Love the channel? Want early access and other stuff? Check out the Patreon page 💸 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy ⌛ Timestamps: 00:00 Introduction 03:59 Why People Think Buddhism Isn’t a Religion 06:23 Theravadin Buddhism 08:43 Mahayana Buddhism 11:00 Buddhism and Violence 12:28 Final Thoughts
@@defenderofwisdom Thanks S! Tell you what I'll give the Fountainhead a go at some point this year and if I do I'm sure I'll end up making that episode
@@TheLivingPhilosophy But please do examine that relationship. The Fountainhead is gigantic, lots of value and lots to criticize. But this part of the story has a lot of value at least imo
This video is so important. It was the perceived “secular” nature of Buddhism that attracted me to it. But it’s the spiritual aspects of buddhism and other dharma paths that have actually been the catalyst of growth for me. Buddhism is a religion, and that shouldn’t stop anyone from learning about it.
Difference is, Dharmics which includes Hindus and Buddhists do not worship creator God. Brahma is creator God and there is barely any temple for him. Brahma did his job in creation already, now who pervades on earth is preserver Vishnu. Hindus do worship Vishnu, and Shiva as destroyer. Buddha is called as 9th incarnation of preserver Vishnu. There is also creator Baka Brahma in Buddhism. Not worshipped and he is not above Buddha. In contrast, Abrahamic religions belief is on one Creator God. God means only creator and sustainer. Christians, muslims and jews worship that one creator God. So both Dharmic and Abrahamic way are totally different.
@@jasonbell6234 Buddha is the incarnation of Vishnu acording to Hinduism. Buddhists do not believe it, in Buddhism the Buddah is neither the creator nor the preserver of the universe. Also buddhists don't believe Brama created the universe, the universe came about through karma, Brahma just thinks he is creator because he was the first being that came to life on his dimenstion. There is neither a creator, nor a sustainer, nor a destroyer God in buddhism, there is only one could say a salvific "God" in pure land types of buddhism.
@@SrValeriolete There are many varieties of Buddhism, while what you describe does a good job expounding on mahayanna ( great ship) but does nothing to touch on the personal Buddha( the word eludes me at present) shoalin , or zen schools. I personally have taken much from Mahayanna Buddhism, but consider myself of the zen school. Also, I'm not sure I agree with the religion idea. Religion: from the Latin Religari which means to hold back, or bind from progress. The major tenant of Buddhism is to reduce suffering... no other religion does this
@@jasonbell6234 yes they do bruh your just most likely a Western dude stuck in modernity trying to reconcile Western ideologies with eastern philosophies because you find them more fulfilling
A lot of the atheist I've encountered that follow some form of Buddhism will acknowledge the supernatural aspects of the religion. They simply claim you don't need to have an active belief in that aspect of Buddhism for the practical pieces of the religion to have a positive impact on ones life.
That's a completely fair point of view and is probably where I'd align myself it's just the other point of view that doesn't admit this difference that has irked me over the years
If by that they mean that they do believe in meditative practices/attainment of some sort of self realisation from said practices I believe there are religious sects that are specifically about that - maybe sramanic/nāstika schools of thought like carvaka (atheistic religious), Jainism (transtheistic religious), Ājīvika, yogic traditions would fit them better? Or maybe other non theistic religious sects, Buddhism itself is one of many heterodox schools of religious ancient thought and there were many interesting dialogues and debates encouraged between these schools
A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'... My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE... Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.
As a then-28-yr.-old atheist, I went to the Zen center in the city where I live (Texas city that isn’t Austin so there was only one Zen center) a few times. The meditation sessions on weekday evenings appealed to me… but then I went to a Saturday morning Zen session. It all unraveled for me there because of the chanting and singing and “dharma lesson” and other practices that made it very clear to me that I had simply stumbled into another religion.
Buddhism is a religion but it is most definitely a philosophy as well. And there's no point is separating the two because all religions deal with philosophical matters and have inspired philosophy. Every religion expounds philosophy. People who try to claim their religion is not a religion do so because they attach some negative value to that word and wish to distance themselves from it and you see this in several religions- how secular Buddhists try to stress the opposite of this video's title ("Buddhism is a philosophy, not religion"), some Hindus who say Hinduism is a "not a religion but a way of life" (okay but so is every other religion), some Christians who say Christianity is "not a religion but a relationship with Jesus" ( why is that said as if those two things exclude each other). All of these things are based on feeling there is something bad about something being a religion as if in order to try to appeal to modern materialists and the non-religious yet still wishing to hold and promote spiritual beliefs.
Orientalism is a real problem, thanks for addressing that. That seems to be a key message in this video and it's a good one. I think most people of European descent treat Buddhism like you described Scientism in an earlier video. Where the worldview that evolves around science, and the ideologizing of science, enshrines science on a pedestal once occupied by Christianity and makes it a new kind of faith/ belief/ religion. I think that same risk also exists when people become aware of Buddhist literature and practices. Also, to build on the message of orientalism, it's always important to consider the perspectives of both insiders and outsiders of a belief system (which grows and distorts around a founding figure over the course of millennia). In that sense there's something a bit problematic about a European philosopher (an outsider) quickly reducing a complex socio-cultural system to just 'a religion' that guides 'morality, community, meaning, and the ideal life'. There may also be something 'condescending and false' in that claim too. Probably better to report on the research and struggles of modern day Asian philosophers, and how they sift philosophical ideas from the history and heritage they grew up with. As a person of European descent who's read a respectable amount of philosophy, I've never heard a compelling argument that cleanly extracts "pure" European philosophy from its historical context of Judeo-Christian thought. They're inextricably intertwined as far as I can see. A muddy swamp we get to play in. But I'm always searching for a more compelling argument. All that being said, the quick parallel with the idea of 'Christianity as Platonism for the masses' from Nietzsche, and the recognition that philosophical ideas can be found within most religious systems, seemed like an interesting thread to pull on in an investigation of current day Asian philosophy... Overall it feels like this very broad topic is a bit more complex than a 15 minute internet video can handle. When you compare the vast scope of this video to another video with a very narrow scope like 'what did Nietzsche mean by the statement, God is dead'. You can see how this video will have a hard time supporting the claim it makes.
The core Buddha teaching, The Dhammapada starts out, "All that we are is the result of what we have thought. It is founded in and based on our thoughts." That is Psychology nested in the verbiage of Philosophy. Religion is a supernatural carrier shell for a deeper mental truth that the seeker must resolve in their own mind. Buddhism, as lived by people who believe in reincarnation, have not read the Dhammapada. Verse 6. "The world does not know that we must all come to an end here; but those who know it, their quarrels cease at once." It is both a philosophy and a religion. It depends on how you use it. But 'religion' is a big umbrella. Christianity is a religion. Do those look the same to you? One of those turns life over to perceived supernatural. One takes charge of their life. It's like asking someone where they come from and they say, Earth. That's religion. They aren't the same when they are put into practice. Abrahamic material is irresponsible and closed minded. It also steers the masses of sheep. It is based in fear. It traps one. Buddhism releases one. It's like putting olive oil and motor oil on the same table for the salad.
Great reality check. Can you cover Schopenhauer sometime? He seemed to develop a secular metaphysics that parallels eastern religions and is pretty airtight IMO. Also very influential to me personally so your take would be very intriguing.
Thanks Josh. I'll add Schopy to the list. He's never someone that I read deeply for some reason but would love to do more of a deep dive on him so I like the sound of this one
It depends on how you interpret scripture. Who knows how much is inauthentic ? Theravāda Buddhism’s view on doubt is largely like Zen’s philosophy, do not believe in it unless it has worked for you, and to truly know, you must meditate for that. To reiterate, a lot of scripture may be inauthentic especially considering the oral transmission and recent study of the Tipitaka. The astrology likely wasn’t taught by the historical Buddha, for instance. That is why it is better to practice for yourself rather than rely on suttas. You act like people are simply discarding the suttas but rather people do not consider them as true, or interpret them as literally as yourself. Basically, you can view it as a philosophy or a religion, it depends on how you interpret it and practice it. It can be a religion with superpowers or s simple manual to overcome duhkha. As mentioned by another here, Siddhattha Gotama was not the first Buddha, which means you probably didn’t study it that thoroughly. All religions have had some sort of extremism, that does not mean
Imperial Japan was guided by State Shinto, not Zen Buddhism. That's why State Shinto was abolished through a decree issued by the the Allied forces that were occupying Japan at the time.
I have seen some of your videos, and like your perspectives a lot. Here, as I understood, you argue against seeing Buddhismus as outside of the category of "religions". And you argue against cherry-picking from it in order to claim "it" being free from the obscuring effects, other religions can be found guilty of. I have an university degree and trust the scientific method in advanding our knowledge of the world. A question I don't first address to science, is: how to best live the limited life I have. Secular Buddhism seems to have borrowed some practical tools from Eastern Buddhism to help with personal development, while not importing together with it any speculative and/or mystical explanantion of the world. This is good, in my view, but I personally wanted to choose an "authentic" tradition of practice, which meant for me, one which already had been passed on for a while. This excluded schools depending on a recent founding teacher, and movements experimenting and blending from here and there. My personal choice became Soto Zen, the lineage of Dogen Zenji, Kodo Sawaki, and Master Deshimaru in Europe. Dogens writings provide teachings on how to develop the perception of the self and of the nature of reality. But is offers nothing to believe in, only your own experience while practicing aimless collection of the mind in the living posture of a breathing Buddha. This Soto Zen tradtion is a rather non-religious line of tradition within Buddhism/Taoist traditions, you might be willing to concede. Is it a Philosophy, instead? Its texts can be discussed as such, but central to it is the personal practice with an experienced teacher. Than it is neither a Philosophy nor a religion, you might say. But it is a path of continouisly seeking to realize the best way to live the limited life we have. Do you have a category for it?
But isn't this about core teachings of Buddha being changed and adapted to the lands and cultures it gets implemented in? Buddha's teachings were philosophical, but human nature and needs turned it into a religion, even though Buddha fought hard against dogmatism in his lifetime.
Philosophy and religion used to be the same, then the west created that Seperation. In the east, it was never separated. That’s why people view it as a philosophy than just a religion.
"Is Buddhism a religion or philosophy?" This is a koan. There is no right answer to a koan. It's not an exam question. I liked the history and context you offered. However you have said nothing about your personal experience of the subject and lots about your concepts. Perhaps it's inevitable that you drew absolute (dry intellectual) conclusions. This stimulated some interesting thinking and left my heart untouched. ❤
It's funny that Westerners view Abrahamic religions as mundane and familiar while viewing Buddhism as mystical and foreign. In reality, Abraham was Middle Eastern, and the Abrahamic religions belong to us Middle Easterners. Ironically, Buddhism was born of out of Hinduism, a version of the Indo-European religion whose other versions all your pre-Christian European ancestors followed. The Buddha himself was Indo-European, and far more closely related to White people than anyone in the Bible (save the few European or Persian peoples that are mentioned in it).
That's Pali, not peli 😅 of course, there is the phrase, the milk of the lioness will break the unready cup. It has many forms, but it points out that some elements of the teaching are not for the unprepared mind. The esoteric elements are parr and parcel of the path
Btw did u knew tht Marcus Aurelious the stoic also believed in not just god, but the idea tht there is god in every individual, he also beleived in rebirth & the cyclical nature of the creation & destruction of universe, would u say tht stoicism then is a religion too?
Lenie! Funnily enough I was only thinking of you this week because discord crossed my mind yet again. I promise that within the next week I will at last create the channel. I'll reply to this comment with a link when it's done. Its time to take the plunge into a new unknown!
@Kenji Oooh that would be absolutely cracking Kenji! I have next to no experience with it so a guide would be much appreciated. Tell you what I'll reply to your comment as well once I've done it and if you have time I'd love your tuppence on how to proceed with it
Lenie @Kenji it is done! I have created but it is a completely empty thing any input you have on how to proceed would be much appreciated here's the link discord.gg/dVXfSKAJ
This is a thought provoking video because I like to look at perspectives of Christianity as philosophy because I'm not religious and I also feel the same for Buddhism And even Thelema And many other customs and traditions based on moral And ethical perspectives That have transformed into something called religion. That's why I'm glad to have been baptized many times and and cried with many people on many altars and signed many different papers and had head churches accept me. ..... When you are a philosophying person you and you are too holy for religion And also the devil to much of the world. It's a good place to be.
Hahaha and I of course did my own share of time as well I guess that's why I'm more stern with it because there's a sternness with ways I used to see the world but moved away from
I call BS on this. You can call any concept anything you want to if you change the definition of the words you use. Define religion. If you define religion as a belief in a creator God who created souls and has a vested interest in those souls and created a heaven and hell for the eventual judgment of those souls, then Buddhism is not a religion. In Buddhsim there is no God and no souls, therefore no punishment or reward to an eternal heaven or hell - so what criteria makes Buddhism a religion? What constitutes "miracles" are in the eye of the beholder. The fact that enlightened beings can exhibit "miraculous" behavior isn't an indication that Buddhism is a religion - they aren't using any sort of divine godly power to this. Its an indication that you don't fully understand Buddhism more likely. In the words of Arthur C. Clarke - "any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic". Buddhism could be considered a technology of mind - as we strip away limiting beliefs the normal powers available to all sentient beings become manifest. There isn't even really life or death in Buddhism - there is just an unending string of experiences based on the karma of the experiencer.
Hi I'm really enjoying this channel. However I would not nominate this as one of your stronger videos. As a practicing Buddhist Modernist and rather agnostic and open metaphysical naturalist (and amateur philosopher) my response to the titular question would be it depends. What defines a philosophy, a religion, and what is the proper characterization of Buddhism which we seek to categorize are open questions and can't be meaningfully addressed in the space of a 15 min video, or its comment section. As such I found the discussion too reductive for my taste.
I really appreciate the feedback Eric especially in the spirit it was offered. In hindsight I can see I should have been clearer with my target in the video and it seems the best way of doing that would have been with a better definition of my terms. There's a specific energy of self-aggrandisement that I was looking to critique but I fear some people think that I was criticising Buddhism itself. I guess the term religion really has become that negatively soaked in connotations and also the polemical tone probably didn't help. Anyway once again I'm a lover of good faith feedback so I really appreciate your feedback and the way you delivered it
This modern snark is an anglophone peculiarity. I blame publishing contraints and incentives like Reddit moderation and Bill Nye's big bucks. In my culture we have magical realism: realistic fantasy and fantastic contemplation of the real. We have open ghost stories. Our graveyards have flare and open superstition personally intimately held without evangelical canon. Our deer dancer seal of Sonora is himself a mendicant ascetic despite his animist aesthetics. It was the Indian woo woo sincerity that attracted me to Buddhism. Colombus called the natives Indios after all. An apt comparison I embrace with joy. As a Mexican European/Native American we are a lot like Indians who are Aryan/Dravidians always socially jabbing that with snobby little prejudices but can put said snobbery away for grounded sentiment. A mendicant lives austerely far from snobbery and other impermanent conditioned things. Siddhartha lived in ancient Gandhara. I first read of these things in a building in Mexico called the Gandara hotel. My life is a big Spanish Sanskrit pun. Buddha criticized the authority of the vedas, their rites, their curriculum for the arising of phenomenon for the consciousness of the path. He was a reformer. I have no need to pick up his reincarnation framework because I have no such background or reason to believe in such but just about everything else lines up adds up checks out in our shared time frames. From the other side of the world on the same band Abrazos cortez ❤ Hugs from the big armpit of Mexico 🇲🇽
Buddha said that he wasn't a philosopher. He told people what he had discovered and invited them to try it for themselves. He was a teacher, which is needed.
This is a very important video. I believe at least in the west, Buddhism has been bastardized by the bourgeoisie (not in the Marxist context) and has since been used for meditation and nothing else, eliminating all the aspects of Buddhism that would go against their secular search for peace of mind: the concept of reincarnation etc. Seems that the Buddhism has been stripped down to not only the level of philosophy but to the level of self help.
‘The rich exotiscm of religious imagery serves as a grounding for morality and community and provides a rich vein of meaning that orients its adherents towards a certain conception of an ideal life’….. this made me smile, beautiful articulation sir.
Wait till this guy hears about Tibetan Buddhism. No, but seriously though, as a Theravadin Buddhist I feel that on the scale between “Philosophy” and “Religion”, Vajrayana Buddhism shifts more towards the religious end. I can understand why people could argue why Buddhism is purely a religion based on its esoteric and spiritual ritualistic practices, to the point that a parallel towards the Abrahamic religions could be made. For my sect of Theravada, personally I don’t fully dismiss the religious supernatural aspect of Buddhism, but more so placed more emphasis on the philosophical aspect of it. In my opinion, Siddhartha would’ve preferred me to just sit down meditate and practice the 8 fold path rather than waste my time dwelling on the supernaturals that is encapsulated in the Pali Canon. To me, the supernatural is just an aspect of Buddhism that shouldn’t be fully dismissed as a whole but should also not be emphasised as the core of the religion. To me, it sits on somewhere in the middle between a true philosophy and a true religion. I can easily give reasons on why Buddhism is a philosophy just as giving counter arguments to why it is a religion. I obviously don’t agree with the videos title as it fully dismisses the philosophical aspects and reduces to a purely religious ideology. I get why he’s doing it though. Putting a more “extreme” statement as the title targets the more “hypocritical” audience who fully neglects all supernatural aspects of Buddhism and reduces it to a whole “scientific” philosophy, and therefore concludes it is better than the Abrahamic religions in this regards. Obviously, I have my biases and feels that the world would be a slightly better place if we have more Buddhists, therefore dare I say it’s “better” than other religions, but it wouldn’t be on the basis that my religion is “purely philosophical” and “scientific” and “realistic” (and therefore better), but more so because Buddhism has a better and a more greater emphasis on pragmatic philosophical ideologies than the rest, and have a refined philosophical way of life towards non violence that I am personally biased towards based on my life experiences. But at the end of the day, I’m just one guy out of 8 billion. Who really cares what I think. I’ll be glad if one person reads my comment this far. I’m not gonna force my religious views on anyone. That’s just morally wrong in my opinion and everyone should have the freedom to choose what religion to believe in, if any. I’m an advocate of critical thinking and not blindly following. As a wise philosopher once said (paraphrased): “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it, rumoured by many, written in your religious books, passed down by tradition, or enforced by the authority of teachers and elders, but believe it only after observation, careful analysis, critical thinking” -Siddhartha Gautama, Kamala Sutta (the real quote is different from that, I just wrote what I remembered from the top of my head, so I apologise for that) Thanks for reading ❤
I'd say Mahayana too. Consider Pure Land Buddhism and Nam myōhō renge kyō. Those are the two I know of, there might be more. I feel like they're easier to understand though. Vajrayana seems too complicated and esoteric with its concept of Tantra.
To ask the teacher Siddhartha this type of question would be given a response note different than self or no self, soul or no soul. A silent response that is fitted for the follower of the middle way.
Background: I was raised conservative protestant Christian. converted to Buddhism, slowly realized that I am an atheist but still continue to meditate and attend temple services. My priest asserts that Buddhism underwent huge changes as it was transmitted from India to China, Korea and Japan, and is undergoing changes of equal or greater magnitude as it takes root in the Americas. (He is an ordained monk of the Seon school, Chogye order, from Korea.) Anyways, I enjoyed this video.
@@thotslayer9914 I practiced a form of personal philosophic Christianity. It could be summed up as, "Even if Jesus was only character in a myth, He is still a worthy person to emulate." I have enjoyed the results. It made me a more forgiving person, lead to a relatively peaceful life and has even led to unexpected mystical experiences.
While I agree with your overall argument, I think it is a little inaccurate to connect Mahayana in China and Japan to Tibet. Mahayana actually arrived in China from Central Asia. Tibetan Buddhism mostly remained on the plateau before spreading north into Mongolia in the 16th century. It is sometimes referred to as Vajrayana to distinguish it from Mahayana.
A really well researched video with an important message! It is popular to regard the Bible and the religions associated with it as outdated. But often these people have never even got in contact with theology. I think many will be amazed at how deeply and rationally the old writings have always been dealt with. Regardless, it is also not a sign of great intellect to judge a religion on its compatibility with atheism. Stories of miracles and magic have been part of human existence since the dawn of time. They help us to understand ourselves better, regardless of what physics says about it. That being said, Christianity has gradually merged with philosophy over time, but the scholarly engagement with Buddhism is new.
Thanks Tani! And I agree that there is an importance to the stories of miracle and magic. Taking religion as a fount of delusion or as a virus makes it easy to dismiss but by reappraising it we might be able to overcome the initial repelling force and redevelop our curiosity to undersand it at a different level
@@jasonbell6234 Also Christiansm but you never in your life went to read about that, and you don't know about those things never read about. Look for almost all of ortodox christiansm, hesichasm, etc. Abrahmic religions are as contemplatives and practical as Buddhism, which is a mere rewriting of hinduism for not brahamanic families.
A number of scholars have put forth arguments that Christianity is largely a result of Jewish thought coming into contact with Greek philosophers and Greek religions. Yahweh basically grew a soft spot for Plato , Aristotle , Heraclitus, Adonis, and Achilles.
Excellent episode. Finally someone gets it straight about Buddhism, but more than that, calls out the current pop-belief system for its biases. Will we always just react to our culture’s old inequities, or will we understand our past, and thereby ourselves in the process. This episode is one step toward that possibility. Thank you!
Thanks Joy! It's something that was rubbing me up the wrong way I've been questioning whether I was too polemical with it but it's been very interesting to read the comments and to see that people debating me are often doing so from two opposite positions either too little nuance of Buddhism or else defending secular Buddhism so I've been feeling more confident that I took a good stance and that maybe I just needed to communicate the point better. Very interesting to see the reactions!
Calling oneself a Buddhist without belief in karma and rebirth is like calling oneself a Christian/Muslim without a belief in a creator god and end times. It is possible to be such, discarding unappealing aspects, if one is born into the tradition, but doesn't make a whole lot of sense for those not born into those traditions.
I practiced a sort of personal philosophic Christianity for years. Even if Jesus was only a character from a myth, I still find Him to be one of the best moral paragons to emulate. The fact that I was biased by much more familiar with various traditions of Christian lore and philosophy my whole life is acknowledged.
@Sky Gardener "External trappings" of Buddhism are "non-essential" add ons? It is a pity the Buddha wasn't as clever as you are: going on and on about Nirvana! 🙄
@Sky Gardener You seem to be itching to expound your "knowledge" of Buddhism. I am not particularly interested. Yes, unlike the Abrahamic traditions, faith/belief plays no role in Buddhism for the outcome. It is one's actions that determine the outcome. However, the outcome towards which the practice is supposed to lead is Nirvana: ending the cycle of birth and death. Thus the practice is underpinned by an acceptance of karma and rebirth. Since they can't be empirically verified, I called it a belief.
As someone with buddhist influences and valuing the wisdom of siddharta, you hit the nail on the head my concerns with these (for a lack of a better word) pseudo intellectual hippies over glorifying buddhism.
Real easy thing here. Buddhism is not a religion based on the idea it has no gods. Something or someone has to be worshiped for it to be a religion. And Buddha himself says do not worship me as a god. For I am just a man and this is how I did it. The journey is different for everyone but just because I was the first does not make me any better than that of a man who is starting. Good try. But because of these two things. It's a teaching not a religion. And calling it a religion is insulting Buddha himself.
Fantastic video! Really well done. Your balance of criticism and respect is impressive! It's such a breath of fresh air to listen to an argument which doesn't end in the condemnation of an entire school of thought!
Thanks a million Jack that's exactly what I am going for! I was a bit concerned with this one that I may have been a bit harsh towards the secular atheist position here but none of us are perfect eh!
I love your channel! You’re doing such an awesome job covering such a complicated subject as philosophy and representing it in such an easily digestible fashion. On a side note, I think it would be fair to say that rationality can only get you so far, at some point you need to embrace the irrationality before it consumes you, as it did Nietzsche. Just food for thought! Keep up the great work!
I've always regarded myself as an atheist or non-religious believer. But I have just come to the realization that I'm essentially a Buddhist, for most of my life I've followed the teachings of Buddha without even realizing it, though I don't believe in the supernatural beings or weird supernatural forces. I dedicate 1 hour of my day to meditate, to follow the 4 pillars of Buddhism in some way.
you're not actually, a buddhist. Buddhism requires you to believe in nirvana, in samsara, in the soul self (immaterial being), which atheism basically discards whole sale. As an atheist or materialist, there is no reason to follow teachings, as it entails the lack of prescriptive reason or morality as a whole. Did you even watch the video?
@none1248 What about hungry ghosts, or the idea of the 5/6 paths which are delineated in the first buddhist texts. Additionally, you are asserting that that 1 book is the true encapsulation of early buddhism when in reality numerous sects would disagree. Of course you can interpret things as being materialistically tethered yet doctrine disagrees. Buddha believed in the concept of deva, which you can argue is an analogy for a more material thing, but that would be fringe compared to the vast majority of what scholars say. Nirvana and samsara are not just machinations of a mechanical mind of particles and instead the result of immaterial accumulation of good karma across lives.
All the Buddha said " Don't follow blind belief, don't even believe the Buddha, but verify his words yourself, see the truth yourself." The Buddhas don't ask you to believe.
The popular western approach to Buddhism is arguably a strange mix of both positive orientalism (look how completely different and more enlightened Eastern thought is) and negative orientalism. (look at how those people in historically Buddhist counties have distorted it with their backwards ways)
As it is often said, one of the more consistent features of religion is that it splits. The comment that secular Buddhism claiming it is the distilled essence of what was intended to be Buddhism is insulting to the history and full conceptualization for Buddhism that came before, is not an unusual circumstance. It resembles the transition from Catholicism into protestantism. Which suggests you could make the same claim about protestantism against Catholicism. Yet, I don't think it would be easily interpreted this way today. Even though I agree.
@@jamesstevenson7725According to buddhism, there are several buddhas and siddharta was not the first one. There is even claimed that in future times there will come another one, buddha maitreya. Some will say, that everyone can be a buddha, hence the "buddha nature" in every being.
A standard doctrine in all schools of Buddhism is the “Seven Past Buddhas” who appeared in the current era, not to mention the many many more. They are: Vipaśyin Śikhin Viśvabhū Krakucchanda Kanakamuni Kāśyapa Śākyamuni (who was the founder of our current dispensation)
Thanks for this video. I'm what you may call a traditional Buddhist convert. And, as much as I respect and learn with secular Buddhists, I have always felt uneasy with how people tend to ignore and devalue the religious aspects of our tradition. I think that, even if one doesn't have a belief of supernatural aspects of Buddhism, they shouldn't act like they understand more of Buddha's teachings than the people who are maintaining said teachings in traditional environments. I believe things would be better if we could see things as they are and treat each other with respect.
1:46 ummmm....Buddhism is a "non-theistic religion", not atheistic. because there are deities within buddhism. But they are not regarded as being important to the buddha's teachings. Non-theism is not synonymous with atheism, because it doesn't reject the existence of gods completely. But rather it just remains neutral on their existence. 3:33 ummm....That's not true, because not all evils were done in the name of religion. There are plenty of evil acts that were committed by non-religious people as well. So let's not make hasty generalizations.
Those poor muslims, everywhere they go they just can't help but get picked on by other religions. Don't people know that Islam is the religion of peace? 😂
Buddhist consciousness-science doesn’t concern itself with jewish relationships with Annunaki angry sky-gods. Rather, the methods to end suffering and realize the 4-noble truths, discover the origin and root of consciousness…. and so much more
The Buddha did not say that he can LITERALLY WALK THROUGH WALLS OR WALK ON WATER. Only the naive take it literally. By saying that the enlightened ones can walk through walls he meant that the enlightened ones cannot be imprisoned in walls as they are not affected by sorrow of being trapped. For the enlightened mind being free to walk in a vast garden and being confined in a closed space would be the same as he or she is not associating positive or negative emotions with either.
I don't think religions are by themselves promoting violence, it is only the followers and practitioners who are extensions of the religions, those who twist the true intentions of their respective religions, who were therefore contributing to the violence.
Very true. I too disagree with the violence part. Just because some of the modern monks acted out of violence due to their personal reasons, it doesn't mean that the Buddhist teachings are based on violence. In fact it is the far opposite of that. Any monk or practitioner acting in that manner has gone astray from the path that had been taught by the Buddha. If the teachings have nothing to do with it, then the blame for the violence goes strictly to the individuals engaging in them, and not the philosophy as a whole.
If your a purist and dogmatic, you want to keep the religion pure and true, if your open minded and are tropiphilic, that is thriving on change and uncertainty, you embrace secular buddhism. Like Bruce Lee said, "absorb what is useful, discard what is useless and add what is uniquely your own"...
Ah, I'm torn. Buddhism can be practiced as a religion, but it doesn't have to be, whereas Christianity, for example, requires you believe Jesus is the Christ. Big difference.
No, Christianity can also be practised like a philosphy. There are Christians who don't believe that Jesus is The Son of God and just follow his teachings. I think they are called non-trinitarians, correct me if I am wrong.
@@Ocean_Man_i think in the end any religion could be followed like a philosophy. And maybe philosophy, if followed and believed too much, could readily be made into “religion” (which we call ideology, like communism)
@@acex222 lol that's not it. You also have to believe in rebirth, more specifically the cycle of rebirth known as samsara. The ultimate goal of Buddhism is to achieve nirvana, which is the cessation of samsara. So you cannot be a Buddhist unless you believe in rebirth. And that's just the base minimum. Pretty much every tradition would also require you to believe in devas ("god-like figures"), different levels of heaven and hell, other heavenly figures and other mythical events like the Buddha remembering his past lives or being able to speak just after birth or having a miraculous birth and so on.
This analysis of Buddhism ignores its fundamental Enlightenment thesis and thus its transcendental basis and goal in favour of a mere body-based moral interpretation. Nirvana is not a psychological state but a condition if egoless perfect existence that ends the cycle of births and deaths.
Sadly, the ones who really need to hear this probably won't. It is the same problem with flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers...unassailable beliefs and echo chambers. Psychology/Sociology of humans really pictures a sobering view of the whole debacle.
Along similar lines, I have read (and know one) secular intellectuals who call themselves Christian who reject all the supernatural aspects of the Bible entirely, but most egregiously, they reject the resurrection of Christ. Makes me want to tear my hair out.
Great video as usual. I get my Buddhism from Chinese movies amazing CGI, "Monkey" is an a great story with tons of insight, Gods, humor and a Buddhist monk, even the Japanese TV version from the 80s was a good watch. Probably has little to do with the real thing, but such is life.
But I am a Buddhist. Buddhism IS a traditional religion. Buddhism is both a philosophy AND a religion. However, its methodology may be applied by atheists, agnostics, or ANY religionist. Moreover, your critique is a little odd, because Buddhism has so many branches and sects - far more than Christianity (you spoke of only two) . Some of them are more religious than others, while others are deeply philosophical. I am a religious Buddhist - though I can argue it philosophically, too.
No. Buddhism is the science of Consciousness WISDOM and the essence of all Phenomenal existence and myriad of energy and matter with all its innumerable manifestations/ permutations and the instructions on how to investigate and find out for YOUR OWN SELF
Nice video! It's definitely one thing to take certain insights from Buddhism and apply them to your secular life, but it's another thing to (possibly purposefully) misrepresent Buddhism and ignore the religious side. It makes me think of how in Daoism some people may distinguish between philosophical Daoism and religious Daoism. Although that distinction is made, I don't think the philosophical Daoists would pretend the religious Daoists don't exist and vice versa.
Thanks friend! Interesting point about the Daoists. I would be curious to know more about the contemporary dynamics of that religion. I've read the Tao te Ching I don't know how many times but my knowledge of the broader scholarly landscape and the cultural landscape of it is non-existent
Buddhism may not be a Philosophy, BUT IT IS 10 TIMES MORE PHILOSOPHICAL IN NATURE COMPARED TO ABRAHMIC RELIGIONS ! And this is fact. I have explored both.
@@dravidamonkey4253 if you go with the western definition of religion then Buddhism is not a religion because Buddhism doesn't agree with the Creator God theory. Buddhism believe we are all creator of this time and space by our cause and condition.
@@user-Void-Star I agree. But even if someone tries to find a way to label Buddhism as a religion (like the creator of this video) it still will be undoubtedly the MOST PHILOSOPHICAL religion of all religions.
@@user-Void-Star many religious philosophies that don’t believe in creator gods are still classified religious. In fact, 3 out of the 6 main schools of thought in Hinduism do not believe in a creator god and are non theistic, atheistic or agnostic
If the goal of philosophy is to reach Truth, then siddartha came closer than any ‘philosopher’ and and gave a path to reach the same Truth. Buddhism also gives us a way to make sense of the universe and inquiries into nature of reality. But no doubt the majority of his followers have resorted to dogmatism and it is dogmatism that makes it a religion and not a philosophy.
@@honor9lite1337 scientific thinking is merely based on empiricism and philosophical inquiry proves the fallacy of empiricism as a complete truth as there are too many rational contradictions in this way of approaching truth that it cannot resolve.
@@honor9lite1337 That's simply not true. We don't use philosophy to interrogate nature for its secrets anymore, but there's a whole lot more to philosophy than what science covers; in fact, philosophy is the thing that gives the scientific method its power. As long as we talk about the boundaries of things like morality, reason, beauty, and thought, philosophy has a place in society.
I remember earnestly trying to correct someone that buddhism wasn't an example of a completely peaceful religion & I swear to everything I love it would have been less painful banging my head against a wall for I truly understood the meaning of the "no true scotsman" fallacy that day. All these mental gymnastics from a white dude who couldn't even find majority buddhist countries on a map!!
Just too many errors in this to set out but: The things you refer to as buddhism are indeed markers of a religion. The Pali canon refers to a pre-scientific world view which has an axial age religious metaphysics. But it would be wrong to think that the buddha's aim was to teach that metaphysics. Rather this was just the context of contemporary belief in which he set his original teaching. Essentially the buddha taught a path (the dharma) by which consciouness may be transformed. The means by which the path is accessed is meditation. This is an advanced skill which some (but not all) buddhist traditions have kept alive. The western buddhism that you disparage, is an effort to extract the "psycho-technology" of buddhism from the religious metaphysics that surrounded it in the pre-scientific cultures in which it thereafter developed. This developing practice is not a religion in the western sense of a system of "belief". Nor is it just a philosophy in the modern western sense of a body of knowledge about the world - although practice certainly does confer an experiential understanding of cognition. So I think you have mistaken the historical context for the essence. As to the practice itself, it is a process and you just have to do it. It requires an introspective skill and persistence. It is substantially the red pill antidote to delusion. With the proliferation of mindfulness classes, the western world seems to be full of people who sucked on the red pill for a few months, spat it out and gave up, claiming blue pill superiority. But this is just how anything radical gets processed when it goes mainstream. There is a considerable debate about how much of the Pali canon reflects the actual teachings of the buddha. At its core, in my view, that debate is really about protecting the status of the buddha as a special class omniscient being. But that approach is either theistic or just an effort at dipolmacy. The buddha knew little if anything that a modern 16 year old science student knows about cosmology. Rather his knowledge was the working of the mind. So it is entirely legitimate to discard the earlier metaphysics and focus on the path itself. It is odd that you haven't said anything about that path.
I'll happily allow the value of the psycho-technology and support the use of it in a broader context than the historical sects of Buddhism. What I watned to adress with this video however is what Buddhism is. Historically it is a religion. We can talk about the what the Buddha may or may not have elieved but it would be pure hubris to suggest that we are closer to understnaing the Buddha today as secularists than two and a half thousand years of Buddhists are. The man by all accounts believed in rebirth. Every Buddhist sect holds onto the Jataka tales of the stories of his rebirths. Enlightenment then does not seem to him to have been the work of a single lifetime but this was the Buddha's primary concern. Separation out the psycho-technology and teaching it to people to help them gain insight into their lives is valuable and worthwhile but to say that this is Buddhism is just misguided. I would say that historically you can't have the Buddha without the metaphysics. You can separate the process and affirm its value but that is a long sight from saying that this is the Buddha's true teaching
The term Buddhism as you use it is a social phenomenon. But as zen practioners are fond of stating, "if you meet the buddha on the road, kill him". The buddha taught the dharma and the real question here is whether the supernatural elements to be found in buddhist texts are necessary to it. If they are, your critique has to say why. Attempting to prove a proposition simply referring to their widespread use is if course, a logical fallacy. The debate that this touches on goes back to the earliest days of the teaching, a bit like gnosis in christianity, which also touched on the issue of the divinity of Jesus, and of course the institutions won out, as they always do, because their technique is power, not liberation. So I think what you are actually saying is that buddhist institutions retain this supernatural legacy. But then you specifically criticise western trends, and Stephen Batchelor particular, warning people that if they are getting involved in"buddhism" this is necessarily religious(supernatural/unscientific). I think this just doesn't understand what is going on and misses all the neuroscience and therepeutic investigations that have gone on with respect to dharma practices. It is right however that there is a tension between these older buddhist instititutions and the science culture of the west. The benefit of your point is that people should be wary of falling into superstition. The downside of the absolutist stance that you take is that people who need this path are deterred from investigating it and just remain in the Baudrillard type illusion of modern culture.
@@austinthornton3407 thanks for the deep engagement Austin you make some good points. I if nothing else want to make people suspicious of people claiming that the "true" buddhism has been rediscovered by a culture on the other side of the world two and a halfthousand years later. That seems dangerously close to arrogance (not necessarily making it a false claim but certainly one to be very careful in making). My point isn't merely about institutions. I would argue that Buddhism doesn't work without rebirth. As long as Nirvana is the end goal which I'm assuming it still is in the Secular Buddhist tradition (if it isn't then it's not Buddhism as far as I can see it would simply be something derived from Buddhism) then samara and rebirth are essential elements of Buddhism and these come laden with a whole lot of supernatural metaphysics. We are led to believe that Enlightenment didn't come to the Buddha in a single lifetime but took hundreds of lifetimes. Every Buddhist tradition believes this and holds onto the Jataka tales which are one of the earliest written Buddhist texts that we have so I don't think they are so easily dismissed as being non-essential or auxiliary to Buddhism. Secular Buddhism can happily use meditaiton as a therepeutic practice and that's an amazzing thing that I have partaken of much myself but to say that it understands the Buddha better than most Buddhists over the past millennia is patently absurd. There are highly advanced meditators in the Tibetan tradition who probably look a lot more like the Buddha psychologically than the likes of your average Western Secular Buddhist. Doesn't mean there's no value or validity in the Secular tradition I just want to preach caution about any claim of higher legitimacy to this new offshoot
I have deleted my previous response which you may or may not have read. In fact on reflection your points require further considerstion. In particular whether the western path of meditation should characterise itself as post buddhist.
@@austinthornton3407 Ah I see I did indeed read it I got the email with it I shall respect your withdrawal but if you ever want to chat about it again I'd be happy to it's been very stimulating!
Hey James, great fan of your work and subscriber here, however I believe this video of yours could have turned out even better if it had used a tiny bit more research. Whilst I praise your attempt at presenting religions in a more charitable light, I am not a Buddhist and I certainly agree with viewing it as a religion. Nevertheless, the comparisons and examples you use here to approximate it with Abrahamic religions might be off a little in terms of rigour. Hopefully you will find my content helpful and as constructive criticism. Using the examples of Zen apologies for its role in the patriotic fervour and jingoism in modern Japan, or the persecution of the Rohynga in Myanmar, says more about the social perception, history and cultural exchanges of those specific regions than of the religion itself. Unlike the Abrahamic religions, you will find no scriptural or oral basis for violence, intolerance and oppression of any strata in Buddhism, and indeed the people promoting such ghastly views are unable to draw on their religion to support it, supporting their claims from their mundane worldview. It's important to separate the populace and its actions from its religious beliefs and Buddhism strictly condemns violence in all shapes and forms, unlike the Abrahamic religions which find numerous appeals to bloodshed and warring in its sacred writings. I must say I was surprised that you declared the Lotus Sutra to be little more than a listing of gods seems, which in my mind is somewhat simplistic and reductive. Although the Lotus Sutra sees differing appreciation across the Mahayana (Tibetan and Zen care very little for it, to cite two well known strands) and it may not be the most philosophically rich, its parabolas of the Burning House, the Phantom City or the Doctor and Medicine, are quite significant in terms of Buddhist lore and help understand some of the general thought that pervades the religion in practical terms. It's important to bear in mind that Buddhism, at least in several Mahayana schools, interprets the words of the Buddha, and therefore its fantastical and surreal visions, as "expedient means" (see 'upaya'), used to contextualize and persuade the listeners of the time that were familiar with a rich and imaginative religious landscape. As in all human experience, there are traditionalists and literalists, but with a thorough understanding of Buddhism's representation, one would hardly feel compelled to consider those as the defining examples of Buddhist manifestation. On a sidenote, secretly, I was hoping you would get a bit more into the philosophical analysis of some of Buddhism's main tenets, particularly in Yogachara and Madhyamaka school, which I find to be especially stimulating. Its conceptions of suffering, selflessness of persons, emptiness or momentariness, are so sophisticated and seductive, not to mention that its theories of epistemology and phenomenology predate by centuries and surpass many of the Western ideas in its originality and soundness. I'm absolutely positive that once you lay down your eyes on the writings of say, Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Chandrakirti, Ratnakirti, Dignaga, Dharmakirti, Dogen, or sutras like the Lankavatara, Diamond or Vimalakirti sutra, you will find much interesting content for future videos. Sorry for the long post, but keep up the great work and I'll be looking forward to your future output.
Thanks a million Zarathustra I genuinely appreciate good feedback and when it's worded so coherently and kindly I love it all the more. I didn't mean that the entire Lotus Sutra was a list of gods btu that one particular sectoin but I agree I could have been more rigorous in that. My best defence I guess is that there's an overwhelming amount of source material and I was trying to give an overview of views across Buddhism in a short video but that is somethign of an excuse and I could certainly have been much more rigorous and done much deeper research you are very right. Other commenters have spoken about this desire to interact deeper with the Madhyamika and with the Yogacara so I think this wil be happpening at some point. Nagajuna is the one that really pulls me because I've been meaning to do a deeper dive on him for a very long time and there seems to be an awful lot of depth there so that will probably be the entry point to a deeper (and hopefully more rigorous) interaction with the east. Also I had forgotten that the upaya story of the burning house came from the lotus sutra that was a gem of a story and also very good point about the local religions being the jstification rather than its being inherent to the tradition itself. I haven't fully digested that but it has given me something very worthwhile to chew on
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Religion is a philosophy you follow with devotion, commitment, and confidence. Sraddha. Catuṣkoṭi was what I was referring to with the trust in doubt. Simple, it is both, and neither. It is something more, unbounded by labels.
Actually, the idea that buddhism is a philosophy is not something that orginated in the west. Buddhist scholars had this idea too especially in the southern branch. But i get where you are coming from. Buddhism is a religion and a philosophy but western interpretation of buddhism is biased and ignores many religious aspects of buddhism. early buddhist texts lack things like jataka, atma(soul), hell and heaven and miracles. Only religious part there is karma and reincarnation. So even the most authentic form of buddhism has religious and mystical parts of it. the main purpose of buddhism is to achieve nirvana. Any buddhist know that nirvana is not a philosophical thought, although it could be interpreted as such like what herman hesse did in his book siddhartha. Symbology may alter things but then we will lose accuracy. So there is a dilemma there. When people say secular buddhism, they are talking mostly about parts of stoicism, since if you deduct religious mysticism from buddhism you get a form of stoicism and maybe even nihilism or absurdism.
one thing should be pointed out is; metaphysics phenomenon does exist in this world, and those so called 'realism' shouldn't deny it's existences without proper and unbiased investigation.. it might not common in the west but it well accepted as daily reality in the east. the differences from any other religions, it doesn't using metaphysics phenomenons as a legitimation, but rather emphasize on reasoning and proving by self-experiencing. ....another thing, Buddhism might be vast for most people, but to get the authentic early teaching one should really dig into history of it, scripture study from the original language and understanding it from the cultural references and context of which it was said by the Buddha. (rather than blantantly rely on english version, eliminating any possible lost in translation.)
Thich Nhat Hanh would disagree. He packaged Buddhism for Westerners back when MLK was pushing for social justice. It is both a religion and a philosophy. I never understood why people want to divide things up much.
You're not wrong Gary. I guess with the video I wanted to push back against the idea that Buddhism should be praised as a philosophy while other religions could be dismissed. I wanted to find a space of appreciation for them all. I do believe that all religions have their philosophies and their theologies
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I appreciate your opinion and insightful video, but I'd rather Buddhism was thrown in the same trash can of irrationality as the rest of them, than all of them respected.
@@Elintasokas Well, you would just be wrong then. You would be committing one of the worst mistakes ever then. What mistake ? Well, the mistake of calling all of Buddhism Irrational when only a few parts of it are ...
Division is required here because faith is a hallmark of religion, not a philosophy. The Middle Way method of Buddhism, when seen as a viable process or method, is faith-based since it is internally contradictory. Unlike a zen koan written to deliberately think upon paradoxes in which few attain the insight, the Middle Way as method is already a way of life for the average human being who already alternate somewhere between hedonism and asceticism. The four truths, the basis prior to the 8 paths and the Middle Way, build upon the assumption that life is suffering. Why? Must life only be seen as suffering? How could it when it is equally or often beautiful and good? The concept of being stuck in Samsara is inherently a faith-based position, akin to the Abrahamic idea of original sin. One cannot believe in Samsara and be a legitimate philosopher, a skeptic, nor a self-proclaimed atheist.
@@Elintasokas it becomes clear a few minutes in that this video leans more anti-atheism than anti-Buddhism, and that anti-Buddhist-atheism is merely an incidental intersection. Now, that's not to say that non-religious Buddhism is the solution to all life's woes. The point of Buddhism is not to be a Buddhist ("If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha"), it's a set of ideas meant to be a tool to practice removing the noise that prevents us from living authentically. Some may call that religion, others don't. I would argue that religion's goal is always to control behavior and purportedly resolve the existential questions. Secular Buddhism is at best only half in on both these, or at least is functionally ineffective, not robust, far less dogmatic. I agree with his "peaceful religion" comments. Buddhism is not a peaceful religion. Empirically, there is no such thing as a peaceful religion. However, I'd venture to guess that no wars have ever been fought for secular Buddhism. All that said, I understand the premise of the video as a reaction to sanitization of religious Buddhism.
Thank you! Someone needed to say this. A great video. This video speaks to the essentialist and spiritist in me. And I can tell you have a pretty good grasp on the subject. Thanks living philosopher! Indeed every religion has philosophical aspects, but there's way too much systematic religious notions and institutional aspects to Buddhism to be purely philosophical. It's far too full of spiritual doctrines and supernatural assumptions to simply think it at its core essence appeals to the common postmodern naturalist alone, as many today suggest. Cosmologies, orders, myths, poems and esotericism are just a few religious functions in Buddhism. It has much overlap with Hinduism and Jainism and other neighboring religions. So that said I think if anyone is going to essentialize it they're going to need to see about the totality of it rather than a reductionistic approximation that they appreciate, that can only be in and of it but not it overall. Thanks again, really. - YQA
As someone who might identify as a “Secular Buddhist”, I generally agree with your point. I believe in Buddhism as a philosophy, with it’s more esoteric and “religious” aspects mostly being artistic symbolization. But the idea that Buddhism at large is devoid of the same metaphysical fantasies as we see in religions like Christianity is blatantly false. The reason why I would call myself a “Secular Buddhist” rather than a “Secular Christian” though, is that most Abrahamic faiths pretty explicitly claim a monopoly on truth and condemn all dissenters to damnation, and posit interesting but philosophically uncomplex virtues that demand to be followed. Buddhism on the other hand, while it was a religion from the start, was typically argued for from a more modern understanding of philosophy. The Buddha was trying to convince you as a normal human with no monopoly on truth, just what he believed was the arguments with the most ultimate persuasive power. Because Buddhist thought is much more philosophically complex, I feel like one can treat his ideas more similarly to how one might treat traditional philosophers like Plato. Yes, Plato made metaphysical claims and argued with the assumption of Gods, and some of his arguments explicitly rest on Gods to make sense. But one can still call themselves a Platonist without necessarily believing in classical Hellenistic theology. Similarly I think one can still be a Buddhist without believing in the spiritual metaphysical claims of traditional Buddhism. But it would definitely be wrong to say that this more Western type of Buddhism is representative of all Buddhism, or that all Buddhism is Atheistic. That said, I think we also shouldn’t go too far into the idea that Buddhism is just like every other religion in regards to spiritual beliefs; major Buddhist philosophers like Nagarjuna and the modern Dalai Lama have generally indicated atheist sentiments and the Buddha himself while clearly religious to some degree was for the time a dramatically skeptical individual.
Okay it’s an overall a thoughtful video but I have to make a criticism here. All you have proved is that Buddhist tradition/culture consists of supernatural elements but didn’t point out any teaching or quote directly from Gautama Siddharta which corresponds to supernatural phenomenon… whereas be it Jesus, Muhammad, and leaders of other abrahamic faiths believed in a creator god or angels or the kingdom of heaven… So that in my opinion is the precise difference between buddhism and even certain schools of thoughts in Hinduism (eg. advaita vedanta, vishishistadvaita vedanta etc) and abrahamic faiths… So buddhism as in Buddhist culture and tradition might be a religion but teachings by Siddharta Gautama isn’t. When it comes to violence propagated by anti Islamic monks, it is more of self defence against Islamic radicalism rather than ignorant religious violence.
Definitely is a religion if they are making claims about metaphysics that are religious in nature which happens all the time even in the more "sober" Theravada tradition.
A new subscriber here. Have you heard of Navayana Buddhism by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar? Millions of Dalits in India are followers of Navayana Buddhism. You should read 'Buddha and his Dhamma' by Ambedkar. Your ideas on Buddhism will definitely evolve and put Buddha in a historical context.
There is a lot of misunderstanding regarding Myanmar and Sri Lanka and people trying to say Buddhism is a violent religion as a result of it. It is paramount that people do research on issues they are not familiar with in great detail. The situation in Myanmar is not due to religion. There is no teaching in Buddhism that is demanding people to discriminate against Rohingyas. So it's fundamentally incorrect to say it's the result of Buddhism. It's also not as clear cut as "anti-Islamic". There are three other major Muslim communities in Myanmar: Kaman, Bamar Muslims and Panthay. These three communities are not facing discrimination. So how can one say it's "anti-Islamic"? The situation in Myanmar and Sri Lanka is rooted in ethnic nationalism. The very first precept of Buddhism is to not harm anybody and if you harm someone then you're de-robed. Also, a monk should let go of all attachment. The whole purpose of Buddhism is to give everything up as it's suffering. How can one be a Buddhist monk if they're encouraging violence and still having feelings of attachment? These are ethnic nationalists who believe in Sinhalese and Bamar supremacy and Buddhism is closely linked to both ethnic groups and their cultures. These nationalists are influenced by identity politics and this fear that they are going to disappear because the Sinhalese and Bamar Buddhist nationalists have for the longest time feared the idea that they will disappear due to their low fertility rates while the high fertility rates of some of the Muslim populations remains high. They claim they will become like Indonesia and Afghanistan (Buddhist-majority countries that eventually became Muslim and adopted Islamic culture) and have continuously lived in this fear of existential threat. As a result of the fact that there are no strict teachings in Buddhism that instruct people to have babies or spread their religion, they fear their culture will disappear because the fertility rates of the Burmese and Sri Lankan Buddhists continues to decline. This is why Sri Lankan and Burmese nationalists are closely linked together and even have organisations that support both of their needs. This isn't about Buddhism, it's ethnic nationalism that is very specific to those countries. You don't see this type of nationalism in Cambodia, Laos, or among the Buddhist minorities in places like India or Bangladesh, do you? It's only specific to Sri Lanka and Myanmar. Why? It's because of their location and the experiences they have endured. The fact that this form of ethnic nationalism exists over there is a product of them being located in multi-ethnic and multireligious South and Southeast Asia. These are Asian issues, it is very important to understand these issues from an Asian perspective. Blatant misinformation spread on Facebook played a huge role in the violence inflicted against the Rohingyas in the late 2010s. The Rohingyas have actually sued Facebook as a result of them not tackling the hate speech and misinformation in the lead up and during the ethnic cleansing of 2017. So it's really important to understand these issues when speaking about them to people that are not knowledgeable about what is going on in places like Myanmar. The Burmese military is the root for all of the hate and violence that the Rohingyas have faced and it originated in WW2 when the Japanese invaded Myanmar. The Burmese military has spread so much false information about the Rohingyas online towards Burmese people that even the Kaman Muslims turned against them in the 2010s. Conversely, there is a Rohingya minister working in the Aung San Suu Kyi's Burmese government-in-exile and one of Myanmar's most prominent pro-democracy activists is of Rohingya descent, Wai Wai Nu. So we can't just claim it's because of beliefs or something like that, because it's not. These are ethnic nationalists akin to the White supremacists found in the West. For them, it's about protecting their identity (which is their culture, ethnicity, religion, heritage etc.).
Also, the situation in Sri Lanka regarding Muslims happened in the 2010s, in the early 2010s and then in the late 2010s after the terror attacks. Traditionally speaking, Muslims are not viewed with suspicion in Sri Lanka by the Sinhalese Buddhists but because of a phenomenon called Arabisation it led to cultural friction that peaked in 2019. Arabisation is a huge issue in South and Southeast Asia where Muslims have begun to adopt Arab culture which conflicts with the local cultures. There is a belief among the conservative Muslims that to be Muslim is to be Arab, so people adopt Arab clothing, Arabic names and learn Arabic while foregoing their own culture. Arabisation is a topic of concern in the Muslim-majority nations of Malaysia and Indonesia too and national governments have spoken about it. In Sri Lanka, Arabisation led to the dilution of the Sufi-influenced form of Islam practiced by Sri Lankan Muslims which eventually came to the spotlight in 2019 after the terror attacks. After that, there was a push from the Muslim community in Sri Lanka to "de-Arabisise" their culture and return to the Sri Lankan-style culture they used to practice prior to the 2000s. Also, the Muslim community that faced much of the hate was the Sri Lankan Moors. There is another Sri Lankan Muslim community known as the Sri Lankan Malays but because they didn't adopt Arab culture, they didn't face any backlash like the Moors did in the 2010s. So like Myanmar, there are layers to this and it needs to be understood from their perspective.
I am buddhist and I agree with one of your responses to one the of the comments " we should be suspicious of believing that we are closer to the 'true Buddhism' ". A study and findings on TRUE BUDDHISM along with how each sects of Buddhism have deviated from the true concepts/ides/philosophy of Buddhism would be great. And I would also recommend you to look into a pre-buddhism culture and religion of a community and it's role arising different sects of Buddhism, as most of the content that you have expressed are to do with culture/region of the community that has influenced their practice of Buddhism - which should not be the case. looking forward to you next videos
I think that buddhism is a religion. And I'm a westerner. AND I'M A BUDDHIST I think what you're building in the intro is based on a false premise that people are becoming buddhist, so they can practice a religion while not believing in a god. I, for example, didn't came into buddhism like that, I've never considered that aspect of it relevant in any way. Buddhism - especially Chan, the variation of buddhism that I and many people in East Asia practice, just isn't really about believing but rather - practice.
Atheists are right to defend Buddhism so vehemently. Buddhadharma does not express bloodlust in the way the old testament does. Sakyamuni does not hate in the way Yahweh does. The teachings of Buddha as presented in any Tripitaka do not support violence in the way the old testament does. Jesus, and all Abrahamic religions, unfortunately carry the baggage of Yahweh and the old testament. ""Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will - abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves." -MN21
I think you wildly oversimplified the huge landscape of Buddhism by pigeonholing it into religion. Certainly it can be religious but it isn’t always applied as one. It’s not necessarily a religion. Nobody is compelled to accept any supernatural claims to be a Buddhist. You can completely ignore such ancient claims and still be a Buddhist. The Buddha himself advocated for taking what you can and leaving what you can’t from his teaching. There is no supernatural claims that have to be accepted to agree with the core message: the four noble truths. Now compare to Christianity. You have to believe that Jesus magically removes your responsibility to pay for your own immoral thoughts and actions. That’s the unavoidable supernatural claim you have to always believe. So no, you can’t say Christianity is or can only be philosophically applied. It requires a disconnect from reality. A surrender of one’s moral responsibility.
Buddhism is a word. A concept. It's not pointing to one thing. It's many different things to many different people in many different contexts. Of course it's a religion. Of course it's a philosophy. I was hoping for a more sophisticated dive into the history of how Buddhism has been interpreted through the lens of a concept for 'religion' that grew out of Abrahamic traditions and the impact this has had culturally and philosophically among those who consider themselves Buddhist. Anybody who takes Buddhism seriously, whether or not they consider it a religion or philosophy, will be well aware of the metaphysical and supernatural elements intertwined throughout its history, leading me to believe this video wasn't made for those who take it seriously and was instead targeting those who have a friend who kept annoying them to try meditation.
Buddhism has some nice ideas/wisdom but that of itself doesn't exclude it from being a religion. It was noted here that all religions have a philosophical core 13:07 and I think they must do to be successful. You cannot separate Buddhism from the idea of karma and rebirth, even if you took away all the other ritualistic and supernatural aspects in Buddhism's various flavours.
You don't understand Buddhism. Yes, everything you said was true, and everything you quoted was written. But... as you have noticed --- there is not just one Buddhism... Teravada isn't the original version of Buddhism. The Four Truths are taken as the first teaching, when Sidarta said: There Is Suffering, in the park, when the youngest ascetic woke up hearing these words. After explaining this statement, Teravada takes nothing else as a teaching. This is the entire teaching. But then you go into the Four Baskets, which are an expulsion on the Four Truths. You find fantastic stories there indeed. But... The first thing Sidarta said upon becoming enlightened is: I am Archon. So some take this as the only teaching. So you see, it is not clear what was going on, because there are no historical records at all. Buddhism was first recorded some 200 years after Sidarta's death on an iron pillar that stands erect even today. So there is no record at all for at least 200 years. But if you go for the core meaning in all of those variants of Budhism, you will find the Cessation Of Thought. The death of the analysis. So how about: Sidarta didn't teach anything at all? There is no teaching. And that is the teaching... How about this: what if Sidarta saw that analytic mind is automatic and useless. That is the actual enlightening experience: the analytic mind stops, the synthetic mind takes over and makes everything One in a split second, and you see the truth, the truth beyond insane thoughts. Now... how do you explain this experience -- without thoughts? So you see -- we are already far, far beyond not only religion, but also beyond any philosophy as well. For -- what religion, what philosophy, if there are no words at all? Go experience it yourself, then you will know. Go do the "Who Am I?" intensiff. Then you will know how terribly far away from the actual enlightening experience all the Buddhist scriptures are. The closest to the experience is the Heart Sutra. Which destroys analytical logic to begin with.
I agree with u on most part as we can easily claim either cases of Buddhism being religion as well as not because in the past there has been cases of atheistic Buddhism that is extinct now.but one point about Buddhism being cuse of violence is unfounded. Buddist commiting crime doesn't necessarily mean Buddhism teaching violence. It's false equivalence
As a Christian, I feel obligated to defend my faith at least a little bit. The crusades for example, were completely justified historically speaking, ruclips.net/video/6aFkoX6g1fE/видео.html , but I will say a lot of the Catholics had no right at all to call themselves Christian. Jesus didn't overthrow the Romans for a reason; our battle is NOT against the forces of this world, but against the spiritual (Ephesians 6:12).
Love the channel? Want early access and other stuff? Check out the Patreon page
💸 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy
⌛ Timestamps:
00:00 Introduction
03:59 Why People Think Buddhism Isn’t a Religion
06:23 Theravadin Buddhism
08:43 Mahayana Buddhism
11:00 Buddhism and Violence
12:28 Final Thoughts
You are beautifully eloquent. Would you please do an episode on the relationship between Peter Keating and Howard Roark?
@@defenderofwisdom Thanks S! Tell you what I'll give the Fountainhead a go at some point this year and if I do I'm sure I'll end up making that episode
@@TheLivingPhilosophy But please do examine that relationship. The Fountainhead is gigantic, lots of value and lots to criticize. But this part of the story has a lot of value at least imo
Yes!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Buddhism is psychology
This video is so important. It was the perceived “secular” nature of Buddhism that attracted me to it. But it’s the spiritual aspects of buddhism and other dharma paths that have actually been the catalyst of growth for me. Buddhism is a religion, and that shouldn’t stop anyone from learning about it.
Difference is, Dharmics which includes Hindus and Buddhists do not worship creator God. Brahma is creator God and there is barely any temple for him. Brahma did his job in creation already, now who pervades on earth is preserver Vishnu. Hindus do worship Vishnu, and Shiva as destroyer. Buddha is called as 9th incarnation of preserver Vishnu. There is also creator Baka Brahma in Buddhism. Not worshipped and he is not above Buddha.
In contrast, Abrahamic religions belief is on one Creator God. God means only creator and sustainer.
Christians, muslims and jews worship that one creator God. So both Dharmic and Abrahamic way are totally different.
@@jasonbell6234 Buddha is the incarnation of Vishnu acording to Hinduism. Buddhists do not believe it, in Buddhism the Buddah is neither the creator nor the preserver of the universe. Also buddhists don't believe Brama created the universe, the universe came about through karma, Brahma just thinks he is creator because he was the first being that came to life on his dimenstion. There is neither a creator, nor a sustainer, nor a destroyer God in buddhism, there is only one could say a salvific "God" in pure land types of buddhism.
@@SrValeriolete There are many varieties of Buddhism, while what you describe does a good job expounding on mahayanna ( great ship) but does nothing to touch on the personal Buddha( the word eludes me at present) shoalin , or zen schools.
I personally have taken much from Mahayanna Buddhism, but consider myself of the zen school.
Also, I'm not sure I agree with the religion idea.
Religion: from the Latin Religari which means to hold back, or bind from progress.
The major tenant of Buddhism is to reduce suffering... no other religion does this
Anything “secular” is completely delusional and by extension you most likely are as well
@@jasonbell6234 yes they do bruh your just most likely a Western dude stuck in modernity trying to reconcile Western ideologies with eastern philosophies because you find them more fulfilling
A lot of the atheist I've encountered that follow some form of Buddhism will acknowledge the supernatural aspects of the religion. They simply claim you don't need to have an active belief in that aspect of Buddhism for the practical pieces of the religion to have a positive impact on ones life.
That's a completely fair point of view and is probably where I'd align myself it's just the other point of view that doesn't admit this difference that has irked me over the years
If by that they mean that they do believe in meditative practices/attainment of some sort of self realisation from said practices I believe there are religious sects that are specifically about that - maybe sramanic/nāstika schools of thought like carvaka (atheistic religious), Jainism (transtheistic religious), Ājīvika, yogic traditions would fit them better? Or maybe other non theistic religious sects, Buddhism itself is one of many heterodox schools of religious ancient thought and there were many interesting dialogues and debates encouraged between these schools
🚬
Could you make a video on Ajivika?
A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'...
My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE...
Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave.
The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist.
For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is.
Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment.
The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing.
The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence.
The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists.
Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’.
On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication.
For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything.
NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.
As a then-28-yr.-old atheist, I went to the Zen center in the city where I live (Texas city that isn’t Austin so there was only one Zen center) a few times. The meditation sessions on weekday evenings appealed to me… but then I went to a Saturday morning Zen session. It all unraveled for me there because of the chanting and singing and “dharma lesson” and other practices that made it very clear to me that I had simply stumbled into another religion.
Buddhism is a religion but it is most definitely a philosophy as well. And there's no point is separating the two because all religions deal with philosophical matters and have inspired philosophy. Every religion expounds philosophy. People who try to claim their religion is not a religion do so because they attach some negative value to that word and wish to distance themselves from it and you see this in several religions- how secular Buddhists try to stress the opposite of this video's title ("Buddhism is a philosophy, not religion"), some Hindus who say Hinduism is a "not a religion but a way of life" (okay but so is every other religion), some Christians who say Christianity is "not a religion but a relationship with Jesus" ( why is that said as if those two things exclude each other). All of these things are based on feeling there is something bad about something being a religion as if in order to try to appeal to modern materialists and the non-religious yet still wishing to hold and promote spiritual beliefs.
Orientalism is a real problem, thanks for addressing that. That seems to be a key message in this video and it's a good one.
I think most people of European descent treat Buddhism like you described Scientism in an earlier video. Where the worldview that evolves around science, and the ideologizing of science, enshrines science on a pedestal once occupied by Christianity and makes it a new kind of faith/ belief/ religion. I think that same risk also exists when people become aware of Buddhist literature and practices.
Also, to build on the message of orientalism, it's always important to consider the perspectives of both insiders and outsiders of a belief system (which grows and distorts around a founding figure over the course of millennia). In that sense there's something a bit problematic about a European philosopher (an outsider) quickly reducing a complex socio-cultural system to just 'a religion' that guides 'morality, community, meaning, and the ideal life'. There may also be something 'condescending and false' in that claim too. Probably better to report on the research and struggles of modern day Asian philosophers, and how they sift philosophical ideas from the history and heritage they grew up with.
As a person of European descent who's read a respectable amount of philosophy, I've never heard a compelling argument that cleanly extracts "pure" European philosophy from its historical context of Judeo-Christian thought. They're inextricably intertwined as far as I can see. A muddy swamp we get to play in. But I'm always searching for a more compelling argument.
All that being said, the quick parallel with the idea of 'Christianity as Platonism for the masses' from Nietzsche, and the recognition that philosophical ideas can be found within most religious systems, seemed like an interesting thread to pull on in an investigation of current day Asian philosophy...
Overall it feels like this very broad topic is a bit more complex than a 15 minute internet video can handle. When you compare the vast scope of this video to another video with a very narrow scope like 'what did Nietzsche mean by the statement, God is dead'. You can see how this video will have a hard time supporting the claim it makes.
True
The core Buddha teaching, The Dhammapada starts out, "All that we are is the result of what we have thought. It is founded in and based on our thoughts." That is Psychology nested in the verbiage of Philosophy. Religion is a supernatural carrier shell for a deeper mental truth that the seeker must resolve in their own mind. Buddhism, as lived by people who believe in reincarnation, have not read the Dhammapada.
Verse 6. "The world does not know that we must all come to an end here; but those who know it, their quarrels cease at once."
It is both a philosophy and a religion. It depends on how you use it. But 'religion' is a big umbrella. Christianity is a religion. Do those look the same to you? One of those turns life over to perceived supernatural. One takes charge of their life. It's like asking someone where they come from and they say, Earth. That's religion.
They aren't the same when they are put into practice. Abrahamic material is irresponsible and closed minded. It also steers the masses of sheep. It is based in fear. It traps one. Buddhism releases one. It's like putting olive oil and motor oil on the same table for the salad.
Great reality check. Can you cover Schopenhauer sometime? He seemed to develop a secular metaphysics that parallels eastern religions and is pretty airtight IMO. Also very influential to me personally so your take would be very intriguing.
Thanks Josh. I'll add Schopy to the list. He's never someone that I read deeply for some reason but would love to do more of a deep dive on him so I like the sound of this one
It depends on how you interpret scripture. Who knows how much is inauthentic ?
Theravāda Buddhism’s view on doubt is largely like Zen’s philosophy, do not believe in it unless it has worked for you, and to truly know, you must meditate for that.
To reiterate, a lot of scripture may be inauthentic especially considering the oral transmission and recent study of the Tipitaka. The astrology likely wasn’t taught by the historical Buddha, for instance.
That is why it is better to practice for yourself rather than rely on suttas. You act like people are simply discarding the suttas but rather people do not consider them as true, or interpret them as literally as yourself.
Basically, you can view it as a philosophy or a religion, it depends on how you interpret it and practice it. It can be a religion with superpowers or s simple manual to overcome duhkha.
As mentioned by another here, Siddhattha Gotama was not the first Buddha, which means you probably didn’t study it that thoroughly.
All religions have had some sort of extremism, that does not mean
Imperial Japan was guided by State Shinto, not Zen Buddhism. That's why State Shinto was abolished through a decree issued by the the Allied forces that were occupying Japan at the time.
I have seen some of your videos, and like your perspectives a lot. Here, as I understood, you argue against seeing Buddhismus as outside of the category of "religions". And you argue against cherry-picking from it in order to claim "it" being free from the obscuring effects, other religions can be found guilty of. I have an university degree and trust the scientific method in advanding our knowledge of the world. A question I don't first address to science, is: how to best live the limited life I have. Secular Buddhism seems to have borrowed some practical tools from Eastern Buddhism to help with personal development, while not importing together with it any speculative and/or mystical explanantion of the world. This is good, in my view, but I personally wanted to choose an "authentic" tradition of practice, which meant for me, one which already had been passed on for a while. This excluded schools depending on a recent founding teacher, and movements experimenting and blending from here and there. My personal choice became Soto Zen, the lineage of Dogen Zenji, Kodo Sawaki, and Master Deshimaru in Europe. Dogens writings provide teachings on how to develop the perception of the self and of the nature of reality. But is offers nothing to believe in, only your own experience while practicing aimless collection of the mind in the living posture of a breathing Buddha. This Soto Zen tradtion is a rather non-religious line of tradition within Buddhism/Taoist traditions, you might be willing to concede. Is it a Philosophy, instead? Its texts can be discussed as such, but central to it is the personal practice with an experienced teacher. Than it is neither a Philosophy nor a religion, you might say. But it is a path of continouisly seeking to realize the best way to live the limited life we have. Do you have a category for it?
I love the approach! Great video, as always.
But isn't this about core teachings of Buddha being changed and adapted to the lands and cultures it gets implemented in? Buddha's teachings were philosophical, but human nature and needs turned it into a religion, even though Buddha fought hard against dogmatism in his lifetime.
Philosophy and religion used to be the same, then the west created that Seperation.
In the east, it was never separated. That’s why people view it as a philosophy than just a religion.
"Is Buddhism a religion or philosophy?"
This is a koan. There is no right answer to a koan. It's not an exam question.
I liked the history and context you offered. However you have said nothing about your personal experience of the subject and lots about your concepts. Perhaps it's inevitable that you drew absolute (dry intellectual) conclusions. This stimulated some interesting thinking and left my heart untouched.
❤
Great commentary!
Thanks Tarin!
It's funny that Westerners view Abrahamic religions as mundane and familiar while viewing Buddhism as mystical and foreign. In reality, Abraham was Middle Eastern, and the Abrahamic religions belong to us Middle Easterners. Ironically, Buddhism was born of out of Hinduism, a version of the Indo-European religion whose other versions all your pre-Christian European ancestors followed. The Buddha himself was Indo-European, and far more closely related to White people than anyone in the Bible (save the few European or Persian peoples that are mentioned in it).
That's Pali, not peli 😅 of course, there is the phrase, the milk of the lioness will break the unready cup. It has many forms, but it points out that some elements of the teaching are not for the unprepared mind. The esoteric elements are parr and parcel of the path
Btw did u knew tht Marcus Aurelious the stoic also believed in not just god, but the idea tht there is god in every individual, he also beleived in rebirth & the cyclical nature of the creation & destruction of universe, would u say tht stoicism then is a religion too?
Interesting question. What differs a religion from a philosophy?
@MrNitishhhhhh sounds like Marcus was an pantheist or pandeist of the sorts
Another great vid! But.. is the discord channel comming? Haha
Lenie! Funnily enough I was only thinking of you this week because discord crossed my mind yet again. I promise that within the next week I will at last create the channel. I'll reply to this comment with a link when it's done. Its time to take the plunge into a new unknown!
@Kenji Oooh that would be absolutely cracking Kenji! I have next to no experience with it so a guide would be much appreciated. Tell you what I'll reply to your comment as well once I've done it and if you have time I'd love your tuppence on how to proceed with it
Lenie @Kenji it is done! I have created but it is a completely empty thing any input you have on how to proceed would be much appreciated here's the link discord.gg/dVXfSKAJ
As a former (Theravadha) Buddhist, I agree with these arguments.
This is a thought provoking video because I like to look at perspectives of Christianity as philosophy because I'm not religious and I also feel the same for Buddhism And even Thelema And many other customs and traditions based on moral And ethical perspectives That have transformed into something called religion.
That's why I'm glad to have been baptized many times and and cried with many people on many altars and signed many different papers and had head churches accept me.
..... When you are a philosophying person you and you are too holy for religion And also the devil to much of the world.
It's a good place to be.
Rational atheists might be the worst.
And I was an atheist for 30 years. 🤣
Another great vid!
Hahaha and I of course did my own share of time as well I guess that's why I'm more stern with it because there's a sternness with ways I used to see the world but moved away from
@@TheLivingPhilosophy If you are not a rationalist atheist then what are you? Do you have a video on such a topic?
@@ptadisbander7959 he means socialist
my 5 atheist friends all arebrown in america make over 300k, what hippie nonsense you bringing
I call BS on this. You can call any concept anything you want to if you change the definition of the words you use. Define religion. If you define religion as a belief in a creator God who created souls and has a vested interest in those souls and created a heaven and hell for the eventual judgment of those souls, then Buddhism is not a religion. In Buddhsim there is no God and no souls, therefore no punishment or reward to an eternal heaven or hell - so what criteria makes Buddhism a religion? What constitutes "miracles" are in the eye of the beholder. The fact that enlightened beings can exhibit "miraculous" behavior isn't an indication that Buddhism is a religion - they aren't using any sort of divine godly power to this. Its an indication that you don't fully understand Buddhism more likely. In the words of Arthur C. Clarke - "any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic". Buddhism could be considered a technology of mind - as we strip away limiting beliefs the normal powers available to all sentient beings become manifest. There isn't even really life or death in Buddhism - there is just an unending string of experiences based on the karma of the experiencer.
Hi I'm really enjoying this channel. However I would not nominate this as one of your stronger videos. As a practicing Buddhist Modernist and rather agnostic and open metaphysical naturalist (and amateur philosopher) my response to the titular question would be it depends. What defines a philosophy, a religion, and what is the proper characterization of Buddhism which we seek to categorize are open questions and can't be meaningfully addressed in the space of a 15 min video, or its comment section. As such I found the discussion too reductive for my taste.
I really appreciate the feedback Eric especially in the spirit it was offered. In hindsight I can see I should have been clearer with my target in the video and it seems the best way of doing that would have been with a better definition of my terms. There's a specific energy of self-aggrandisement that I was looking to critique but I fear some people think that I was criticising Buddhism itself. I guess the term religion really has become that negatively soaked in connotations and also the polemical tone probably didn't help. Anyway once again I'm a lover of good faith feedback so I really appreciate your feedback and the way you delivered it
I'm just seeing you using a lot of buzzword to make yourself seem smarter. Tone down that ego will you.
This modern snark is an anglophone peculiarity. I blame publishing contraints and incentives like Reddit moderation and Bill Nye's big bucks. In my culture we have magical realism: realistic fantasy and fantastic contemplation of the real. We have open ghost stories. Our graveyards have flare and open superstition personally intimately held without evangelical canon. Our deer dancer seal of Sonora is himself a mendicant ascetic despite his animist aesthetics. It was the Indian woo woo sincerity that attracted me to Buddhism. Colombus called the natives Indios after all. An apt comparison I embrace with joy. As a Mexican European/Native American we are a lot like Indians who are Aryan/Dravidians always socially jabbing that with snobby little prejudices but can put said snobbery away for grounded sentiment. A mendicant lives austerely far from snobbery and other impermanent conditioned things. Siddhartha lived in ancient Gandhara. I first read of these things in a building in Mexico called the Gandara hotel. My life is a big Spanish Sanskrit pun. Buddha criticized the authority of the vedas, their rites, their curriculum for the arising of phenomenon for the consciousness of the path. He was a reformer. I have no need to pick up his reincarnation framework because I have no such background or reason to believe in such but just about everything else lines up adds up checks out in our shared time frames. From the other side of the world on the same band
Abrazos cortez
❤
Hugs from the big armpit of Mexico 🇲🇽
Buddha said that he wasn't a philosopher. He told people what he had discovered and invited them to try it for themselves. He was a teacher, which is needed.
This is a very important video. I believe at least in the west, Buddhism has been bastardized by the bourgeoisie (not in the Marxist context) and has since been used for meditation and nothing else, eliminating all the aspects of Buddhism that would go against their secular search for peace of mind: the concept of reincarnation etc. Seems that the Buddhism has been stripped down to not only the level of philosophy but to the level of self help.
‘The rich exotiscm of religious imagery serves as a grounding for morality and community and provides a rich vein of meaning that orients its adherents towards a certain conception of an ideal life’….. this made me smile, beautiful articulation sir.
Hahaha thanks Marcus
Buddha said "we are our own saviour " which is self
realization
well, he didnt say that but the sentiment is correct
Wait till this guy hears about Tibetan Buddhism.
No, but seriously though, as a Theravadin Buddhist I feel that on the scale between “Philosophy” and “Religion”, Vajrayana Buddhism shifts more towards the religious end. I can understand why people could argue why Buddhism is purely a religion based on its esoteric and spiritual ritualistic practices, to the point that a parallel towards the Abrahamic religions could be made.
For my sect of Theravada, personally I don’t fully dismiss the religious supernatural aspect of Buddhism, but more so placed more emphasis on the philosophical aspect of it. In my opinion, Siddhartha would’ve preferred me to just sit down meditate and practice the 8 fold path rather than waste my time dwelling on the supernaturals that is encapsulated in the Pali Canon. To me, the supernatural is just an aspect of Buddhism that shouldn’t be fully dismissed as a whole but should also not be emphasised as the core of the religion.
To me, it sits on somewhere in the middle between a true philosophy and a true religion. I can easily give reasons on why Buddhism is a philosophy just as giving counter arguments to why it is a religion. I obviously don’t agree with the videos title as it fully dismisses the philosophical aspects and reduces to a purely religious ideology. I get why he’s doing it though. Putting a more “extreme” statement as the title targets the more “hypocritical” audience who fully neglects all supernatural aspects of Buddhism and reduces it to a whole “scientific” philosophy, and therefore concludes it is better than the Abrahamic religions in this regards.
Obviously, I have my biases and feels that the world would be a slightly better place if we have more Buddhists, therefore dare I say it’s “better” than other religions, but it wouldn’t be on the basis that my religion is “purely philosophical” and “scientific” and “realistic” (and therefore better), but more so because Buddhism has a better and a more greater emphasis on pragmatic philosophical ideologies than the rest, and have a refined philosophical way of life towards non violence that I am personally biased towards based on my life experiences.
But at the end of the day, I’m just one guy out of 8 billion. Who really cares what I think. I’ll be glad if one person reads my comment this far. I’m not gonna force my religious views on anyone. That’s just morally wrong in my opinion and everyone should have the freedom to choose what religion to believe in, if any. I’m an advocate of critical thinking and not blindly following. As a wise philosopher once said (paraphrased):
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it, rumoured by many, written in your religious books, passed down by tradition, or enforced by the authority of teachers and elders, but believe it only after observation, careful analysis, critical thinking” -Siddhartha Gautama, Kamala Sutta (the real quote is different from that, I just wrote what I remembered from the top of my head, so I apologise for that)
Thanks for reading ❤
I'd say Mahayana too. Consider Pure Land Buddhism and Nam myōhō renge kyō. Those are the two I know of, there might be more.
I feel like they're easier to understand though. Vajrayana seems too complicated and esoteric with its concept of Tantra.
To ask the teacher Siddhartha this type of question would be given a response note different than self or no self, soul or no soul. A silent response that is fitted for the follower of the middle way.
Background: I was raised conservative protestant Christian. converted to Buddhism, slowly realized that I am an atheist but still continue to meditate and attend temple services.
My priest asserts that Buddhism underwent huge changes as it was transmitted from India to China, Korea and Japan, and is undergoing changes of equal or greater magnitude as it takes root in the Americas. (He is an ordained monk of the Seon school, Chogye order, from Korea.)
Anyways, I enjoyed this video.
Interesting stuff Arno!
@@thotslayer9914 I practiced a form of personal philosophic Christianity. It could be summed up as, "Even if Jesus was only character in a myth, He is still a worthy person to emulate."
I have enjoyed the results. It made me a more forgiving person, lead to a relatively peaceful life and has even led to unexpected mystical experiences.
But the Tibetans say they practise the original as received from India, at least according to one source.
While I agree with your overall argument, I think it is a little inaccurate to connect Mahayana in China and Japan to Tibet. Mahayana actually arrived in China from Central Asia. Tibetan Buddhism mostly remained on the plateau before spreading north into Mongolia in the 16th century. It is sometimes referred to as Vajrayana to distinguish it from Mahayana.
Very true separate migrations for sure I should have been more clear with that
A really well researched video with an important message! It is popular to regard the Bible and the religions associated with it as outdated. But often these people have never even got in contact with theology.
I think many will be amazed at how deeply and rationally the old writings have always been dealt with. Regardless, it is also not a sign of great intellect to judge a religion on its compatibility with atheism. Stories of miracles and magic have been part of human existence since the dawn of time. They help us to understand ourselves better, regardless of what physics says about it.
That being said, Christianity has gradually merged with philosophy over time, but the scholarly engagement with Buddhism is new.
Thanks Tani! And I agree that there is an importance to the stories of miracle and magic. Taking religion as a fount of delusion or as a virus makes it easy to dismiss but by reappraising it we might be able to overcome the initial repelling force and redevelop our curiosity to undersand it at a different level
It’s not just belief. Having faith is good but Buddhism is about direct insight. Middle way.
@@jasonbell6234 Also Christiansm but you never in your life went to read about that, and you don't know about those things never read about. Look for almost all of ortodox christiansm, hesichasm, etc. Abrahmic religions are as contemplatives and practical as Buddhism, which is a mere rewriting of hinduism for not brahamanic families.
A number of scholars have put forth arguments that Christianity is largely a result of Jewish thought coming into contact with Greek philosophers and Greek religions.
Yahweh basically grew a soft spot for Plato , Aristotle , Heraclitus, Adonis, and Achilles.
Excellent episode. Finally someone gets it straight about Buddhism, but more than that, calls out the current pop-belief system for its biases. Will we always just react to our culture’s old inequities, or will we understand our past, and thereby ourselves in the process. This episode is one step toward that possibility.
Thank you!
Thanks Joy! It's something that was rubbing me up the wrong way I've been questioning whether I was too polemical with it but it's been very interesting to read the comments and to see that people debating me are often doing so from two opposite positions either too little nuance of Buddhism or else defending secular Buddhism so I've been feeling more confident that I took a good stance and that maybe I just needed to communicate the point better. Very interesting to see the reactions!
Calling oneself a Buddhist without belief in karma and rebirth is like calling oneself a Christian/Muslim without a belief in a creator god and end times.
It is possible to be such, discarding unappealing aspects, if one is born into the tradition, but doesn't make a whole lot of sense for those not born into those traditions.
I practiced a sort of personal philosophic Christianity for years. Even if Jesus was only a character from a myth, I still find Him to be one of the best moral paragons to emulate. The fact that I was biased by much more familiar with various traditions of Christian lore and philosophy my whole life is acknowledged.
@@jackalope2302 Someone born into a Buddhist tradition might say exactly the same about Gautama Buddha.
@@conscious_being exactly. I was just pointing out that in this possible seeing that I do it
@Sky Gardener "External trappings" of Buddhism are "non-essential" add ons? It is a pity the Buddha wasn't as clever as you are: going on and on about Nirvana! 🙄
@Sky Gardener You seem to be itching to expound your "knowledge" of Buddhism. I am not particularly interested.
Yes, unlike the Abrahamic traditions, faith/belief plays no role in Buddhism for the outcome. It is one's actions that determine the outcome. However, the outcome towards which the practice is supposed to lead is Nirvana: ending the cycle of birth and death. Thus the practice is underpinned by an acceptance of karma and rebirth. Since they can't be empirically verified, I called it a belief.
As someone with buddhist influences and valuing the wisdom of siddharta, you hit the nail on the head my concerns with these (for a lack of a better word) pseudo intellectual hippies over glorifying buddhism.
Very interesting video to watch, and it really made me aware of a potential pitfall in my understanding of Buddhism.
Real easy thing here. Buddhism is not a religion based on the idea it has no gods. Something or someone has to be worshiped for it to be a religion. And Buddha himself says do not worship me as a god. For I am just a man and this is how I did it. The journey is different for everyone but just because I was the first does not make me any better than that of a man who is starting. Good try. But because of these two things. It's a teaching not a religion. And calling it a religion is insulting Buddha himself.
False. Lord Buddha was not simple man. He was supreme lord. He went through countless cycles of life to be born as Buddha.
@williams642009 your definition of religion is not universally accepted by most scholars
Fantastic video! Really well done. Your balance of criticism and respect is impressive! It's such a breath of fresh air to listen to an argument which doesn't end in the condemnation of an entire school of thought!
Thanks a million Jack that's exactly what I am going for! I was a bit concerned with this one that I may have been a bit harsh towards the secular atheist position here but none of us are perfect eh!
LITERALLY fantastic. 🤪
Neither a condemantion nor the kind of praise that actually amputates and distorts it completely
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Your blunt treatment was accompanied by much nuance and was much appreciated. Well done.
I love your channel! You’re doing such an awesome job covering such a complicated subject as philosophy and representing it in such an easily digestible fashion. On a side note, I think it would be fair to say that rationality can only get you so far, at some point you need to embrace the irrationality before it consumes you, as it did Nietzsche. Just food for thought! Keep up the great work!
I've always regarded myself as an atheist or non-religious believer. But I have just come to the realization that I'm essentially a Buddhist, for most of my life I've followed the teachings of Buddha without even realizing it, though I don't believe in the supernatural beings or weird supernatural forces. I dedicate 1 hour of my day to meditate, to follow the 4 pillars of Buddhism in some way.
you're not actually, a buddhist. Buddhism requires you to believe in nirvana, in samsara, in the soul self (immaterial being), which atheism basically discards whole sale. As an atheist or materialist, there is no reason to follow teachings, as it entails the lack of prescriptive reason or morality as a whole. Did you even watch the video?
@@_H8ed_ Maybe they just disagree with the video 🙂
@none1248 What about hungry ghosts, or the idea of the 5/6 paths which are delineated in the first buddhist texts. Additionally, you are asserting that that 1 book is the true encapsulation of early buddhism when in reality numerous sects would disagree. Of course you can interpret things as being materialistically tethered yet doctrine disagrees. Buddha believed in the concept of deva, which you can argue is an analogy for a more material thing, but that would be fringe compared to the vast majority of what scholars say. Nirvana and samsara are not just machinations of a mechanical mind of particles and instead the result of immaterial accumulation of good karma across lives.
@none1248It still runs contrary to modern materialism, which holds on to binaries of being and nonbeing.
@@_H8ed_ buddhism explicitly states not-self, anatta
All the Buddha said " Don't follow blind belief, don't even believe the Buddha, but verify his words yourself, see the truth yourself." The Buddhas don't ask you to believe.
@@chrisplaysdrums09 but it still stands
I think you're right for the most part but I think the example at 6:55 is a poor one because this could *definitely* be read in a less literal way.
The popular western approach to Buddhism is arguably a strange mix of both positive orientalism (look how completely different and more enlightened Eastern thought is) and negative orientalism. (look at how those people in historically Buddhist counties have distorted it with their backwards ways)
Ah! What a concise formulation of it! I absolutely love it you've hit the nail on the head in two sentences that I was searching for
@@TheLivingPhilosophyWhy, thank you! I cannot help but feel honored to receive such a response.
@@johnweber4577 Not at all John thank you for the insightful gem
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thanks again, man! And keep up the good work!
As it is often said, one of the more consistent features of religion is that it splits. The comment that secular Buddhism claiming it is the distilled essence of what was intended to be Buddhism is insulting to the history and full conceptualization for Buddhism that came before, is not an unusual circumstance. It resembles the transition from Catholicism into protestantism. Which suggests you could make the same claim about protestantism against Catholicism. Yet, I don't think it would be easily interpreted this way today. Even though I agree.
Ah now that's a very good analogy. I guess it's a great way to found a new sect - by claiming to have found the "real" truth
4:26 to say that Siddharta was the first Buddha clearly shows that the person needs to study way deeper into Buddhism before write comment about it.
Buddha was the first Buddha on this earth
@@jamesstevenson7725 no He's not.
@@jamesstevenson7725According to buddhism, there are several buddhas and siddharta was not the first one. There is even claimed that in future times there will come another one, buddha maitreya. Some will say, that everyone can be a buddha, hence the "buddha nature" in every being.
A standard doctrine in all schools of Buddhism is the “Seven Past Buddhas” who appeared in the current era, not to mention the many many more. They are:
Vipaśyin
Śikhin
Viśvabhū
Krakucchanda
Kanakamuni
Kāśyapa
Śākyamuni (who was the founder of our current dispensation)
People practice Buddhism don't care about it's a philosophy or religion, they practice it because it's practical for life.
I think both religion and philosophy are two sides of the same coin and both are on the path to wisdom rightly. Great Video!
Ah and there's a perspective I quite like
Der Bücherwurm. Two different ways of looking at wisdom with their own methodologies
@@TheLivingPhilosophy check out john the revelator or rabbis in dmt
Thanks for this video. I'm what you may call a traditional Buddhist convert. And, as much as I respect and learn with secular Buddhists, I have always felt uneasy with how people tend to ignore and devalue the religious aspects of our tradition. I think that, even if one doesn't have a belief of supernatural aspects of Buddhism, they shouldn't act like they understand more of Buddha's teachings than the people who are maintaining said teachings in traditional environments. I believe things would be better if we could see things as they are and treat each other with respect.
1:46 ummmm....Buddhism is a "non-theistic religion", not atheistic. because there are deities within buddhism. But they are not regarded as being important to the buddha's teachings.
Non-theism is not synonymous with atheism, because it doesn't reject the existence of gods completely. But rather it just remains neutral on their existence.
3:33 ummm....That's not true, because not all evils were done in the name of religion. There are plenty of evil acts that were committed by non-religious people as well. So let's not make hasty generalizations.
Buddhism is not a religion because Buddhism is a way of life towards nirvana-
that blessed state of heavenly calm obtained by expiation.
Those poor muslims, everywhere they go they just can't help but get picked on by other religions. Don't people know that Islam is the religion of peace? 😂
Buddhist consciousness-science doesn’t concern itself with jewish relationships with Annunaki angry sky-gods.
Rather, the methods to end suffering and realize the 4-noble truths, discover the origin and root of consciousness…. and so much more
That just depends on your definition of philosophy. I benefit greatly from the Buddha's teaching and have No so called spiritual beliefs
So much condescension in this video - quite ironic
Correction: It's actually both a religion (although not as organized as most larger religions, like Christianity) and a philosophy/way of thinking.
2:24 "Buddhism is a cornucopia of supernatural delights." Hearing that gave me hearty laugh; something I rarely experience. 😆
I have experienced much supernatural delight in meditation and have even come to know and experience what some may call God or a creative source.
The Buddha did not say that he can LITERALLY WALK THROUGH WALLS OR WALK ON WATER. Only the naive take it literally. By saying that the enlightened ones can walk through walls he meant that the enlightened ones cannot be imprisoned in walls as they are not affected by sorrow of being trapped. For the enlightened mind being free to walk in a vast garden and being confined in a closed space would be the same as he or she is not associating positive or negative emotions with either.
Amazing. U really know how to articulate your thoughts so that the mind arrives to the desired meaning of the message expressed
Haha I'm not sure about that but thank you for the kind words Gabriel!
I don't think religions are by themselves promoting violence, it is only the followers and practitioners who are extensions of the religions, those who twist the true intentions of their respective religions, who were therefore contributing to the violence.
Very true. I too disagree with the violence part. Just because some of the modern monks acted out of violence due to their personal reasons, it doesn't mean that the Buddhist teachings are based on violence. In fact it is the far opposite of that. Any monk or practitioner acting in that manner has gone astray from the path that had been taught by the Buddha. If the teachings have nothing to do with it, then the blame for the violence goes strictly to the individuals engaging in them, and not the philosophy as a whole.
If your a purist and dogmatic, you want to keep the religion pure and true, if your open minded and are tropiphilic, that is thriving on change and uncertainty, you embrace secular buddhism.
Like Bruce Lee said, "absorb what is useful, discard what is useless and add what is uniquely your own"...
Ah, I'm torn. Buddhism can be practiced as a religion, but it doesn't have to be, whereas Christianity, for example, requires you believe Jesus is the Christ. Big difference.
No there are certain actual things you have to believe in
@@miguelatkinson You have to believe in non-self, that's basically it. That's physicalism.
No, Christianity can also be practised like a philosphy. There are Christians who don't believe that Jesus is The Son of God and just follow his teachings. I think they are called non-trinitarians, correct me if I am wrong.
@@Ocean_Man_i think in the end any religion could be followed like a philosophy. And maybe philosophy, if followed and believed too much, could readily be made into “religion” (which we call ideology, like communism)
@@acex222 lol that's not it. You also have to believe in rebirth, more specifically the cycle of rebirth known as samsara. The ultimate goal of Buddhism is to achieve nirvana, which is the cessation of samsara. So you cannot be a Buddhist unless you believe in rebirth. And that's just the base minimum. Pretty much every tradition would also require you to believe in devas ("god-like figures"), different levels of heaven and hell, other heavenly figures and other mythical events like the Buddha remembering his past lives or being able to speak just after birth or having a miraculous birth and so on.
I think the reason why people say it's a philosophy is because it's ideologically acceptable for a buddhist to not believe in a god.
This analysis of Buddhism ignores its fundamental Enlightenment thesis and thus its transcendental basis and goal in favour of a mere body-based moral interpretation. Nirvana is not a psychological state but a condition if egoless perfect existence that ends the cycle of births and deaths.
Sadly, the ones who really need to hear this probably won't. It is the same problem with flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers...unassailable beliefs and echo chambers. Psychology/Sociology of humans really pictures a sobering view of the whole debacle.
Along similar lines, I have read (and know one) secular intellectuals who call themselves Christian who reject all the supernatural aspects of the Bible entirely, but most egregiously, they reject the resurrection of Christ. Makes me want to tear my hair out.
The one I know is a philosophy professor who rejects supernaturalism but calls himself a "Christian Buddhist."
Great video as usual. I get my Buddhism from Chinese movies amazing CGI, "Monkey" is an a great story with tons of insight, Gods, humor and a Buddhist monk, even the Japanese TV version from the 80s was a good watch. Probably has little to do with the real thing, but such is life.
Haha so it goes nicholas so it goes
I only know this, Buddhism is the only religion that works when practiced.
But I am a Buddhist. Buddhism IS a traditional religion. Buddhism is both a philosophy AND a religion. However, its methodology may be applied by atheists, agnostics, or ANY religionist. Moreover, your critique is a little odd, because Buddhism has so many branches and sects - far more than Christianity (you spoke of only two) . Some of them are more religious than others, while others are deeply philosophical. I am a religious Buddhist - though I can argue it philosophically, too.
No. Buddhism is the science of Consciousness WISDOM and the essence of all Phenomenal existence and myriad of energy and matter with all its innumerable manifestations/ permutations and the instructions on how to investigate and find out for YOUR OWN SELF
PS- Buddhism has no dogma therefore it is not a true religion
Nice video! It's definitely one thing to take certain insights from Buddhism and apply them to your secular life, but it's another thing to (possibly purposefully) misrepresent Buddhism and ignore the religious side. It makes me think of how in Daoism some people may distinguish between philosophical Daoism and religious Daoism. Although that distinction is made, I don't think the philosophical Daoists would pretend the religious Daoists don't exist and vice versa.
Thanks friend! Interesting point about the Daoists. I would be curious to know more about the contemporary dynamics of that religion. I've read the Tao te Ching I don't know how many times but my knowledge of the broader scholarly landscape and the cultural landscape of it is non-existent
your channel is so fckn sick
Hahaha thank you!
Buddhism may not be a Philosophy, BUT IT IS 10 TIMES MORE PHILOSOPHICAL IN NATURE COMPARED TO ABRAHMIC RELIGIONS ! And this is fact. I have explored both.
Buddhism is actually psychology.
@@user-Void-Star It sure is the religion/religious philosophy that explores Psychology and explains it more than any other.
@@dravidamonkey4253 if you go with the western definition of religion then Buddhism is not a religion because Buddhism doesn't agree with the Creator God theory. Buddhism believe we are all creator of this time and space by our cause and condition.
@@user-Void-Star I agree. But even if someone tries to find a way to label Buddhism as a religion (like the creator of this video) it still will be undoubtedly the MOST PHILOSOPHICAL religion of all religions.
@@user-Void-Star many religious philosophies that don’t believe in creator gods are still classified religious. In fact, 3 out of the 6 main schools of thought in Hinduism do not believe in a creator god and are non theistic, atheistic or agnostic
If the goal of philosophy is to reach Truth, then siddartha came closer than any ‘philosopher’ and and gave a path to reach the same Truth. Buddhism also gives us a way to make sense of the universe and inquiries into nature of reality. But no doubt the majority of his followers have resorted to dogmatism and it is dogmatism that makes it a religion and not a philosophy.
Correct, but philosophy is dead now, we now moved to science.
@@honor9lite1337 scientific thinking is merely based on empiricism and philosophical inquiry proves the fallacy of empiricism as a complete truth as there are too many rational contradictions in this way of approaching truth that it cannot resolve.
@@honor9lite1337 That's simply not true. We don't use philosophy to interrogate nature for its secrets anymore, but there's a whole lot more to philosophy than what science covers; in fact, philosophy is the thing that gives the scientific method its power. As long as we talk about the boundaries of things like morality, reason, beauty, and thought, philosophy has a place in society.
I remember earnestly trying to correct someone that buddhism wasn't an example of a completely peaceful religion & I swear to everything I love it would have been less painful banging my head against a wall for I truly understood the meaning of the "no true scotsman" fallacy that day. All these mental gymnastics from a white dude who couldn't even find majority buddhist countries on a map!!
idk what peaceful religion means although yes it is pacifist
Just too many errors in this to set out but:
The things you refer to as buddhism are indeed markers of a religion. The Pali canon refers to a pre-scientific world view which has an axial age religious metaphysics. But it would be wrong to think that the buddha's aim was to teach that metaphysics. Rather this was just the context of contemporary belief in which he set his original teaching.
Essentially the buddha taught a path (the dharma) by which consciouness may be transformed.
The means by which the path is accessed is meditation. This is an advanced skill which some (but not all) buddhist traditions have kept alive.
The western buddhism that you disparage, is an effort to extract the "psycho-technology" of buddhism from the religious metaphysics that surrounded it in the pre-scientific cultures in which it thereafter developed.
This developing practice is not a religion in the western sense of a system of "belief". Nor is it just a philosophy in the modern western sense of a body of knowledge about the world - although practice certainly does confer an experiential understanding of cognition.
So I think you have mistaken the historical context for the essence.
As to the practice itself, it is a process and you just have to do it. It requires an introspective skill and persistence. It is substantially the red pill antidote to delusion. With the proliferation of mindfulness classes, the western world seems to be full of people who sucked on the red pill for a few months, spat it out and gave up, claiming blue pill superiority. But this is just how anything radical gets processed when it goes mainstream.
There is a considerable debate about how much of the Pali canon reflects the actual teachings of the buddha. At its core, in my view, that debate is really about protecting the status of the buddha as a special class omniscient being. But that approach is either theistic or just an effort at dipolmacy. The buddha knew little if anything that a modern 16 year old science student knows about cosmology. Rather his knowledge was the working of the mind. So it is entirely legitimate to discard the earlier metaphysics and focus on the path itself. It is odd that you haven't said anything about that path.
I'll happily allow the value of the psycho-technology and support the use of it in a broader context than the historical sects of Buddhism.
What I watned to adress with this video however is what Buddhism is. Historically it is a religion. We can talk about the what the Buddha may or may not have elieved but it would be pure hubris to suggest that we are closer to understnaing the Buddha today as secularists than two and a half thousand years of Buddhists are. The man by all accounts believed in rebirth. Every Buddhist sect holds onto the Jataka tales of the stories of his rebirths. Enlightenment then does not seem to him to have been the work of a single lifetime but this was the Buddha's primary concern. Separation out the psycho-technology and teaching it to people to help them gain insight into their lives is valuable and worthwhile but to say that this is Buddhism is just misguided. I would say that historically you can't have the Buddha without the metaphysics. You can separate the process and affirm its value but that is a long sight from saying that this is the Buddha's true teaching
The term Buddhism as you use it is a social phenomenon. But as zen practioners are fond of stating, "if you meet the buddha on the road, kill him". The buddha taught the dharma and the real question here is whether the supernatural elements to be found in buddhist texts are necessary to it. If they are, your critique has to say why. Attempting to prove a proposition simply referring to their widespread use is if course, a logical fallacy.
The debate that this touches on goes back to the earliest days of the teaching, a bit like gnosis in christianity, which also touched on the issue of the divinity of Jesus, and of course the institutions won out, as they always do, because their technique is power, not liberation.
So I think what you are actually saying is that buddhist institutions retain this supernatural legacy. But then you specifically criticise western trends, and Stephen Batchelor particular, warning people that if they are getting involved in"buddhism" this is necessarily religious(supernatural/unscientific).
I think this just doesn't understand what is going on and misses all the neuroscience and therepeutic investigations that have gone on with respect to dharma practices.
It is right however that there is a tension between these older buddhist instititutions and the science culture of the west.
The benefit of your point is that people should be wary of falling into superstition. The downside of the absolutist stance that you take is that people who need this path are deterred from investigating it and just remain in the Baudrillard type illusion of modern culture.
@@austinthornton3407 thanks for the deep engagement Austin you make some good points. I if nothing else want to make people suspicious of people claiming that the "true" buddhism has been rediscovered by a culture on the other side of the world two and a halfthousand years later. That seems dangerously close to arrogance (not necessarily making it a false claim but certainly one to be very careful in making).
My point isn't merely about institutions. I would argue that Buddhism doesn't work without rebirth. As long as Nirvana is the end goal which I'm assuming it still is in the Secular Buddhist tradition (if it isn't then it's not Buddhism as far as I can see it would simply be something derived from Buddhism) then samara and rebirth are essential elements of Buddhism and these come laden with a whole lot of supernatural metaphysics. We are led to believe that Enlightenment didn't come to the Buddha in a single lifetime but took hundreds of lifetimes. Every Buddhist tradition believes this and holds onto the Jataka tales which are one of the earliest written Buddhist texts that we have so I don't think they are so easily dismissed as being non-essential or auxiliary to Buddhism.
Secular Buddhism can happily use meditaiton as a therepeutic practice and that's an amazzing thing that I have partaken of much myself but to say that it understands the Buddha better than most Buddhists over the past millennia is patently absurd. There are highly advanced meditators in the Tibetan tradition who probably look a lot more like the Buddha psychologically than the likes of your average Western Secular Buddhist. Doesn't mean there's no value or validity in the Secular tradition I just want to preach caution about any claim of higher legitimacy to this new offshoot
I have deleted my previous response which you may or may not have read.
In fact on reflection your points require further considerstion. In particular whether the western path of meditation should characterise itself as post buddhist.
@@austinthornton3407 Ah I see I did indeed read it I got the email with it I shall respect your withdrawal but if you ever want to chat about it again I'd be happy to it's been very stimulating!
Hey James, great fan of your work and subscriber here, however I believe this video of yours could have turned out even better if it had used a tiny bit more research. Whilst I praise your attempt at presenting religions in a more charitable light, I am not a Buddhist and I certainly agree with viewing it as a religion. Nevertheless, the comparisons and examples you use here to approximate it with Abrahamic religions might be off a little in terms of rigour. Hopefully you will find my content helpful and as constructive criticism.
Using the examples of Zen apologies for its role in the patriotic fervour and jingoism in modern Japan, or the persecution of the Rohynga in Myanmar, says more about the social perception, history and cultural exchanges of those specific regions than of the religion itself. Unlike the Abrahamic religions, you will find no scriptural or oral basis for violence, intolerance and oppression of any strata in Buddhism, and indeed the people promoting such ghastly views are unable to draw on their religion to support it, supporting their claims from their mundane worldview. It's important to separate the populace and its actions from its religious beliefs and Buddhism strictly condemns violence in all shapes and forms, unlike the Abrahamic religions which find numerous appeals to bloodshed and warring in its sacred writings.
I must say I was surprised that you declared the Lotus Sutra to be little more than a listing of gods seems, which in my mind is somewhat simplistic and reductive. Although the Lotus Sutra sees differing appreciation across the Mahayana (Tibetan and Zen care very little for it, to cite two well known strands) and it may not be the most philosophically rich, its parabolas of the Burning House, the Phantom City or the Doctor and Medicine, are quite significant in terms of Buddhist lore and help understand some of the general thought that pervades the religion in practical terms.
It's important to bear in mind that Buddhism, at least in several Mahayana schools, interprets the words of the Buddha, and therefore its fantastical and surreal visions, as "expedient means" (see 'upaya'), used to contextualize and persuade the listeners of the time that were familiar with a rich and imaginative religious landscape. As in all human experience, there are traditionalists and literalists, but with a thorough understanding of Buddhism's representation, one would hardly feel compelled to consider those as the defining examples of Buddhist manifestation.
On a sidenote, secretly, I was hoping you would get a bit more into the philosophical analysis of some of Buddhism's main tenets, particularly in Yogachara and Madhyamaka school, which I find to be especially stimulating. Its conceptions of suffering, selflessness of persons, emptiness or momentariness, are so sophisticated and seductive, not to mention that its theories of epistemology and phenomenology predate by centuries and surpass many of the Western ideas in its originality and soundness. I'm absolutely positive that once you lay down your eyes on the writings of say, Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Chandrakirti, Ratnakirti, Dignaga, Dharmakirti, Dogen, or sutras like the Lankavatara, Diamond or Vimalakirti sutra, you will find much interesting content for future videos.
Sorry for the long post, but keep up the great work and I'll be looking forward to your future output.
Thanks a million Zarathustra I genuinely appreciate good feedback and when it's worded so coherently and kindly I love it all the more.
I didn't mean that the entire Lotus Sutra was a list of gods btu that one particular sectoin but I agree I could have been more rigorous in that. My best defence I guess is that there's an overwhelming amount of source material and I was trying to give an overview of views across Buddhism in a short video but that is somethign of an excuse and I could certainly have been much more rigorous and done much deeper research you are very right.
Other commenters have spoken about this desire to interact deeper with the Madhyamika and with the Yogacara so I think this wil be happpening at some point. Nagajuna is the one that really pulls me because I've been meaning to do a deeper dive on him for a very long time and there seems to be an awful lot of depth there so that will probably be the entry point to a deeper (and hopefully more rigorous) interaction with the east.
Also I had forgotten that the upaya story of the burning house came from the lotus sutra that was a gem of a story and also very good point about the local religions being the jstification rather than its being inherent to the tradition itself. I haven't fully digested that but it has given me something very worthwhile to chew on
📍
Here is the thing... Follow me here... it is both, neither, maybe something else... It is above all else - personal ;)
I dunno....that sounds pretty far out
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Religion is a philosophy you follow with devotion, commitment, and confidence. Sraddha. Catuṣkoṭi was what I was referring to with the trust in doubt. Simple, it is both, and neither. It is something more, unbounded by labels.
the notion of it being a philosophy or a religion is a false dichotomy
It is not religion nor philosophy but path to reality
Actually, the idea that buddhism is a philosophy is not something that orginated in the west. Buddhist scholars had this idea too especially in the southern branch. But i get where you are coming from. Buddhism is a religion and a philosophy but western interpretation of buddhism is biased and ignores many religious aspects of buddhism.
early buddhist texts lack things like jataka, atma(soul), hell and heaven and miracles. Only religious part there is karma and reincarnation.
So even the most authentic form of buddhism has religious and mystical parts of it.
the main purpose of buddhism is to achieve nirvana. Any buddhist know that nirvana is not a philosophical thought, although it could be interpreted as such like what herman hesse did in his book siddhartha. Symbology may alter things but then we will lose accuracy. So there is a dilemma there.
When people say secular buddhism, they are talking mostly about parts of stoicism, since if you deduct religious mysticism from buddhism you get a form of stoicism and maybe even nihilism or absurdism.
That's a fascinating take at the end there that it's basically Stoicism!
Reincarnation or rebirth is possible without supernatural elements. But I am not sure about karma.
one thing should be pointed out is; metaphysics phenomenon does exist in this world, and those so called 'realism' shouldn't deny it's existences without proper and unbiased investigation.. it might not common in the west but it well accepted as daily reality in the east. the differences from any other religions, it doesn't using metaphysics phenomenons as a legitimation, but rather emphasize on reasoning and proving by self-experiencing. ....another thing, Buddhism might be vast for most people, but to get the authentic early teaching one should really dig into history of it, scripture study from the original language and understanding it from the cultural references and context of which it was said by the Buddha. (rather than blantantly rely on english version, eliminating any possible lost in translation.)
Thich Nhat Hanh would disagree. He packaged Buddhism for Westerners back when MLK was pushing for social justice.
It is both a religion and a philosophy. I never understood why people want to divide things up much.
You're not wrong Gary. I guess with the video I wanted to push back against the idea that Buddhism should be praised as a philosophy while other religions could be dismissed. I wanted to find a space of appreciation for them all. I do believe that all religions have their philosophies and their theologies
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I appreciate your opinion and insightful video, but I'd rather Buddhism was thrown in the same trash can of irrationality as the rest of them, than all of them respected.
@@Elintasokas Well, you would just be wrong then. You would be committing one of the worst mistakes ever then. What mistake ? Well, the mistake of calling all of Buddhism Irrational when only a few parts of it are ...
Division is required here because faith is a hallmark of religion, not a philosophy. The Middle Way method of Buddhism, when seen as a viable process or method, is faith-based since it is internally contradictory. Unlike a zen koan written to deliberately think upon paradoxes in which few attain the insight, the Middle Way as method is already a way of life for the average human being who already alternate somewhere between hedonism and asceticism. The four truths, the basis prior to the 8 paths and the Middle Way, build upon the assumption that life is suffering. Why? Must life only be seen as suffering? How could it when it is equally or often beautiful and good? The concept of being stuck in Samsara is inherently a faith-based position, akin to the Abrahamic idea of original sin. One cannot believe in Samsara and be a legitimate philosopher, a skeptic, nor a self-proclaimed atheist.
@@Elintasokas it becomes clear a few minutes in that this video leans more anti-atheism than anti-Buddhism, and that anti-Buddhist-atheism is merely an incidental intersection.
Now, that's not to say that non-religious Buddhism is the solution to all life's woes. The point of Buddhism is not to be a Buddhist ("If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha"), it's a set of ideas meant to be a tool to practice removing the noise that prevents us from living authentically. Some may call that religion, others don't. I would argue that religion's goal is always to control behavior and purportedly resolve the existential questions. Secular Buddhism is at best only half in on both these, or at least is functionally ineffective, not robust, far less dogmatic.
I agree with his "peaceful religion" comments. Buddhism is not a peaceful religion. Empirically, there is no such thing as a peaceful religion. However, I'd venture to guess that no wars have ever been fought for secular Buddhism.
All that said, I understand the premise of the video as a reaction to sanitization of religious Buddhism.
Thank you! Someone needed to say this. A great video.
This video speaks to the essentialist and spiritist in me. And I can tell you have a pretty good grasp on the subject. Thanks living philosopher!
Indeed every religion has philosophical aspects, but there's way too much systematic religious notions and institutional aspects to Buddhism to be purely philosophical. It's far too full of spiritual doctrines and supernatural assumptions to simply think it at its core essence appeals to the common postmodern naturalist alone, as many today suggest.
Cosmologies, orders, myths, poems and esotericism are just a few religious functions in Buddhism. It has much overlap with Hinduism and Jainism and other neighboring religions.
So that said I think if anyone is going to essentialize it they're going to need to see about the totality of it rather than a reductionistic approximation that they appreciate, that can only be in and of it but not it overall.
Thanks again, really.
- YQA
Thanks Apologist!
As someone who might identify as a “Secular Buddhist”, I generally agree with your point. I believe in Buddhism as a philosophy, with it’s more esoteric and “religious” aspects mostly being artistic symbolization.
But the idea that Buddhism at large is devoid of the same metaphysical fantasies as we see in religions like Christianity is blatantly false. The reason why I would call myself a “Secular Buddhist” rather than a “Secular Christian” though, is that most Abrahamic faiths pretty explicitly claim a monopoly on truth and condemn all dissenters to damnation, and posit interesting but philosophically uncomplex virtues that demand to be followed.
Buddhism on the other hand, while it was a religion from the start, was typically argued for from a more modern understanding of philosophy. The Buddha was trying to convince you as a normal human with no monopoly on truth, just what he believed was the arguments with the most ultimate persuasive power.
Because Buddhist thought is much more philosophically complex, I feel like one can treat his ideas more similarly to how one might treat traditional philosophers like Plato. Yes, Plato made metaphysical claims and argued with the assumption of Gods, and some of his arguments explicitly rest on Gods to make sense. But one can still call themselves a Platonist without necessarily believing in classical Hellenistic theology.
Similarly I think one can still be a Buddhist without believing in the spiritual metaphysical claims of traditional Buddhism. But it would definitely be wrong to say that this more Western type of Buddhism is representative of all Buddhism, or that all Buddhism is Atheistic. That said, I think we also shouldn’t go too far into the idea that Buddhism is just like every other religion in regards to spiritual beliefs; major Buddhist philosophers like Nagarjuna and the modern Dalai Lama have generally indicated atheist sentiments and the Buddha himself while clearly religious to some degree was for the time a dramatically skeptical individual.
Okay it’s an overall a thoughtful video but I have to make a criticism here.
All you have proved is that Buddhist tradition/culture consists of supernatural elements but didn’t point out any teaching or quote directly from Gautama Siddharta which corresponds to supernatural phenomenon… whereas be it Jesus, Muhammad, and leaders of other abrahamic faiths believed in a creator god or angels or the kingdom of heaven…
So that in my opinion is the precise difference between buddhism and even certain schools of thoughts in Hinduism (eg. advaita vedanta, vishishistadvaita vedanta etc) and abrahamic faiths…
So buddhism as in Buddhist culture and tradition might be a religion but teachings by Siddharta Gautama isn’t.
When it comes to violence propagated by anti Islamic monks, it is more of self defence against Islamic radicalism rather than ignorant religious violence.
Definitely is a religion if they are making claims about metaphysics that are religious in nature which happens all the time even in the more "sober" Theravada tradition.
This is my thinking exactly
A new subscriber here. Have you heard of Navayana Buddhism by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar? Millions of Dalits in India are followers of Navayana Buddhism. You should read 'Buddha and his Dhamma' by Ambedkar. Your ideas on Buddhism will definitely evolve and put Buddha in a historical context.
Hello! Welcome aboard! No I've never heard of Navayana. Sounds interesting I must check it out
There is a lot of misunderstanding regarding Myanmar and Sri Lanka and people trying to say Buddhism is a violent religion as a result of it. It is paramount that people do research on issues they are not familiar with in great detail. The situation in Myanmar is not due to religion. There is no teaching in Buddhism that is demanding people to discriminate against Rohingyas. So it's fundamentally incorrect to say it's the result of Buddhism. It's also not as clear cut as "anti-Islamic". There are three other major Muslim communities in Myanmar: Kaman, Bamar Muslims and Panthay. These three communities are not facing discrimination. So how can one say it's "anti-Islamic"?
The situation in Myanmar and Sri Lanka is rooted in ethnic nationalism. The very first precept of Buddhism is to not harm anybody and if you harm someone then you're de-robed. Also, a monk should let go of all attachment. The whole purpose of Buddhism is to give everything up as it's suffering. How can one be a Buddhist monk if they're encouraging violence and still having feelings of attachment? These are ethnic nationalists who believe in Sinhalese and Bamar supremacy and Buddhism is closely linked to both ethnic groups and their cultures. These nationalists are influenced by identity politics and this fear that they are going to disappear because the Sinhalese and Bamar Buddhist nationalists have for the longest time feared the idea that they will disappear due to their low fertility rates while the high fertility rates of some of the Muslim populations remains high. They claim they will become like Indonesia and Afghanistan (Buddhist-majority countries that eventually became Muslim and adopted Islamic culture) and have continuously lived in this fear of existential threat. As a result of the fact that there are no strict teachings in Buddhism that instruct people to have babies or spread their religion, they fear their culture will disappear because the fertility rates of the Burmese and Sri Lankan Buddhists continues to decline. This is why Sri Lankan and Burmese nationalists are closely linked together and even have organisations that support both of their needs. This isn't about Buddhism, it's ethnic nationalism that is very specific to those countries. You don't see this type of nationalism in Cambodia, Laos, or among the Buddhist minorities in places like India or Bangladesh, do you? It's only specific to Sri Lanka and Myanmar. Why? It's because of their location and the experiences they have endured. The fact that this form of ethnic nationalism exists over there is a product of them being located in multi-ethnic and multireligious South and Southeast Asia. These are Asian issues, it is very important to understand these issues from an Asian perspective.
Blatant misinformation spread on Facebook played a huge role in the violence inflicted against the Rohingyas in the late 2010s. The Rohingyas have actually sued Facebook as a result of them not tackling the hate speech and misinformation in the lead up and during the ethnic cleansing of 2017. So it's really important to understand these issues when speaking about them to people that are not knowledgeable about what is going on in places like Myanmar. The Burmese military is the root for all of the hate and violence that the Rohingyas have faced and it originated in WW2 when the Japanese invaded Myanmar. The Burmese military has spread so much false information about the Rohingyas online towards Burmese people that even the Kaman Muslims turned against them in the 2010s. Conversely, there is a Rohingya minister working in the Aung San Suu Kyi's Burmese government-in-exile and one of Myanmar's most prominent pro-democracy activists is of Rohingya descent, Wai Wai Nu. So we can't just claim it's because of beliefs or something like that, because it's not. These are ethnic nationalists akin to the White supremacists found in the West. For them, it's about protecting their identity (which is their culture, ethnicity, religion, heritage etc.).
Also, the situation in Sri Lanka regarding Muslims happened in the 2010s, in the early 2010s and then in the late 2010s after the terror attacks. Traditionally speaking, Muslims are not viewed with suspicion in Sri Lanka by the Sinhalese Buddhists but because of a phenomenon called Arabisation it led to cultural friction that peaked in 2019. Arabisation is a huge issue in South and Southeast Asia where Muslims have begun to adopt Arab culture which conflicts with the local cultures. There is a belief among the conservative Muslims that to be Muslim is to be Arab, so people adopt Arab clothing, Arabic names and learn Arabic while foregoing their own culture. Arabisation is a topic of concern in the Muslim-majority nations of Malaysia and Indonesia too and national governments have spoken about it. In Sri Lanka, Arabisation led to the dilution of the Sufi-influenced form of Islam practiced by Sri Lankan Muslims which eventually came to the spotlight in 2019 after the terror attacks. After that, there was a push from the Muslim community in Sri Lanka to "de-Arabisise" their culture and return to the Sri Lankan-style culture they used to practice prior to the 2000s. Also, the Muslim community that faced much of the hate was the Sri Lankan Moors. There is another Sri Lankan Muslim community known as the Sri Lankan Malays but because they didn't adopt Arab culture, they didn't face any backlash like the Moors did in the 2010s. So like Myanmar, there are layers to this and it needs to be understood from their perspective.
I am buddhist and I agree with one of your responses to one the of the comments " we should be suspicious of believing that we are closer to the 'true Buddhism' ".
A study and findings on TRUE BUDDHISM along with how each sects of Buddhism have deviated from the true concepts/ides/philosophy of Buddhism would be great. And I would also recommend you to look into a pre-buddhism culture and religion of a community and it's role arising different sects of Buddhism, as most of the content that you have expressed are to do with culture/region of the community that has influenced their practice of Buddhism - which should not be the case.
looking forward to you next videos
I think that buddhism is a religion. And I'm a westerner. AND I'M A BUDDHIST
I think what you're building in the intro is based on a false premise that people are becoming buddhist, so they can practice a religion while not believing in a god. I, for example, didn't came into buddhism like that, I've never considered that aspect of it relevant in any way. Buddhism - especially Chan, the variation of buddhism that I and many people in East Asia practice, just isn't really about believing but rather - practice.
Atheists are right to defend Buddhism so vehemently. Buddhadharma does not express bloodlust in the way the old testament does. Sakyamuni does not hate in the way Yahweh does. The teachings of Buddha as presented in any Tripitaka do not support violence in the way the old testament does. Jesus, and all Abrahamic religions, unfortunately carry the baggage of Yahweh and the old testament.
""Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will - abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves." -MN21
I think you wildly oversimplified the huge landscape of Buddhism by pigeonholing it into religion. Certainly it can be religious but it isn’t always applied as one. It’s not necessarily a religion. Nobody is compelled to accept any supernatural claims to be a Buddhist. You can completely ignore such ancient claims and still be a Buddhist. The Buddha himself advocated for taking what you can and leaving what you can’t from his teaching. There is no supernatural claims that have to be accepted to agree with the core message: the four noble truths.
Now compare to Christianity. You have to believe that Jesus magically removes your responsibility to pay for your own immoral thoughts and actions. That’s the unavoidable supernatural claim you have to always believe. So no, you can’t say Christianity is or can only be philosophically applied. It requires a disconnect from reality. A surrender of one’s moral responsibility.
Buddhism is a word. A concept. It's not pointing to one thing. It's many different things to many different people in many different contexts. Of course it's a religion. Of course it's a philosophy. I was hoping for a more sophisticated dive into the history of how Buddhism has been interpreted through the lens of a concept for 'religion' that grew out of Abrahamic traditions and the impact this has had culturally and philosophically among those who consider themselves Buddhist. Anybody who takes Buddhism seriously, whether or not they consider it a religion or philosophy, will be well aware of the metaphysical and supernatural elements intertwined throughout its history, leading me to believe this video wasn't made for those who take it seriously and was instead targeting those who have a friend who kept annoying them to try meditation.
Buddhism has some nice ideas/wisdom but that of itself doesn't exclude it from being a religion. It was noted here that all religions have a philosophical core 13:07 and I think they must do to be successful.
You cannot separate Buddhism from the idea of karma and rebirth, even if you took away all the other ritualistic and supernatural aspects in Buddhism's various flavours.
You don't understand Buddhism. Yes, everything you said was true, and everything you quoted was written. But... as you have noticed --- there is not just one Buddhism...
Teravada isn't the original version of Buddhism. The Four Truths are taken as the first teaching, when Sidarta said: There Is Suffering, in the park, when the youngest ascetic woke up hearing these words. After explaining this statement, Teravada takes nothing else as a teaching. This is the entire teaching. But then you go into the Four Baskets, which are an expulsion on the Four Truths. You find fantastic stories there indeed. But...
The first thing Sidarta said upon becoming enlightened is: I am Archon. So some take this as the only teaching.
So you see, it is not clear what was going on, because there are no historical records at all. Buddhism was first recorded some 200 years after Sidarta's death on an iron pillar that stands erect even today. So there is no record at all for at least 200 years.
But if you go for the core meaning in all of those variants of Budhism, you will find the Cessation Of Thought. The death of the analysis.
So how about: Sidarta didn't teach anything at all? There is no teaching. And that is the teaching...
How about this: what if Sidarta saw that analytic mind is automatic and useless. That is the actual enlightening experience: the analytic mind stops, the synthetic mind takes over and makes everything One in a split second, and you see the truth, the truth beyond insane thoughts. Now... how do you explain this experience -- without thoughts?
So you see -- we are already far, far beyond not only religion, but also beyond any philosophy as well. For -- what religion, what philosophy, if there are no words at all?
Go experience it yourself, then you will know. Go do the "Who Am I?" intensiff. Then you will know how terribly far away from the actual enlightening experience all the Buddhist scriptures are. The closest to the experience is the Heart Sutra. Which destroys analytical logic to begin with.
I agree with u on most part as we can easily claim either cases of Buddhism being religion as well as not because in the past there has been cases of atheistic Buddhism that is extinct now.but one point about Buddhism being cuse of violence is unfounded. Buddist commiting crime doesn't necessarily mean Buddhism teaching violence. It's false equivalence
As a Christian, I feel obligated to defend my faith at least a little bit. The crusades for example, were completely justified historically speaking, ruclips.net/video/6aFkoX6g1fE/видео.html , but I will say a lot of the Catholics had no right at all to call themselves Christian. Jesus didn't overthrow the Romans for a reason; our battle is NOT against the forces of this world, but against the spiritual (Ephesians 6:12).