Excellent analysis and presentation. I am so glad to see an interest in secular buddhism growing. Stephen Batchelor was breakthrough for me. I had a long term interest in buddhism, but was put off by the religious aspect. I knew that buddhism could have a philosophical stance and not just the religious, but until I read "Buddhism without Belief” that stance was not set out concretely for me. Doug, you are building on Batchelor’s breakthrough in a very coherent manner, and I will be following you videos closely!
Also the doctrine of no self is more consistent with naturalism. I would say that the big difference is that Buddhism has as its fundamental aim the alleviation or suffering. Humanism has no such fundamental aim from what I can tell. Good discussion.
Like any doctrine, I have to questioned it from the habit of my "Free Thinking" part of my past. Almost became Atheist. I wonder how do we know that the doctrine of "no self" to be true? What evidence do we have to prove it to be absolute truth of our existence? I am not saying I agree or disagree. I am just questioning out of curiosity. My religious past brought me to a place where I am questioning, even though it takes me to a lonely place of being an outsider that is actually more liberating. :-) By the way, Humanism is more about using human solutions to human problems from the perspectives I have read about when I tried to understand Progressive Christianity. They are very much Humanists! They also try to alleviate suffering through Social Justice, like Jesus did. I am not sure if I understood when you say Humanism has no aim?
Thank you for this video. I identified as a secular humanist before I came to secular Buddhism and always wondered where they differed. Both are very similar. You helped clear some things up for me. :)
This concept of non-permanent self is often mentioned. Our likes and dislikes, habits and personal traits changing. Does this somehow tackle into moral relativism? Do you perhaps have a video on that as well? Beside that, I enjoyed this playlist so far, it is very educational for someone like me, who's been immersed into Western Christianity culture for very long. :)
Thanks, glad it's helpful! I don't have a video on moral relativism in particular, you may want to check out the video on the Buddha's six competitors: ruclips.net/video/aoxagmtSHI0/видео.html , since some of them espoused positions similar to that of moral relativism.
I have only recently started studying philosophy in any great depth and don't have any formal studies in the matter, but I'd like to take a stab at how these two systems (Secular Humanism and Secular Buddhism) could be entangled. From what I can tell, Secular Humanism can be thought of as a unifying philosophical theory that incorporates Metaphysical Naturalism as its metaphysical position, Methodological Naturalism as its epistemology, and an ethical stance "committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility" (American Humanist Association). In my novice view, it seems Secular Buddhism could serve as the ethical methodology to that overarching theory. That marriage would seem to strengthen not only Secular Humanism by providing a defined ethical methodology but also strengthen Secular Buddhism since the Buddha's teaching don't seem to go into detail on epistemology (outside of saying we should learn through experience) nor on metaphysics (although there is an argument over whether the three marks of existence are a metaphysical stance, they don't seem to be inconsistent with the broader implications of Metaphysical Naturalism).
Thanks Michael, I think that's a sensible way to proceed. Although the Buddha's actual teaching included a lot of non-naturalist metaphysics, as secular practitioners we bracket that material and so are left with a system that is consonant with metaphysical naturalism, or that at least leaves metaphysical naturalism as a live option if we are as yet unsure. I think the Buddhism adds practice. Secular Humanism has no real element of practice, so when we add the Buddhism we're adding a practice that is secular and humanist, but also that is aimed at ethical and psychological betterment: that makes us wiser, kinder, and less stressed out.
This is exactly what I learned about Buddha in the University "Buddha's teaching don't seem to go into detail on epistemology nor on metaphysics". I agree with you. I also learned about various Buddhist philosophers and their interpretations and debates, so I have decided that I am not interested in any of that because they went more into the Metaphysical and Epistemology with disagreement with each other's views. By giving those things up, I discovered years later, I am not able to fit into Religiosity ever again because they are required. This is why I like the Pali Canon where I can learn the original teachings of the original Buddha. He was not Atheist or Theist. I was attracted to his simplicity, wisdom and practical approach to life. I am not into theories just for the sake of theories. I can live with the truth of my experience of "I don't know". I am Agnostic about it. Like Omnist, I respect all religions, especially if they practice kindness and compassion, but I don't have a need to be religious in spite of my experience with God or whatever it is. God is the unexplainable Tao as far as I am concerned. Life has to be lived. I can do it without theoretical belief or blind faith. Buddha did not teach blind faith. He taught me to live and trust in the truth of my own experiences above the beliefs or logic of others. My life is better living it this way.
A lot of change has occured upon the misinterpretation of the Tathagarbha teaching of Yogacara. Then, Tathagatagarbha understanding was in line with the Buddha's teachings and Nagarjuna's exposition on sunyata/emptiness. However, later generations in Chinese Buddhism started gearing away from the true understanding of Tathagatagarbha that each of us have the "capacity" (adjective) to be enlightened. It suddenly shifted to the notion of "Buddha nature" (noun) inside of us. A capacity is a flux (no inherent self) since it is just a potential, but a "nature" is a fixed entity (posits a fixed self) that can be awakened just by polishing the alaya consciousness from dirt. The original teaching of Yogacara was the "elimination" of the alaya consciousness (not polishing it) where karmic seeds are stored causing endless rebirth. You can study deeply the Yogacara texts, Madhyamika doctrine, Ven. Dhammadipa, and Ven. Yin-shun, and Buddhist history in China and Japan to discover the shift of understanding that occured in Buddhism.
Doug, here's something interesting for you. BUDDHA was probably the First Secular Humanist from India. However, Secular Humanism didn't really stop there. A few centuries, another Giant graced India. Any guesses ? Well, I'll say it anyway. TIRUVALLUVAR. Tiruvalluvar was the Secular Humanist from the South of India. He seems to have been influenced by Some Combination of Vedic, Buddhist and/or Jain culture. The reason I say 'Some Combination' is that I don't really know exactly how much he was influenced by Each. That doesn't really matter. The important thing is that he was a Legend, just like Buddha. I like to call Tiruvalluvar 'Buddha 2.0' ...
@@DougsDharma Oh yes, Doug. I get your point. Buddha did believe in Supernatural Stuff. He was not the 'Perfect Naturalist'. Even Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were not perfect naturalists. My point was that Buddha covered the Foundations of Secular Morality. The Veludvareyya Sutta and the Ambalatthikarahulovada Sutta make this Crystal Clear. That's my Point. So yeah, even Tiruvalluvar was not a 'Perfect Naturalist', but his teachings also cover the Foundations of Secular Morality. I hope you get what I am saying 🙂
thanks again, Doug, for these videos. I'm glad that you decided to develop the idea firstly announced in the first video of this series, that secular Buddhism could actually be seen as a branch of secular Humanism. May I kindly ask you why did you choose to mention the Council for Secular Humanism instead of the bigger and historically earlier American Humanist Association?
Hi José and thanks again for the great question. I mentioned the CSH because I've known them well for many years. I've volunteered and written for CFI and knew Paul Kurtz a bit back in the day. That said, the various humanist organizations have a long and complex history, and I could have chosen the AHA to discuss, although on my understanding they were more interested in religious humanism. (Kurtz worked for the AHA as well as founding CSH: paulkurtz.net/). I think that their definitions of humanism are relevantly similar. If you feel that the CSH's understanding of humanism is better or more representative somehow please let me know, and if I decide to revisit the topic in a future video I can always mention it, memory willing!
I have noticed that people are not interacting with each other in this post, like I have observed in many RUclips posts. Is there a reason for this because I am clueless? Is this a cultural thing that is relative to the Buddhist culture? Being a "Free Thinker" in the past has caused me to question things more, so I hope nobody takes it personally to be more than seeking an understanding.
Thank you for your effort to clarify Secular Buddhism which at its best accepts not knowing as a supreme virtue as an antidote to fixed views. I wonder if you discuss anywhere reincarnation? It is a subject that always comes up when people talk about Buddhism. My understanding is that we are in a constant state of change and so, on the one hand, suffer the downside of the ever-changing and on the other, we are offered the possibility to direct this change, as far as we can, to be reborn in the next moment as a more content human being. Or something like that. Please receive this kindly and thanks again.
Hi James and thanks for the question. I haven't discussed literal rebirth much in these videos except to say it's a question I'll leave to one side. (I wrote a blog post on it awhile back if you are interested). It might be good in a future video to go into some rethinking of rebirth within a single lifetime though. As you say, in a sense we are reborn every instant, and with every new action.
I see the evidence of Reincarnation on documentaries. I am more evidence based and open to the possibilities of the little evidence that has been shown. Buddhists choose their Lamas that way. However, I am still skeptical and waiting for scientists to come up with an explanation of it. They have noticed our body loses a certain amount of weight (I forgot how much) when we die, so they noticed something happens when we die. If you can still trust in religious teachings, I am happy for you and envy you. I lost that ability when I almost became an Atheist and a Free Thinker. I am coming to the acceptance stage of my grieving and realized this is for the best for who I am now. Now, I live by "no obligations, just possibilities" when it comes to beliefs. I would be interested in seeing your question answered just out of curiosity.
No, it's not something I've done. However I did write up an essay on this question several years ago which is still around. You can see it here: secularbuddhism.org/a-secular-evaluation-of-rebirth/
I can see you are a very kind and very compassionate person to accept me as a Secular Buddhist when I professed to be one from lack of knowledge. I may be a little hard to understand since I do not fit into the Black and White way of thinking like most people when it comes to God or anything else because that has not been the truth of my experiences nor my observations in life. Believe in God (Religious). Don't believe in God (Secular/ Atheist).That is too black and white or rigid for my comprehension. I was taught at the University that Buddhists are Non-Theists in my Buddhist Philosophy classes. And Buddha did not speak one way or another about God when he was asked questions concerning the Metaphysics. He did not teach to believe or not to believe in God. He was neutral from what I understood. He was more focused on the practical aspects of living life, which is more how I am also. I know Buddha was not an Atheist nor a Theist. I see the word God in Buddhist chants and books. I don't participate because I don't do religiosity. I just accept God is a part of life just like breathing. Do I worship breathing? No! :-) Taoists understood the unexplainable cannot be explained, thankfully. I want to find people who are like the Buddha who don't make it an either or issue about God. Who are they? Religious verses Secular sounds too divisive for my way of thinking. Do you have a video on that? In ought to understand me, you would be forced to think outside of the tiny boxes or see the boxes collectively as a point of reference. Who is the third group in Buddhism? 1. Religious (Theists), 2. Secular (Atheists) and 3. who else? I think Buddha was more the 3rd way and who are they now? What are they called? Does anybody know? Jonathan Haidt's Ted Talk could help you to understand my way of thinking better when he spoke about the third group: ruclips.net/video/8SOQduoLgRw/видео.html
Well in truth it's not up to me or anyone to accept someone as a secular Buddhist. It's something you have to decide for yourself. All I can do is say how I use the phrase. 🙂
@@DougsDharma Thank you. I appreciate learning from you and your perspective. You are a good and interesting teacher with warmth. I will continue to learn from you as one of my wisdom teachers. :-) Personally, I view the duality of our world through the filters of their oneness in the Yin-Yang, more and more. I used to see Secular and Religious to be polar opposites, but now, I see them together like a Yin-Yang, in a sense of some sort. Maybe, I am a Philosophically Taoist-Buddhist, who knows. Maybe, I am just marching to the beat of my own drummer. I am a lover of wisdom from any tradition with Buddhism being the dominant one. _/|\_
Of course in buddhism we have words of gods and not God as creator, god here mean beings in heaven ralm and human can be god and god also could be reborn as human all sentien being are enterdependent arising in cycle of life,
@@Dvilaisack That reminds of Psalms 82:6. Maybe Buddhism will help me to understand this more. Do you know where I can read about what you wrote in the Pali Canon? I am interested in having a better understanding!! I am a Progressive Christian who truly value Buddha's wisdom. A lot of us still do. When I get a car, I want to return to my Sangha to meditate! I believe Buddhism can help me better understand how us humans are gods
Thanks for the well organized & logical video presentations. I agree with your conclusion that there are many similarities between S. H. and S. B.. I am particularly in agreement with the need for both to be in harmony with current scientific understanding, which has been verified and validated through experimental findings to be factual within human limits of technological capabilities of perception and detection, but not necessarily accurate as to human interpretation, such as the position in the field of cosmological physics we find ourselves in with regard to expanding / accelerating space-time, and the recent discoveries as to the creation of elements by stars in various stages of existence. Even more fascinating is the relationship between super-massive black holes and the creation & destruction of galaxies.
I don't agree that the ethics of Buddhism requires virtue ethics as that pushes the individual towards an idealised third person. Deontology and consequentialism seem to have a permanent interaction which is adequate as an ethical system, with the former providing the principles tempered by the decision to apply consequentialism depending on the case in question. Still interesting video.
Thanks for the post, Gregory. I agree that no western ethical system exactly fits what the Buddha taught, including virtue ethics. That said, the most influential western account of Buddhist ethics by Damien Keown argues that the Buddha was a virtue ethicist, and that Buddhism generally can be seen as a virtue ethics. The Buddha dharma pointed towards self transformation rather than good consequences or correct rules, although correct rules can point the way to self transformation, and good consequences will tend to follow from it. Here we are talking about early Buddhism, although Keown also makes points about later Buddhism as well.
I think the Most Unique Thing about Buddhism, that Secular Humanism does not have, is Psychology. Buddhist Psychology is the Most Original Type of Psychology that the World has Ever Seen. I used to be a Sceptic until quite Recently. Despite being an Indian, I never learnt Meditation. So, when I became an Atheist, I started believing that Meditation is basically Fraud. Fortunately, I have always been an Open Minded Person. So, after going through a Lot of Sources, I Realised that I was Wrong ! Ever since my Realisation, I have been Extremely Open Minded. I don't have that 'Instantaneous Rejection Mentality' anymore 😂
![Ice On My Teeth - ATEEZ エイティーズ 에이티즈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 241115](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c-n92OgbbwA/mqdefault.jpg)
Excellent analysis and presentation. I am so glad to see an interest in secular buddhism growing. Stephen Batchelor was breakthrough for me. I had a long term interest in buddhism, but was put off by the religious aspect. I knew that buddhism could have a philosophical stance and not just the religious, but until I read "Buddhism without Belief” that stance was not set out concretely for me. Doug, you are building on Batchelor’s breakthrough in a very coherent manner, and I will be following you videos closely!
Thanks and welcome aboard!
Also the doctrine of no self is more consistent with naturalism. I would say that the big difference is that Buddhism has as its fundamental aim the alleviation or suffering. Humanism has no such fundamental aim from what I can tell. Good discussion.
Good points, SmileBot. Thanks!
Like any doctrine, I have to questioned it from the habit of my "Free Thinking" part of my past. Almost became Atheist. I wonder how do we know that the doctrine of "no self" to be true? What evidence do we have to prove it to be absolute truth of our existence? I am not saying I agree or disagree. I am just questioning out of curiosity. My religious past brought me to a place where I am questioning, even though it takes me to a lonely place of being an outsider that is actually more liberating. :-)
By the way, Humanism is more about using human solutions to human problems from the perspectives I have read about when I tried to understand Progressive Christianity. They are very much Humanists! They also try to alleviate suffering through Social Justice, like Jesus did. I am not sure if I understood when you say Humanism has no aim?
@@KJAlways It's not really 'No Self'. The Buddha did not say that we don't exist. We do. It's just that there is nothing permanent about it ...
Great observation
Thank you for this video. I identified as a secular humanist before I came to secular Buddhism and always wondered where they differed. Both are very similar. You helped clear some things up for me. :)
Thanks a lot chapachuu, glad you liked it!
This concept of non-permanent self is often mentioned. Our likes and dislikes, habits and personal traits changing. Does this somehow tackle into moral relativism? Do you perhaps have a video on that as well?
Beside that, I enjoyed this playlist so far, it is very educational for someone like me, who's been immersed into Western Christianity culture for very long. :)
Thanks, glad it's helpful! I don't have a video on moral relativism in particular, you may want to check out the video on the Buddha's six competitors: ruclips.net/video/aoxagmtSHI0/видео.html , since some of them espoused positions similar to that of moral relativism.
I have only recently started studying philosophy in any great depth and don't have any formal studies in the matter, but I'd like to take a stab at how these two systems (Secular Humanism and Secular Buddhism) could be entangled. From what I can tell, Secular Humanism can be thought of as a unifying philosophical theory that incorporates Metaphysical Naturalism as its metaphysical position, Methodological Naturalism as its epistemology, and an ethical stance "committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility" (American Humanist Association). In my novice view, it seems Secular Buddhism could serve as the ethical methodology to that overarching theory. That marriage would seem to strengthen not only Secular Humanism by providing a defined ethical methodology but also strengthen Secular Buddhism since the Buddha's teaching don't seem to go into detail on epistemology (outside of saying we should learn through experience) nor on metaphysics (although there is an argument over whether the three marks of existence are a metaphysical stance, they don't seem to be inconsistent with the broader implications of Metaphysical Naturalism).
Thanks Michael, I think that's a sensible way to proceed. Although the Buddha's actual teaching included a lot of non-naturalist metaphysics, as secular practitioners we bracket that material and so are left with a system that is consonant with metaphysical naturalism, or that at least leaves metaphysical naturalism as a live option if we are as yet unsure.
I think the Buddhism adds practice. Secular Humanism has no real element of practice, so when we add the Buddhism we're adding a practice that is secular and humanist, but also that is aimed at ethical and psychological betterment: that makes us wiser, kinder, and less stressed out.
This is exactly what I learned about Buddha in the University "Buddha's teaching don't seem to go into detail on epistemology nor on metaphysics". I agree with you. I also learned about various Buddhist philosophers and their interpretations and debates, so I have decided that I am not interested in any of that because they went more into the Metaphysical and Epistemology with disagreement with each other's views. By giving those things up, I discovered years later, I am not able to fit into Religiosity ever again because they are required.
This is why I like the Pali Canon where I can learn the original teachings of the original Buddha. He was not Atheist or Theist. I was attracted to his simplicity, wisdom and practical approach to life. I am not into theories just for the sake of theories. I can live with the truth of my experience of "I don't know". I am Agnostic about it. Like Omnist, I respect all religions, especially if they practice kindness and compassion, but I don't have a need to be religious in spite of my experience with God or whatever it is. God is the unexplainable Tao as far as I am concerned. Life has to be lived. I can do it without theoretical belief or blind faith. Buddha did not teach blind faith. He taught me to live and trust in the truth of my own experiences above the beliefs or logic of others. My life is better living it this way.
Dhamma is freedom.
Buddhism is great heart compassion.
Divine or worldly is mind made.
A lot of change has occured upon the misinterpretation of the Tathagarbha teaching of Yogacara. Then, Tathagatagarbha understanding was in line with the Buddha's teachings and Nagarjuna's exposition on sunyata/emptiness. However, later generations in Chinese Buddhism started gearing away from the true understanding of Tathagatagarbha that each of us have the "capacity" (adjective) to be enlightened. It suddenly shifted to the notion of "Buddha nature" (noun) inside of us. A capacity is a flux (no inherent self) since it is just a potential, but a "nature" is a fixed entity (posits a fixed self) that can be awakened just by polishing the alaya consciousness from dirt.
The original teaching of Yogacara was the "elimination" of the alaya consciousness (not polishing it) where karmic seeds are stored causing endless rebirth.
You can study deeply the Yogacara texts, Madhyamika doctrine, Ven. Dhammadipa, and Ven. Yin-shun, and Buddhist history in China and Japan to discover the shift of understanding that occured in Buddhism.
Ah yes I've heard something very similar, thanks Netti.
Thank you, Doug!
My pleasure!
Doug, here's something interesting for you. BUDDHA was probably the First Secular Humanist from India. However, Secular Humanism didn't really stop there. A few centuries, another Giant graced India. Any guesses ? Well, I'll say it anyway. TIRUVALLUVAR.
Tiruvalluvar was the Secular Humanist from the South of India. He seems to have been influenced by Some Combination of Vedic, Buddhist and/or Jain culture. The reason I say 'Some Combination' is that I don't really know exactly how much he was influenced by Each. That doesn't really matter. The important thing is that he was a Legend, just like Buddha. I like to call Tiruvalluvar 'Buddha 2.0' ...
While I would call the Buddha a humanist, I'm not sure I'd call him secular.
@@DougsDharma Oh yes, Doug. I get your point. Buddha did believe in Supernatural Stuff. He was not the 'Perfect Naturalist'. Even Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were not perfect naturalists. My point was that Buddha covered the Foundations of Secular Morality. The Veludvareyya Sutta and the Ambalatthikarahulovada Sutta make this Crystal Clear. That's my Point. So yeah, even Tiruvalluvar was not a 'Perfect Naturalist', but his teachings also cover the Foundations of Secular Morality. I hope you get what I am saying 🙂
You can throw Stoicism into the mix as well.
Yes I've done a few videos on Buddhism and Stoicism, for example: ruclips.net/video/wJ0iQiNf6ZE/видео.html
thanks again, Doug, for these videos. I'm glad that you decided to develop the idea firstly announced in the first video of this series, that secular Buddhism could actually be seen as a branch of secular Humanism. May I kindly ask you why did you choose to mention the Council for Secular Humanism instead of the bigger and historically earlier American Humanist Association?
Hi José and thanks again for the great question. I mentioned the CSH because I've known them well for many years. I've volunteered and written for CFI and knew Paul Kurtz a bit back in the day. That said, the various humanist organizations have a long and complex history, and I could have chosen the AHA to discuss, although on my understanding they were more interested in religious humanism. (Kurtz worked for the AHA as well as founding CSH: paulkurtz.net/). I think that their definitions of humanism are relevantly similar.
If you feel that the CSH's understanding of humanism is better or more representative somehow please let me know, and if I decide to revisit the topic in a future video I can always mention it, memory willing!
I have noticed that people are not interacting with each other in this post, like I have observed in many RUclips posts. Is there a reason for this because I am clueless? Is this a cultural thing that is relative to the Buddhist culture? Being a "Free Thinker" in the past has caused me to question things more, so I hope nobody takes it personally to be more than seeking an understanding.
Thank you for your effort to clarify Secular Buddhism which at its best accepts not knowing as a supreme virtue as an antidote to fixed views. I wonder if you discuss anywhere reincarnation? It is a subject that always comes up when people talk about Buddhism. My understanding is that we are in a constant state of change and so, on the one hand, suffer the downside of the ever-changing and on the other, we are offered the possibility to direct this change, as far as we can, to be reborn in the next moment as a more content human being. Or something like that. Please receive this kindly and thanks again.
Hi James and thanks for the question. I haven't discussed literal rebirth much in these videos except to say it's a question I'll leave to one side. (I wrote a blog post on it awhile back if you are interested). It might be good in a future video to go into some rethinking of rebirth within a single lifetime though. As you say, in a sense we are reborn every instant, and with every new action.
I see the evidence of Reincarnation on documentaries. I am more evidence based and open to the possibilities of the little evidence that has been shown. Buddhists choose their Lamas that way. However, I am still skeptical and waiting for scientists to come up with an explanation of it. They have noticed our body loses a certain amount of weight (I forgot how much) when we die, so they noticed something happens when we die.
If you can still trust in religious teachings, I am happy for you and envy you. I lost that ability when I almost became an Atheist and a Free Thinker. I am coming to the acceptance stage of my grieving and realized this is for the best for who I am now. Now, I live by "no obligations, just possibilities" when it comes to beliefs. I would be interested in seeing your question answered just out of curiosity.
@@DougsDharma Have you made the video yet?
No, it's not something I've done. However I did write up an essay on this question several years ago which is still around. You can see it here: secularbuddhism.org/a-secular-evaluation-of-rebirth/
I can see you are a very kind and very compassionate person to accept me as a Secular Buddhist when I professed to be one from lack of knowledge. I may be a little hard to understand since I do not fit into the Black and White way of thinking like most people when it comes to God or anything else because that has not been the truth of my experiences nor my observations in life. Believe in God (Religious). Don't believe in God (Secular/ Atheist).That is too black and white or rigid for my comprehension.
I was taught at the University that Buddhists are Non-Theists in my Buddhist Philosophy classes. And Buddha did not speak one way or another about God when he was asked questions concerning the Metaphysics. He did not teach to believe or not to believe in God. He was neutral from what I understood. He was more focused on the practical aspects of living life, which is more how I am also. I know Buddha was not an Atheist nor a Theist. I see the word God in Buddhist chants and books. I don't participate because I don't do religiosity. I just accept God is a part of life just like breathing. Do I worship breathing? No! :-) Taoists understood the unexplainable cannot be explained, thankfully. I want to find people who are like the Buddha who don't make it an either or issue about God. Who are they?
Religious verses Secular sounds too divisive for my way of thinking. Do you have a video on that? In ought to understand me, you would be forced to think outside of the tiny boxes or see the boxes collectively as a point of reference. Who is the third group in Buddhism? 1. Religious (Theists), 2. Secular (Atheists) and 3. who else? I think Buddha was more the 3rd way and who are they now? What are they called? Does anybody know?
Jonathan Haidt's Ted Talk could help you to understand my way of thinking better when he spoke about the third group: ruclips.net/video/8SOQduoLgRw/видео.html
Well in truth it's not up to me or anyone to accept someone as a secular Buddhist. It's something you have to decide for yourself. All I can do is say how I use the phrase. 🙂
@@DougsDharma Thank you. I appreciate learning from you and your perspective. You are a good and interesting teacher with warmth. I will continue to learn from you as one of my wisdom teachers. :-)
Personally, I view the duality of our world through the filters of their oneness in the Yin-Yang, more and more.
I used to see Secular and Religious to be polar opposites, but now, I see them together like a Yin-Yang, in a sense of some sort. Maybe, I am a Philosophically Taoist-Buddhist, who knows. Maybe, I am just marching to the beat of my own drummer. I am a lover of wisdom from any tradition with Buddhism being the dominant one. _/|\_
Of course in buddhism we have words of gods and not God as creator, god here mean beings in heaven ralm and human can be god and god also could be reborn as human all sentien being are enterdependent arising in cycle of life,
@@Dvilaisack That reminds of Psalms 82:6. Maybe Buddhism will help me to understand this more. Do you know where I can read about what you wrote in the Pali Canon? I am interested in having a better understanding!!
I am a Progressive Christian who truly value Buddha's wisdom. A lot of us still do. When I get a car, I want to return to my Sangha to meditate! I believe Buddhism can help me better understand how us humans are gods
Excellent
Thanks RE!
Thanks for the well organized & logical video presentations. I agree with your conclusion that there are many similarities between S. H. and S. B.. I am particularly in agreement with the need for both to be in harmony with current scientific understanding, which has been verified and validated through experimental findings to be factual within human limits of technological capabilities of perception and detection, but not necessarily accurate as to human interpretation, such as the position in the field of cosmological physics we find ourselves in with regard to expanding / accelerating space-time, and the recent discoveries as to the creation of elements by stars in various stages of existence. Even more fascinating is the relationship between super-massive black holes and the creation & destruction of galaxies.
You're very welcome Ronald. Thanks for your thoughts.
I don't agree that the ethics of Buddhism requires virtue ethics as that pushes the individual towards an idealised third person. Deontology and consequentialism seem to have a permanent interaction which is adequate as an ethical system, with the former providing the principles tempered by the decision to apply consequentialism depending on the case in question. Still interesting video.
Thanks for the post, Gregory. I agree that no western ethical system exactly fits what the Buddha taught, including virtue ethics. That said, the most influential western account of Buddhist ethics by Damien Keown argues that the Buddha was a virtue ethicist, and that Buddhism generally can be seen as a virtue ethics. The Buddha dharma pointed towards self transformation rather than good consequences or correct rules, although correct rules can point the way to self transformation, and good consequences will tend to follow from it. Here we are talking about early Buddhism, although Keown also makes points about later Buddhism as well.
I think the Most Unique Thing about Buddhism, that Secular Humanism does not have, is Psychology. Buddhist Psychology is the Most Original Type of Psychology that the World has Ever Seen. I used to be a Sceptic until quite Recently. Despite being an Indian, I never learnt Meditation. So, when I became an Atheist, I started believing that Meditation is basically Fraud. Fortunately, I have always been an Open Minded Person. So, after going through a Lot of Sources, I Realised that I was Wrong ! Ever since my Realisation, I have been Extremely Open Minded. I don't have that 'Instantaneous Rejection Mentality' anymore 😂
Yes Buddhism is very psychologically astute. Thanks for your input Dipayan!
No Worries, Doug ! 😄
Good vid. Thanks.
You bet LF!
It is what you think it is. It is until it isn't.
Maybe so! 😄
P=NP
Count how many cuts there are. I'll wait.
It's an early video of mine.
Excellent
Thank you so much 😀