on Nāgārjuna (such as this one) and one that dealt with an aspect of Huayan: ruclips.net/video/CQN7sVmckso/видео.html
I am really trying to follow but the thread of thought is tedious. For every bit of logic, there is a non-logic. For every one thing that someone said, there is not a thing that was unsaid. I like when you said the logic and debates are dizzying, because that is exactly how I feel. It is unsettling and really puts a cramp in my zen to try and follow. How do you remember all of these threads of "logic" and how do you keep them straight?
It can be complicated and confusing, after all what's under discussion is a period of several centuries of philosophical debate. But practice is what's most important so if you can't quite get your mind around this stuff just leave it aside.
Most teachers would tell you to forget what they tell you and find out for yourself in the daily practice of mindfulness. Otherwise, it's true, you'll be caught up in the weeds!
@@paragozar Oh, absolutely. By inquiring into the thoughts and teachings of those who have come before me, I don't relinquish my skills of discernment.
Hey Doug quick question, I want to be Buddhist and I’ve been following the 5 precepts and doing what I can to leave a kind and peaceful life. I do however still smoke weed, I know that’s an intoxicant but at this point in my life weed doesn’t really have the same effect as when I was younger. Is it okay that I still do this considering it doesn’t alter my state of mind to the point where I’m breaking precepts and not following Buddhist way?
Well I think that sort of question is best left up to the individual and their own conception of practice. It's not meant to be a "commandment" but rather a process.
It is great you are following the 5 precepts. I would ask you, that you should think very carefully as to whether or not you are attached to smoking weed. And think how that might affect your Buddhist practice. For instance if it has no effect on your mental or physical state why do you do it? Think about the 1st truth of the aryas
I want to know about the word brahmana what now some people claim them as brahmans but as per dhammapada brahmans means monks those who follow the 10 precepts and more. Can u elaborate more on that?
Brahmans were the priestly caste in ancient India, those of a certain family lineage tasked with knowledge of the Vedas and performance of Vedic rituals. The Buddha however redefined the term (as he did with many terms of his day); he said basically that true Brahmans were not those with the right parents but instead those who acted ethically and properly and acted to purify their minds.
Emptiness makes most sense to me as an idea that there is no “ultimate” reality. When we say emptiness is a reality, that seems more like saying a particular feature of the world is real, or true, rather than that it is REALITY as a whole. Within conventional reality, we might say that gravity is a reality, but it doesn’t mean that gravity is the whole of reality. Just that it is something that is real WITHIN reality or OF reality. If everything is empty, that means that any layer of reality we look at sufficiently closely will break down into emptiness, so it can’t be a layer of reality that is really real at a fundamental level. It’s not exactly a ratio ad absurdum. It’s just that the very definition of emptiness rules out anything that isn’t empty, so there can be no layer of reality that isn’t empty, and as such no layer of reality can be “ultimately” real. I’m sure I haven’t just solved 2000 years of scholastic debate in this one RUclips comment section paragraph though 😂
Emptiness means things lack inherent essence - for example a human is dependent on external oxygen, food, sexual partners, other human services, trees, crops and countless interactions etc for existence etc - so there is no independent human being - this is why alcohol and drugs are popular - humans want external stimulation for happiness and this leads to suffering - humans must realize this and do self realization like meditation etc - this can lead to reduction of sadness and suffering - trying to find the ultimate truth is like pinpointing the beginning and end of a circle.
Interesting how the path ends with the 4 nobel truths and the 8 fold path. But everyone seems to teach it as 4 nobel truths 8 fold path. Thats seems to be the issue I see with Buddhism how its taught because incorrectly taught it ither can cause insanity or but wait there's more. So one should ask how to become wiser calmer and kinder. Had a teacher whos teacher had strange abilities and he would say nothing he could do mattered his students would then ask "Sifu what does matter " he would say to be kind to everyone you meet. Still working on that one.
In therawada, buddha said that how universe created, universe created by two groups chiththa ,chithasika,rupa, nibbana .the physical world created by rupa. The all the things of rupa is made by "rupa kalapa (thebasic one)" ."rupa kalapa"is created by various of energy. Thats are apo, thejo, wayo ,patawi....28etc..these are energy names.for exaple "wayo"doesnt mean air.it means this energy is like air.wayo energy can flow...patawi energy is give " strong "to rupa kalapa.etc. other thing buddha says rupa kalapas are born and die..when one rupa kalapa was dead another rupa kalapa is born.one "rupa kalapa" life time is" kshana 53"..kshana is the smallest time unit in buddhist..their is lot of discription about this . Read "abidarma margaya-rerukane chandra wimala thero"
Thank you for the video! I think Thich Nhat Hanh's idea of 'interbeing' is a sensible rendering of the notion of emptiness or 'ultimate truth' that is not so easily mistaken nihilism and also lends itself very well to practice in my opinion.
Interesting, I don't know much about it but it sounds like the idea of Indra's Net that I discussed in a prior video: ruclips.net/video/CQN7sVmckso/видео.html
One big qibble I have with this type of two truth doctrines is that it can potentially easily be abused by unscrupulous spiritual gurus and used to justify their actions. "Oh I am not bound by conventional morality, since I am enlightened. Now, your guru commands you to drop your panties and bend over!"
It is not that all things are dhukkha, anicca and anatta. All produced things or phenomenons have these characteristics. Buddha said there's something unmade, unproduced, un born and deathless, and it's only because of this unmade, unborn, it's possible to be free from suffering. 🙏
Translation: NOTHING is self arising or self creating or permanent and no one part of something can be identified as defining or locating what it is called. hence, EVERYTHING IS EMPTY OF SELF EXISTENCE. There is only the ILLUSION of a sort of permanence. and sovereignty.. There is a saying ; "you never step into the same river twice." What you call a "river" is a constantly changing/flowing body of water. Its NOT the same body of water from moment to moment. It merely resembles what came before. Further, there is no one part of the river that can be identified as embodying or defining the entire river. EVERYTHING IS OF A TEMPORARY, TRANSIENT NATURE AND IS NON-LOCALIZABLE. Most importantly-THAT INCLUDES THE "SELF" What you call "you" or "me" or "I" is not the same from moment to moment. It is the result of various types of biological, energetic and spiritual forces arising and passing away. The self is also non-localizable . The "I" sense or ego can't be located anywhere specific. Some people would say they exist somewhere in their head between their ears and behind their eyes. Some would point to the solar plexus as being the self. Others would point to the chest indicating what is called "heart mind" as being where they are. Scientists would say identity is in the brain but that no one place can be found that is the center of the self. The point is, YOU ARE NOWHERE SPECIFIC TO BE FOUND NOR IS ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT IS CALLED "YOU" OF A PERMANENT NATURE. THIS APPLIES AS WELL TO THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE OF FORMS. Recognizing these fundamental truths, Hindus and Buddhists look to identify with and realize their oneness with THE SOURCE WHICH CREATES ALL ILLUSORY AND TEMPORARY WORLDLY FORMS. Buddhists and Hindus dont seek to live in a 'heaven" somewhere while communing with a God. Rather, they realize the temporary and illusory nature of the self and the entire universe and seek to go beyond any and all worldy forms and sense of self existence.
Hi Doug,I listened to both your segments on conventional versus ultimate truth. I am not deeply schooled in Buddhism... and certainly there are different perspectives on all topics. But for me you may be missing the point. There is conventional truth which is known in an un-enlightened mind conceptually. All philosophies, all that can be spoken are conventional truth, regardless at which level. Ultimate truth is entirely different, it is truth by direct knowing as Being. Ultimate truth is the direct subjective knowing, the Being, of Buddha, Jesus et al... and it is full and complete, it is the truth of enlightenment. But it is impossible to convey ultimate truth accurately because it is subtler than concept. Jesus is forced to use parables. Apparently Buddha gave serious consideration to not teaching at all (right?) because of the impossibility of conveying the subtler reality conceptually, AND the great likelihood that, over time, conceptual teachings drift. An example of something subjective that is subtler than the thinking mind: poets have attempted to describe love for eons... and of course they all fail, but they do produce a conventional teaching about it. So everything written about love is conventional knowledge. The direct experience of love is ultimate knowledge, and it can not be represented precisely in thought. Or consider attempting to transfer to a friend the subjective sense reality of eating an exotic fruit using language and concepts... impossible, your friend must actually taste the fruit to have the ultimate knowledge about it. You may attempt to transfer the taste-texture-aroma-color of a fruit as conventional language, but you will never be able to convey the actual reality of eating it. Conventional truth must cut and divide the pie into intellectual concepts in order to attempt to understand, the intellect understands by comparing one idea against another. But concepts are abstractions, and the pie could be cut up in innumerable ways: one might take the perspective of Heart, or Will, or Mind... each of which uses different language, but the whole is without division. All conceptual teachings are the FINGER pointing at the moon, but the FINGER is not the moon.
Thanks for that, yes one conception of ultimate truth is that it's the thing that all religions point to. I did an earlier video on that general topic: ruclips.net/video/moGPUNfO8no/видео.html
Well the Vedas are generally believed to have arisen about a millennium or so before the Buddha's lifetime. Some of the Upaniṣads post-date the Buddha, but the early Upaniṣads, of which there are several, are believed to predate him by a century or so. He was pretty clearly commenting upon both Vedic and Upaniṣadic material in many of his suttas.
Yogacara actually compliments the Madyamika. They aren't contradictory really. Nagarjuna is looking at the emptiness of objects and processes, and Yogacara is pointing out the error of the concept of subject-object dualism. There are all kinds of ways to look at it, though. It's all empty.
Buddhism surely borrowed a lot from Hinduism. Gautam Buddha learnt it all from Brahmins of those times since Brahmins were the teachers traditionally. You do not get gyana or knowledge sitting under the tree. You learn it from someone and then think over it and modify it and pass your conclusions to the next generation. That is the way of creating knowledge. So, from whom Buddha, learnt from, specially as a young Siddhartha? The dukkha that Buddha talks about is already mentioned in Vedas. So, Buddha was modifying the Vedic knowledge and giving own understanding of it. He never started the Buddhism as a separate Dharma, It is his disciples later on who organized and codified to make it a religion.
@@DougsDharma Brahmins, I can understand but Brahminism, I don't. What is that exactly? Buddha did not say anything that was not already said previously. He only modified the previously available concepts and knowledge. But yes he opposed the karmkanda prevailing in Hinduism of those times.
Dear Dough, Do not do false statements Buddha didn't took any thing from Upanishads, The language of Upanishads is Sanskrit, but Pali is older than Sanskrit.
@@DougsDharma When you study the origin and chronology of language s, how it can be possible that Budha mentioning the points written or orally in Sanskrit language which was not exist in 600 years BC.These all stories fabricated by Brahmins in India as they restricted learning and speaking Sanskrit language to themselves, There was no permission to other communities to learn Sanskrit like Khattiya, Vaisha, Shudra. Dr. Ambedkar studied Sanskrit in Germany ,he was denied to learn in India.
Buddhism seems like a giant coping strategy of false hope, similar to traditional religions, just for a more intelligent audience. The basic approach of Buddhism - looking at reality as it is - is laudable and Buddhists got a lot of stuff right, which means it is in accordance with today's knowledge. Stuff is impermanent. There is no "self" and everything is an effect of prior causes and conditions (of which probably most importantly follows that there is no libertarian free will and thus no rational basis for pride, guilt, anger, regret, etc.). And then of course dukkha. The understanding that life is nothing but a futile effort to fill a leaky bucket. Almost every "Good" is just a neutralization of a prior lack (hunger, sleepiness, physical pain etc.). The constant desire for things to be different than they are. But apart from these potentially very subtle ways of unsatisfactoriness let's also not forget the insane meat grinder this universe is for living beings. It's very easy to forget if you have a warm bed and food on the table. I am not only talking about the unimaginable horrors of war, torture, famine, disease, severe mental illness. And I am not only talking about the madness of suffering humans impose on other sentient beings right at this very moment (factory farming, fishing, animal torture...) but about the mechanism of suffering built into the very foundation of life itself, even with humanity absent. There is no god, we all agree with this here. There is no benevolent force behind existence. Existence is just running like a machine with impersonal laws. And so is life itself. ((I will continue in response postings to this post below)).
4 billions years ago a self-replicating molecule emerged. We still don't know how and of course there is no "why". We are the vehicles for this molecule. It doesn't care, it doesn't know, it just is in its physical law to make more of itself. Just so. If 495 of 500 turtles get eaten by seagulls before they reach the sea, DNA doesn't know or care. The suffering of wild animals is not really realized by most people, because we think of "nature" and "natural" as something inherently positive. But there is nothing positive for the deer getting slowly eaten alive by wolves. So the Buddhists look at the realty to view it, as it truly is. Mainly through introspection but also by observing the world. If we honestly look within, we mostly come to the same conclusions. Like we see that actions and thoughts just arise with no "doer" behind it and modern neuroscience tells us much the same. Again, this is laudable. Where the coping comes in, is in the belief that viewing the reality of the world will necessarily lead to something "good" and "free". But that doesn't have to be so and it really isn't. Truth can make us "free" but it can also cripple us. Again, this world wasn't designed by some benevolent force. It obviously wasn't. This world really is full of extreme amounts of suffering. And when we look at how the world works on a deep level (quantum physics etc.) it appears as exceedingly strange and almost impossible to understand. Truly understanding how there is no permanence, how there aren't really even "people" in the way we always thought, would drive us mad. To function in this world, we need some amount of illusion of self, free will, permanence. Sure, we might let some of this truth trickle in, help us to feel less regret or anger or more connectedness to other beings. But the assumption that fully realizing the reality of this world will lead us to a wholly good "state", is foolish. The world as it is, is not good, so why would fully insight into its real workings be? Buddhists put their hope in Dharma, Sangha, Buddha just like other religions do in their deities. Meditation and insight can make your life better, I don't doubt that. But really only if they are amalgamated by some healthy amount of illusion/ignorance (try REALLY living like there are no selves and everything is impermanent). In the end, Buddhists hope, just like everybody else, that "in the end, everything is going to be okay". This is false hope.
How do you know it is a false hope? If we can see our lives improving through practice, and the lives of those around us, isn't that enough? Sure, perfect enlightenment may not be possible (in truth, I have no idea), but if we can improve the world through our work, shouldn't we make the effort?
Buddhism does not say there is No God, it does not say There is God. Only this consciousness, here and now, to be practiced, not understood. Everything else is extra, Samsara.
You make claims that you consider or present to be true. In reality your claims are simply your opinions. Your opinions (view) are pesimistic. The way you describe Buddhism indicates that you don’t have very deep knowledge of the subject. You are coming to conclusions (opinions) that are based on foundations of sand. Had you deepened your knowledge, you would have come to different conclusions.
✅ Check out this video next on the practice of the Four Noble Truths - ruclips.net/video/gKIlz5I_0HA/видео.html
🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂
You can tell when someone has a good understanding of a subject when they can explain it so clearly and simply.
Thanks so much, glad you found it useful. 🙏
You help me to heal 🤗🤗❤Namo Buddhaya ❤🙏🏻From Sri Lanka 🇱🇰
Glad to hear it! 🙏
Really dude? 😐
You have many monks who are teaching abhidhamma in sri lanka..
And you are using you tube to undestand abhidhamma.... 😐😂
The Buddha said (Pali verse:) "manō pubbaṅgamā dhammā" ("The mind is the root cause in dhamma, (not matter)."). It doesn't say that there were no matter before the mind. It just says that our actions are based on the mind and not only on matter. And according to abhidhamma there are 4 fundamental natures in the universe called "Paramartha Dharma". Those four (4) concepts are known as Rupa (4 fundamental + 24 material phenomena in number), Chaitasika (52) Chittha and Nibbana. According to Abhidhamma the mind is based on fields (like beautiful paintings) called Chitta Bhumi.
Thanks Suresh.
why are you here
@@tesstess7005, nothing.
Read Anantha lakkana sutta
@@tesstess7005 why are we here? A fundamental question, or was it a statement. We can spend our days, indeed lifetime meditating on this one thought, or we could not delay and just get on with the business of life and learning without wasting a single moment. Maybe we could do both, maybe neither, or maybe neither both nor neither.
Thanks Doug for giving a summary of the philosophical development of Buddhism in the early CE period and shining a light on it. I've always found it very dense and hard to navigate.
It is quite complicated and confusing! I'm still learning about it all myself. 🙂
love ya brother =), you got a special kinda calm i like
Thanks, glad you liked it!
Thank you Doug
Hey Doug you seem to have found a new level of peace you sound much more at ease than you normally do not that you haven't always sounded at ease just calmer thank you for being a good teacher watching your videos has helped me greatly in my life may the universe continue to bless you in your path to enlightenment
Hey that's nice to hear, thanks. I hope you as well are finding peace and happiness in your life. 🙂🙏
Your channel is very helpful, especially with these kinds of videos where you give a simple, concise explanation of a concept in Buddhism that I can build upon.
Formerly a Trinitarian Christian, when that didn't work for me anymore, I did a study of comparative religion and ended up a 12er Shi'ite Muslim. However, Buddhism still caught my interest. I believe Imperialism and fundamentalist extremism nullifies anything good a particular faith or philosophy has to offer.
Emptiness or Sunyata is a concept in Buddhism that really is of interest to me. The Five Precepts and the concept of the Bodhisattva do as well.
This video helped me to understand a little more how Nagarjuna's thought impacted later Buddhist schools.
Glad to help!
Well explained Doug! Been learning Abhidharma since childhood. But never truly understood it. Realising it’s more theoretical than practical. However it’s helpful in situations where you need a deeper understanding for Vipassana meditation.
Anyway I have realised a cause and effect approach is more comprehensible.
Glad it was helpful MrLokuAiya! 🙏🙂
Man, I have no idea *how* you made it to put such a complex subject in such a plain nutshell - but you made it! 😁
Thanks and love from Germany! ❤🙏🏻
Very glad you found it easy to comprehend, I know it's pretty complicated material! You're very welcome xiao mao. 🙏
I have been so focused on Sunyata ,, I completely overlooked Common Sense...
Ah yes, common sense is also important! 😄
😂
Again, reading through the first part of Buddhist Philosophy Essential Readings where this is laid out. Thank you for putting a understanding voice to what I'm reading. Sometimes at first glance this is a lil hard to chew. Your videos makes things easier for me to grasp.
Glad to hear that Poetboy, happy to help. 🙏
Great summary of this central concept in Buddhism. In my mind the very first time the Buddha explicitly explained the nature of reality was in the Anatta-lakkhaṇa-sutta, the second sermon after the first teaching of the four Nobel truths. If you carefully read it, it is pretty much a precursor of the Prajnaparamita. Really Nagajurna’s concept was pretty much the next level of the Buddha’s teaching starting at his second sermon.
Thanks for your input Sompop!
You are correct
It's really sad more people around the world can't access these beautiful philosophical dharma. People need to learn more about theravada buddhism.
Well here it is available to nearly everyone! 😄
Thank you Doug for this brilliant video. Nāgārjuna's handling and reinterpretation of the two truths is an incredibly slippery topic and I've never before seen it explained so clearly. Thank you sincerely from a very, very grateful student :)
My pleasure Chris, glad you enjoyed it!
Great! I'd love to sit down with Doug and ask a thousand questions. But this video is better than nothing...
Glad you enjoyed it!
I heard about Nagarjuna a few weeks ago on a podcast, fascinating philosopher. The funny thing is that every description of Nagarjuna's concept of emptiness is different. Reminds me of the Jain idea about perspectives
Read about shunyata and dependent origination - they are cornerstones of Buddhism.
Yes he's quite interesting. And indeed, his ideas spawned a large number of interpretations.
great explanation of very deep topics. first time i heard about Nagarjuna . wasnt interested to know who that was until now. I will look at more of you DeeperDhamma explanation videos later ( since you do an excelet job of providing high level overviews
Thank you so much 🙂
Beautiful.... Subscribed !
Thanks and welcome!
Thank you so much for this video and your work, great🙏🏼💗
You are so welcome! 🙏
Thanks for you video, Doug. You basically put into words everything I thought about this topic and added a little more insight. Yes, there is an irony in the number of academic - and as you say formerly scholastic - articles that have been published and continue to be published on Nagarjuna. Personally I like the way that the Middle Way gets spoken about in Tibetan Buddhism as an empty space that is always self-aware.
🙏
Thank you for this excellent summary analysis 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
Keep up the good work, with metta 💐
Thank you! Will do! 🙏😊
Nagarjuna's teachings on the "emptiness of emptiness" from his two truths doctrine stand out as among the most profound, innovative, and radical teachings. Yet, when comprehended thoroughly, are the most pragmatic teachings ever on enlightenment. These teachings assert that there exists no ultimate phenomenon or reality outside of our everyday conventional reality. According to this perspective, our conventional reality constitutes the entirety of existence, and recognizing its inherent emptiness is the ultimate truth, the state of nirvana ie. emptiness is not a separate truth but is the emptiness of the conventional reality. This interconnects the realms of conventional truth (samsara) and ultimate truth (emptiness/nirvana) like two sides of the same coin, effectively dissolving dualities between them. In doing so, these teachings dispel the metaphysical constructs often found in other religions, because of the ultimate reality or enlightenment being depicted as distinct from our ordinary world. Nagarjuna via "emptiness of emptiness" identifies two primary issues associated with presenting ultimate reality in this manner:
1. Logical Concern: If ultimate truth or enlightenment is considered an entirely separate phenomenon, it becomes perpetually elusive because our access is confined to conventional reality. This perspective implies that even if ultimate truth exists, it remains forever beyond our grasp. As a result, it risks becoming a mere metaphysical concept with no tangible relevance (like Brahman of Advait Vedanta or Heaven concept of Abrahamic religions).
2. Ethical Concern: Viewing ultimate truth as a distinct, metaphysical reality can lead to ethical issues. When enlightenment is presented in such terms, it transforms from a direct experiential realization into a doctrinal concept. Consequently, this interpretation can foster sectarian divisions, undermining the actual realization. This may result in individuals identifying with specific religious labels without progressing towards genuine enlightenment where Buddhists will remain Buddhists, never a Buddha.
In contrast, Nagarjuna's viewpoint offers a pragmatic, inclusive portrayal of enlightenment. With his non-dual picture of samsara/nirvana relationship, he guides us away from perceiving enlightenment as a mystical encounter in a remote future or separate realm. Instead, he proposes that enlightenment-nirvana-is comprehending the emptiness inherent in all aspects of our daily existence. This conception redefines enlightenment as an immediate, intrinsic realization rather than a remote, elusive state.
Love the videos Doug. Longtime viewer.
Was wondering if in your studies you have looked into the lineage transmission lines of different
Buddhist sects. I know schools such as Zen an Tibetan place strong emphasis on lineage that takes origin in the historical buddha.
Could you do a video on this in the future?
Right well lineage is very important in many schools of Buddhism. It's something I might discuss eventually. (It's something that also came up in my recent video on the controversy over nuns in Buddhism).
Do you think the doctrine of the two truths could have a precedent in the Buddha saying there are two kinds of right - one with effluence, siding with merit, and one connected with knowledge of the four noble truths?
Yes, interesting point Jonathan, I agree these are related.
Thank you.
You're welcome, Chris.
Nice! (Ty Doug!)
🙏😊
From a text by Thomas Cleary entitled "The Ecstasy of Enlightenment" translating from Tantric Buddhist texts he translates that the Buddha DID say that there was an "Ultimately Reality" but that it is not "Intellectually Observable".
Well that would be a much later text, from a later tradition. He might well be right!
That was very well done. Thank you.
Next do a video on how Zen and Shin are essentially the same.
My pleasure, David. Since my focus is largely on the early material, my knowledge of Shin is still sketchy! 🙏
Sadhu sadhu sadhu
Thank you
🙏😊
Thanks Doug. I’m sure you know this but I think it would be worth mentioning that the abhidharma system discussed by nagarjuna was very much confined mainly to the Sarvastivadin theory of “all exists” (in the three period of time). Other systems like Theravada doesn’t take abhidharma as being entirely ultimate, that is, the dharmas still arise and cease according to causes and conditions (empty) as opposed to Sarvastivada version of dharmas which argues that all dharmas exists ultimate as its own being in all three periods of time. Indeed, Theravada system was also very much against the Sarvastivadin system of Abhidharma as outlined in Kathavathu.
Yes these are subtleties with the various systems of abhidhamma/abhidharma that I would like to see more scholarly study about.
Can you make a video about the commentaries and how accurate they are.
It's something I've discussed in passing many times, I may do a video on it if I can find a good way to present the information without being dull.
I picked up a book at a thrift store called “The End of Suffering” by Russell Targ and J. J. Hurtak that talks about non-duality and Nararjuna’s teachings, and how realizing them helps you to reach your fullest potential in life. Great book, I highly recommend, (if you can find it anywhere haha).
Interesting, thanks Tori.
Sorry for being late. I just watched this very good video. Your presentation on Nagarjuna made me remember David J. Kalupahana's interpretation on Nagarjuna as radical empiricist like The Buddha. I read it in The History of Buddhist Philosophy.
Thank you. Good job. 😄
You're very welcome Ucup!
Hi Doug, thanks for this clear, concise account on what is generally a rather mind-twisting topic. Since your video on 4 books that peaked your interest in Buddhism included the Mulamadhyamakakarika and because you studied philosophy in university, I was actually curious to ask how much you've looked into Indian philosophy, as in what other texts have you read or found fascinating? I imagine you'd dig Nagarjuna's Vigrahavyavartani, as well as possibly Jaina epistemology on anekantavada. I take anekantavada as being almost like an affirmative version of Buddhist shunyata. Whereas as the Buddhist takes the position of the skeptic referring to all philosophical positions as being null and void, the Jaina takes the position of a syncretist claiming that all philosophical positions are true but only from a certain perspective.
Well in grad school mostly I studied western philosophy with some Buddhism on the side. Nowadays I mostly focus on the early suttas.
Image is a name that falls in different meanings. Most of the name of image is used on the bodies. The name of the body is mostly used in the bodies of the gods of human ancestors. Here the body is called divineness, shortness, roundness, squareness, old notes, small baws, fat baws, old dimensions, color, animal, not animal, for all. God's man's animal's body. Stones, trees, buried, leaves and nuts are the same. Fire, water, wind and sun are the same bodies. Mental mythical religions are not bodies because they are a dose of vana and don't show a note in groups, emotional mythics are bodies:
"Durangaman Ekcharang - Asareerang caves Yeh Chiththan Sangamesanthi - Mokkhanti Marabandhana
Also shows in the word that goes on. Even though the images are overwhelmed, the earthly acts, many of them show a body or a substance which has a certain note in the same time. All the things in the world that are treated as substance or physically are the groups of earthly germs. The substance or the body is not atrocity. A bunch of earthly tooths finder who actually finds the substance facts in the saty. Since they look like non alcohol bodies without alcohol, they are also called the image that they use to call bodies.
Paramartha Dharma is divine in name. The three paramartha dharma which does not get a body frequency from them cannot be seen by the body, as the body should not be able to hear the name alone and teeth according to the name. The Paramartha Dhamma part which appeared a body or an image when many were at one place. The image can be seen as the teeth according to the image. The images are the Paramartha Dhamma part which came in groups and showed a body frequency. This is an introduction of image paramount in one way.
The image is introduced by the phenomenon, the word image is described by a deeper method. "Ruppathithi kho bhikhwe! Thasma Rupanthi Vachchathi" is how the Lord of theaths complimented the image. "Lady, image is called because it is images" is what it means. Now the teeth should be what makeup is. Dam Senevi Sariyuth Maha Thirun. The term "Ruppapati" was praised in the words "Kuppati Ghattiyathi Peeliyathi" while praising the luscious form. Those words mean "Kipay, attacked by opposition, suffered by opposition". If you know who is the image of it, it should be said that the image of the Dhamma which was attacked by the opposition.
The opposite truth is Sheetoshnadiya. Rupaya's cutting is the snake of the cobra, the tiger's cutting, the king's cutting is not a venna, the air shutting, the pitha shutting etc. It's a result of being attacked and suffered from the opposition. The emotional thethics are very delicate and they don't last long enough to be chased by another religion. The life time of the image is sixteen times more than the lifetime, so they are under the opposition's custody. Therefore a figure is only in the image.
Image originated by zones or mass mesmerization. It is the nature of many image zones to create another or more image zones of their own nation in order to be ignorant. Imagine artists who were caught by the opposition fail to create similar portrait zones to their generation. Candle image zones are opposed to the heat, but they fail to create similar cut image zones. So after touching the heat, they can produce to themselves and unequal. Here's the diving is to come to fail to create similar image. The wax that was cut before is not meant to come into the beasts. The wax is a result of the form of the wax which was cut before it came into candles. It is anti-dharma that Ruppanaya is going to come to a moment of Rupaya. A supreme dharma has three situations of uprising, status, motion. They don't have a fourth chance. If an image with the touch of winter comes to another misunderstanding, it is a fourth chance of the image. Don't take that bond because you don't get it. This is a deep fact to understand. This is because it's been messed up in many books. Read this over and over and try to understand the point well..
There is a 14 part Playlist on the two truths by Guy Newland on youtube. The audio isn't the best but he wrote a whole book on the topic.
OK cool!
Guy Newland has several videos on nagarjuna that are very good. These were taken at sravasti abbey on youtube. Also has a book intro to emptiness that is very good.
It's like as if a pot we're continually being created only to be smashed upon completion to clearly see the emptiness inside. Some people like to think about the implications of the practice and others like to do the practice.
Yes, it's great practice and also pretty intellectually stimulating.
hello, i am looking for a good translation of Nagarjuna's mulamadhyamakakarika, what is an english translation you suggest as reliable and well translated.
There are a lot of them, but I think one of the best is supposed to be: Mark Siderits, Shoryu Katsura, Nāgārjuna's Middle Way -- amzn.to/3FSZKLr (affiliate link).
I wish to all of you with all my heart that you can create this sort of videos based on your own experience. If you follow the 8-fold path naturally, you will see a beautiful building in front of you (Dharma). You have to make a decision now. Do you want to learn a lot of words that describe the process of building the house, including the structure of it, the composition of the walls and the origin of the materials? Or do you want to enter the house and experience what it is like to be inside? If you choose the latter, simply follow these basic steps. Sit and make a firm decision that during this meditation you are ready to die. Listen to your intuition. Decide to leave everything you know, you have achieved, you have loved behind and take nothing with you. Be absolutely delighted with the beauty of the house in front of you and feel the joy of that beauty in your chest (Píti). Take four steps towards the house's only entrance (4 Noble Truth). Take the door handle and feel the three movements needed to open it (Anicca, Anatta, Dukkha). You will find that the door is always open to those who have followed this simple procedure. Let your consciousness follow this process passively with great focuss (Vipassana). Then you can walk in and experience the true reality hidden inside. Of course, it starts with waking up from a dream into true reality, separating your mind from consciousness, immersing yourself in perfect peace without any changes, karma being interrupted, no space, no time, final truth without beginning and end, etc., etc., etc. Do it😊.
🙏
If you are regularly practicing Dhamma, I want to send you my academic research questionnaire.
If I can, where I can send it to you , ?
You can search for the ultimate truth your whole life, it is only at the moment where you stop searching for it that you find it. Give it up and look at what you gain!
🙏😊
This is an interesting and helpful video. Thanks. One thing it has me thinking about are the (seeming) similarities between Nagarjuna's idea of emptiness and Nietzshe's idea of "true world theories". Each seems to be saying that what people - dogmatists ultimately - seem to want is to say that there is the reality we see around us and some 'deeper' reality that we can somehow discover and get to (especially in the cases of religoins) if we reason, have faith, etc, hard enough. For both Nagarjuna and Nietzsche, it seems like they are both saying that we would be best served to get beyond this longing for that deeper reality, because that way, we are more receptive to the world we actually have access to, the only one we have access to.
Does that seem like a good comparison?
Perhaps so, though I don't really know enough about Nietzsche's view here to be sure. Nāgārjuna can be read various ways, one of those ways is that he is indeed spelling out the "deeper" or even "deepest" reality, which is emptiness. Another way is as you suggest that he is saying there is no such deeper reality.
The emptiness of emptiness really puzzled me at first when I came upon it on Mahayana philosophy books and later i interpreted it as the emptiness of form being dependent on form itself since without the form there is no emptiness. Don't know if my interpretation is right though?
Well I think the idea is broader than that: it's that the very concept of emptiness it itself empty, it's not a permanent, unchanging "thing" or "way things are". It's an absence of such permanence.
@@DougsDharma Thanks for the clarification
@@sonamtshering194 Two reason.
1) Emptiness describe in Mahayana doesn't contradict any other existence.
2) It is not a different entity in compare to other existence
( Emptiness in mahayana is not a existence. It is just a command char shared by everything.)
Hi, I just discovered this channel. Has he done a video on Huayan or Madhyamaka? TY!
Most of what I focus on is early Buddhism. I have done videos that touched on Nāgārjuna (such as this one) and one that dealt with an aspect of Huayan: ruclips.net/video/CQN7sVmckso/видео.html
Maybe it has to do with our many different mind states and levels, and skillful means.?
Sure, some idea of skillful means must play a role.
I am really trying to follow but the thread of thought is tedious. For every bit of logic, there is a non-logic. For every one thing that someone said, there is not a thing that was unsaid. I like when you said the logic and debates are dizzying, because that is exactly how I feel. It is unsettling and really puts a cramp in my zen to try and follow. How do you remember all of these threads of "logic" and how do you keep them straight?
It can be complicated and confusing, after all what's under discussion is a period of several centuries of philosophical debate. But practice is what's most important so if you can't quite get your mind around this stuff just leave it aside.
Most teachers would tell you to forget what they tell you and find out for yourself in the daily practice of mindfulness. Otherwise, it's true, you'll be caught up in the weeds!
@@paragozar Oh, absolutely. By inquiring into the thoughts and teachings of those who have come before me, I don't relinquish my skills of discernment.
Hey Doug quick question, I want to be Buddhist and I’ve been following the 5 precepts and doing what I can to leave a kind and peaceful life. I do however still smoke weed, I know that’s an intoxicant but at this point in my life weed doesn’t really have the same effect as when I was younger. Is it okay that I still do this considering it doesn’t alter my state of mind to the point where I’m breaking precepts and not following Buddhist way?
Well I think that sort of question is best left up to the individual and their own conception of practice. It's not meant to be a "commandment" but rather a process.
It is great you are following the 5 precepts. I would ask you, that you should think very carefully as to whether or not you are attached to smoking weed. And think how that might affect your Buddhist practice. For instance if it has no effect on your mental or physical state why do you do it? Think about the 1st truth of the aryas
Can you do a video on atisa one day, or the 17 nalanda masters in general!
Maybe someday Michael, but mostly my focus is on the earlier material.
Bringing an object into existence as a concept, then philosophising it out of existence is exactly the reason why I chose Chan.
😄
I want to know about the word brahmana what now some people claim them as brahmans but as per dhammapada brahmans means monks those who follow the 10 precepts and more. Can u elaborate more on that?
Brahmans were the priestly caste in ancient India, those of a certain family lineage tasked with knowledge of the Vedas and performance of Vedic rituals. The Buddha however redefined the term (as he did with many terms of his day); he said basically that true Brahmans were not those with the right parents but instead those who acted ethically and properly and acted to purify their minds.
Emptiness makes most sense to me as an idea that there is no “ultimate” reality. When we say emptiness is a reality, that seems more like saying a particular feature of the world is real, or true, rather than that it is REALITY as a whole. Within conventional reality, we might say that gravity is a reality, but it doesn’t mean that gravity is the whole of reality. Just that it is something that is real WITHIN reality or OF reality. If everything is empty, that means that any layer of reality we look at sufficiently closely will break down into emptiness, so it can’t be a layer of reality that is really real at a fundamental level. It’s not exactly a ratio ad absurdum. It’s just that the very definition of emptiness rules out anything that isn’t empty, so there can be no layer of reality that isn’t empty, and as such no layer of reality can be “ultimately” real. I’m sure I haven’t just solved 2000 years of scholastic debate in this one RUclips comment section paragraph though 😂
Yes, that could be one way to look at it. Thanks!
Sādhu! Sādhu! Sādhu!
🙏🙏🙏
Emptiness means things lack inherent essence - for example a human is dependent on external oxygen, food, sexual partners, other human services, trees, crops and countless interactions etc for existence etc - so there is no independent human being - this is why alcohol and drugs are popular - humans want external stimulation for happiness and this leads to suffering - humans must realize this and do self realization like meditation etc - this can lead to reduction of sadness and suffering - trying to find the ultimate truth is like pinpointing the beginning and end of a circle.
Yes this is looking at emptiness as expressed by dependent origination.
🙏🏼
Interesting how the path ends with the 4 nobel truths and the 8 fold path. But everyone seems to teach it as 4 nobel truths 8 fold path. Thats seems to be the issue I see with Buddhism how its taught because incorrectly taught it ither can cause insanity or but wait there's more. So one should ask how to become wiser calmer and kinder. Had a teacher whos teacher had strange abilities and he would say nothing he could do mattered his students would then ask "Sifu what does matter " he would say to be kind to everyone you meet. Still working on that one.
Yes kindness alone is a very strong practice! 🙂
In therawada, buddha said that how universe created, universe created by two groups chiththa ,chithasika,rupa, nibbana .the physical world created by rupa. The all the things of rupa is made by "rupa kalapa (thebasic one)" ."rupa kalapa"is created by various of energy. Thats are apo, thejo, wayo ,patawi....28etc..these are energy names.for exaple "wayo"doesnt mean air.it means this energy is like air.wayo energy can flow...patawi energy is give " strong "to rupa kalapa.etc. other thing buddha says rupa kalapas are born and die..when one rupa kalapa was dead another rupa kalapa is born.one "rupa kalapa" life time is" kshana 53"..kshana is the smallest time unit in buddhist..their is lot of discription about this . Read "abidarma margaya-rerukane chandra wimala thero"
Thank you for the video! I think Thich Nhat Hanh's idea of 'interbeing' is a sensible rendering of the notion of emptiness or 'ultimate truth' that is not so easily mistaken nihilism and also lends itself very well to practice in my opinion.
Interesting, I don't know much about it but it sounds like the idea of Indra's Net that I discussed in a prior video: ruclips.net/video/CQN7sVmckso/видео.html
@@DougsDharma Yes that's exactly it :)
One big qibble I have with this type of two truth doctrines is that it can potentially easily be abused by unscrupulous spiritual gurus and used to justify their actions. "Oh I am not bound by conventional morality, since I am enlightened. Now, your guru commands you to drop your panties and bend over!"
Yes exactly, this is a great danger.
Naga=snake
Arjun=brave
Happy to know about these also.🙏🏼 Namo Buddhay 🙏🏼.
How many types of meditation methods Buddha taught or discovered.?
I'm not sure the exact number, but quite a few!
🙏🙏🙏🙏
🙏🙂
What is the real?
It is not that all things are dhukkha, anicca and anatta. All produced things or phenomenons have these characteristics. Buddha said there's something unmade, unproduced, un born and deathless, and it's only because of this unmade, unborn, it's possible to be free from suffering. 🙏
Right, I did an earlier video on the topic of the unconditioned: ruclips.net/video/-Wz3N5IAGDM/видео.html
Translation: NOTHING is self arising or self creating or permanent and no one part of something can be identified as defining or locating what it is called. hence, EVERYTHING IS EMPTY OF SELF EXISTENCE. There is only the ILLUSION of a sort of permanence. and sovereignty..
There is a saying ; "you never step into the same river twice." What you call a "river" is a constantly changing/flowing body of water. Its NOT the same body of water from moment to moment. It merely resembles what came before. Further, there is no one part of the river that can be identified as embodying or defining the entire river.
EVERYTHING IS OF A TEMPORARY, TRANSIENT NATURE AND IS NON-LOCALIZABLE. Most importantly-THAT INCLUDES THE "SELF" What you call "you" or "me" or "I" is not the same from moment to moment. It is the result of various types of biological, energetic and spiritual forces arising and passing away.
The self is also non-localizable . The "I" sense or ego can't be located anywhere specific. Some people would say they exist somewhere in their head between their ears and behind their eyes. Some would point to the solar plexus as being the self. Others would point to the chest indicating what is called "heart mind" as being where they are. Scientists would say identity is in the brain but that no one place can be found that is the center of the self.
The point is, YOU ARE NOWHERE SPECIFIC TO BE FOUND NOR IS ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT IS CALLED "YOU" OF A PERMANENT NATURE.
THIS APPLIES AS WELL TO THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE OF FORMS.
Recognizing these fundamental truths, Hindus and Buddhists look to identify with and realize their oneness with THE SOURCE WHICH CREATES ALL ILLUSORY AND TEMPORARY WORLDLY FORMS. Buddhists and Hindus dont seek to live in a 'heaven" somewhere while communing with a God. Rather, they realize the temporary and illusory nature of the self and the entire universe and seek to go beyond any and all worldy forms and sense of self existence.
Hi Doug,I listened to both your segments on conventional versus ultimate truth. I am not deeply schooled in Buddhism... and certainly there are different perspectives on all topics. But for me you may be missing the point.
There is conventional truth which is known in an un-enlightened mind conceptually. All philosophies, all that can be spoken are conventional truth, regardless at which level.
Ultimate truth is entirely different, it is truth by direct knowing as Being. Ultimate truth is the direct subjective knowing, the Being, of Buddha, Jesus et al... and it is full and complete, it is the truth of enlightenment. But it is impossible to convey ultimate truth accurately because it is subtler than concept. Jesus is forced to use parables.
Apparently Buddha gave serious consideration to not teaching at all (right?) because of the impossibility of conveying the subtler reality conceptually, AND the great likelihood that, over time, conceptual teachings drift.
An example of something subjective that is subtler than the thinking mind: poets have attempted to describe love for eons... and of course they all fail, but they do produce a conventional teaching about it. So everything written about love is conventional knowledge. The direct experience of love is ultimate knowledge, and it can not be represented precisely in thought.
Or consider attempting to transfer to a friend the subjective sense reality of eating an exotic fruit using language and concepts... impossible, your friend must actually taste the fruit to have the ultimate knowledge about it. You may attempt to transfer the taste-texture-aroma-color of a fruit as conventional language, but you will never be able to convey the actual reality of eating it.
Conventional truth must cut and divide the pie into intellectual concepts in order to attempt to understand, the intellect understands by comparing one idea against another. But concepts are abstractions, and the pie could be cut up in innumerable ways: one might take the perspective of Heart, or Will, or Mind... each of which uses different language, but the whole is without division. All conceptual teachings are the FINGER pointing at the moon, but the FINGER is not the moon.
Thanks for that, yes one conception of ultimate truth is that it's the thing that all religions point to. I did an earlier video on that general topic: ruclips.net/video/moGPUNfO8no/видео.html
Upanishads and vedas are later development
Well the Vedas are generally believed to have arisen about a millennium or so before the Buddha's lifetime. Some of the Upaniṣads post-date the Buddha, but the early Upaniṣads, of which there are several, are believed to predate him by a century or so. He was pretty clearly commenting upon both Vedic and Upaniṣadic material in many of his suttas.
Yogacara actually compliments the Madyamika. They aren't contradictory really. Nagarjuna is looking at the emptiness of objects and processes, and Yogacara is pointing out the error of the concept of subject-object dualism. There are all kinds of ways to look at it, though. It's all empty.
No real understanding without Meditation practice
Yes, well all of this material does require practice to really comprehend.
Can you please teach the Buddhist in Burma , not to kill the non Buddhist.
It's very sad. I did a video about it awhile back: ruclips.net/video/-NN0RSjm1uk/видео.html
Buddhism surely borrowed a lot from Hinduism. Gautam Buddha learnt it all from Brahmins of those times since Brahmins were the teachers traditionally. You do not get gyana or knowledge sitting under the tree. You learn it from someone and then think over it and modify it and pass your conclusions to the next generation. That is the way of creating knowledge. So, from whom Buddha, learnt from, specially as a young Siddhartha?
The dukkha that Buddha talks about is already mentioned in Vedas. So, Buddha was modifying the Vedic knowledge and giving own understanding of it. He never started the Buddhism as a separate Dharma, It is his disciples later on who organized and codified to make it a religion.
Well the Buddha had a lot to say about Brahmins and brahmanism, as well as the Vedas. He distinguished his teaching from theirs pretty clearly.
@@DougsDharma Brahmins, I can understand but Brahminism, I don't. What is that exactly? Buddha did not say anything that was not already said previously. He only modified the previously available concepts and knowledge. But yes he opposed the karmkanda prevailing in Hinduism of those times.
Dear Dough, Do not do false statements Buddha didn't took any thing from Upanishads, The language of Upanishads is Sanskrit, but Pali is older than Sanskrit.
The Buddha mentioned the Vedas, debated Brahmins, and criticized passages from the early Upaniṣads.
@@DougsDharma When you study the origin and chronology of language s, how it can be possible that Budha mentioning the points written or orally in Sanskrit language which was not exist in 600 years BC.These all stories fabricated by Brahmins in India as they restricted learning and speaking Sanskrit language to themselves, There was no permission to other communities to learn Sanskrit like Khattiya, Vaisha, Shudra. Dr. Ambedkar studied Sanskrit in Germany ,he was denied to learn in India.
Buddhism seems like a giant coping strategy of false hope, similar to traditional religions, just for a more intelligent audience. The basic approach of Buddhism - looking at reality as it is - is laudable and Buddhists got a lot of stuff right, which means it is in accordance with today's knowledge. Stuff is impermanent. There is no "self" and everything is an effect of prior causes and conditions (of which probably most importantly follows that there is no libertarian free will and thus no rational basis for pride, guilt, anger, regret, etc.).
And then of course dukkha. The understanding that life is nothing but a futile effort to fill a leaky bucket. Almost every "Good" is just a neutralization of a prior lack (hunger, sleepiness, physical pain etc.). The constant desire for things to be different than they are. But apart from these potentially very subtle ways of unsatisfactoriness let's also not forget the insane meat grinder this universe is for living beings. It's very easy to forget if you have a warm bed and food on the table. I am not only talking about the unimaginable horrors of war, torture, famine, disease, severe mental illness. And I am not only talking about the madness of suffering humans impose on other sentient beings right at this very moment (factory farming, fishing, animal torture...) but about the mechanism of suffering built into the very foundation of life itself, even with humanity absent.
There is no god, we all agree with this here. There is no benevolent force behind existence. Existence is just running like a machine with impersonal laws. And so is life itself. ((I will continue in response postings to this post below)).
4 billions years ago a self-replicating molecule emerged. We still don't know how and of course there is no "why". We are the vehicles for this molecule. It doesn't care, it doesn't know, it just is in its physical law to make more of itself. Just so. If 495 of 500 turtles get eaten by seagulls before they reach the sea, DNA doesn't know or care. The suffering of wild animals is not really realized by most people, because we think of "nature" and "natural" as something inherently positive. But there is nothing positive for the deer getting slowly eaten alive by wolves.
So the Buddhists look at the realty to view it, as it truly is. Mainly through introspection but also by observing the world. If we honestly look within, we mostly come to the same conclusions. Like we see that actions and thoughts just arise with no "doer" behind it and modern neuroscience tells us much the same. Again, this is laudable. Where the coping comes in, is in the belief that viewing the reality of the world will necessarily lead to something "good" and "free". But that doesn't have to be so and it really isn't. Truth can make us "free" but it can also cripple us. Again, this world wasn't designed by some benevolent force. It obviously wasn't. This world really is full of extreme amounts of suffering. And when we look at how the world works on a deep level (quantum physics etc.) it appears as exceedingly strange and almost impossible to understand.
Truly understanding how there is no permanence, how there aren't really even "people" in the way we always thought, would drive us mad. To function in this world, we need some amount of illusion of self, free will, permanence. Sure, we might let some of this truth trickle in, help us to feel less regret or anger or more connectedness to other beings. But the assumption that fully realizing the reality of this world will lead us to a wholly good "state", is foolish. The world as it is, is not good, so why would fully insight into its real workings be?
Buddhists put their hope in Dharma, Sangha, Buddha just like other religions do in their deities. Meditation and insight can make your life better, I don't doubt that. But really only if they are amalgamated by some healthy amount of illusion/ignorance (try REALLY living like there are no selves and everything is impermanent). In the end, Buddhists hope, just like everybody else, that "in the end, everything is going to be okay". This is false hope.
How do you know it is a false hope? If we can see our lives improving through practice, and the lives of those around us, isn't that enough? Sure, perfect enlightenment may not be possible (in truth, I have no idea), but if we can improve the world through our work, shouldn't we make the effort?
Buddhism does not say there is No God, it does not say There is God. Only this consciousness, here and now, to be practiced, not understood. Everything else is extra, Samsara.
You make claims that you consider or present to be true. In reality your claims are simply your opinions. Your opinions (view) are pesimistic. The way you describe Buddhism indicates that you don’t have very deep knowledge of the subject. You are coming to conclusions (opinions) that are based on foundations of sand. Had you deepened your knowledge, you would have come to different conclusions.
Upanishads are not pre Buddhist.. this is just a propaganda.. the oldest Upanishad is itself around 500-600 BC
See! Theres our truth and Donald Trump's truth and they can both be true!
😆😬
...not when he's lying. 🤥
I can see you do not know about Buddhism
🙏 Be well!