Відео

There is no such thing as nothing.

Buddy, please meditate and release that anger. <3

You are absolutely correct in what you say about Tibetan Buddhism. I would also count Zen among them. Both are perversions of Buddhism for me. I like the Dalai Lama (I had the opportunity to meet him in person years ago) and I respect Zen practitioners. But it has nothing to do with Buddhism. And btw I find it interesting how similar Vijnanavada and A Course in Miracles are.

dont hate bhudhism

Uma: in Tibetan, it means Madhyamik view. Translation of Madhayamik is Uma in Tibetan....

@@lhawangla4031 Thanks! Is there a mention of what the Hindus call Kundalini shakti in Tibetan Buddhism?

The Hindu View of Buddha is wrong, coz most Hindus believe that he was an Avatar of Vishnu, which is just not right. I don't know about the Buddhist View of Krishna though. Krishna is just a Mythological Character ...

@@DipayanPyne94 thank you for sharing your opinion, but that’s all it is, opinion. You can’t claim to know the Hindu view of Buddha is wrong, anymore than I can know it’s right. It may or may not be wrong in your opinion, but opinion is not knowledge. Therefore you cannot claim to know. Also, no Hindu would claim Buddha to be a reincarnation of Vishnu. “Reincarnation” is the wrong word. Buddha is said to be an “incarnation”, which makes him an avatar of Vishnu. Again, I don’t claim to know the true nature of Buddha, or Krishna for that matter.

@@DipayanPyne94 you've edited your reply to where some of my response no longer follows from what you've written. That is dishonest on your part and is motivated by ego. Dishonesty and ego is not the Buddhist way, nor is it the Hindu way. No good.

Brother, I was writing a Long Response. I started that Response by stating that I have changed one of the words to AVATAR. You replied before my reply. I have to write the whole thing again. Kindly wait for my Response.

@@DipayanPyne94 please do not edit what you say. Let what you say stand on its own merits. If someone’s response disagrees or points out an error or a problem in your statement, to delete or alter your original statement is dishonest and motivated by ego. There’s no point in having a discussion if that’s the case. Please do not edit what you say.

You might wanna check out Early Buddhism. The Pali Canon contains Buddha's Original Teachings, particularly the Sutta Pitaka and the Vinaya Pitaka. Mahayana started a few centuries after his Death. The Best UA-cam Channel on Buddhism is 'Doug's Dharma'. Please go through his Videos ! They are Amazing ! Also, if I am not mistaken, Advaita has some Flaws. But, Buddhist 'Non Dualism' is PERFECT ! So, I think you should stick to Buddhist Philosophy. 😄

@@DipayanPyne94 Thank you for your reply. Yes, I am familiar with the Pali Canon and Theravada Buddhism. I appreciate your recommendation that I check out "Doug's Dharma" on youtube, which I will do today. FYI, Theravada Buddhism is NOT non-dualism. Most all schools of buddhism, whether theravada or mahayana, are not non-dualist. Non-dualism within Buddhism exists primarily in Tibetan Buddhism (Vajrayana). The school of Tibetan Buddhism which teaches this non-dualism is called "Madhyamika" and began with Nagarjuna. Again, I appreciate your response and I will check out the channel you've suggested. Thank you.

Buddha's Own Teachings are Non Dualistic, brother. It was not an Invention of Nagarjuna. Shunyata goes back to Buddha himself. Check out the video 'Emptiness in Buddhism Early Doctrine and Development', uploaded by Doug.

@@DipayanPyne94 (This reply was copied and Pasted from another post which I mistakenly thought was this one). Your claim is that Theravada Buddhism is non-dual and Shunyata (emptiness) is non-duality. I think the best way for me to respond to this is to ask you to provide a video link of a THERAVADA Buddhist monk explaining that Theravada Buddhism is non-dual and that non-duality is shunyata. The reason I ask for this link is because you will have difficulty finding it. Why? Because Theravada Buddhism is not non-dual, and shunyata does not mean non-dualism. If that is the case, and you are unable to find such a video, that in itself will be a sufficient answer. If I am wrong, and you are in fact able to find a qualified Theravadin monk explaining these things, I will not delete or edit anything I’ve written.

Alright. I think there's a problem here. Lemme address it. Since I have been going through the Pali Canon lately, I know that Buddha taught that Everything is Empty of a Permanent Self. So, this just shows that the Sense of Self that we humans have is an Illusion. There really is no Thinker in our Heads. It's just Dependent Origination. There is no 'I' in our Heads. That's why, the feeling that the world is 'Separated' from us Humans is an Illusion. This is what 'Non Dualism' is. If, however, the above Explanation is NOT an Explanation of 'Non Dualism', then I have got it all wrong. In that case, Non Dualism means something totally different. I don't know what that is. I will just have to read it.

Atman is the reality. This is the "prasthanayi " written by ADI Sankara Acharya.

@@naiyayika Adi Shankaracharya was badly defeated in debate by greed Acharya Dharmakriti in Nalanda...😳😳😳

Exactly so and thanks for your comment.

"There's way too much sophism and intellectual struggle for superiority within buddhism." Absolutely. Especially within Tibetan Buddhism

@btw Buddhism is True vedanta and buddhism are conceptual frames for classification of the experience. the experience itself is absolutely free of conceptualisations. However, what most devout buddhists seem to incline toward is getting lost in the labyrinth of very complex theoretical knowledge, through which they don't even realize they've lose luminosity and simple approach, no rigpa or true practical knowledge.. they confuse themselves thinking they are something more than those realized beings of vedanta. a jivanmukta is a buddha. simple as that. makes no difference they use a different interpretational model or narrative. both vessels are identical in the final value and realization, if practiced properly.

beautifully put, thank you. What you said is what I see intuitively all along and hope I am not mistaken.

I am yet to see a reincarnated vedantist.

He sometimes tends to give these sweeping statements. :-)

HopelessStrlstfan Shankara believe in absolute substance that is Brahma but Nagarjuna says there is no absolute substance it's all dependent origination and that is illusion itself. Now you know the difference.

I am with you. I know that Thurman teaches that Nargajuna's view allows for a non-dualiy which encompasses all particularities. Some Tibetans say really the view is not-twol Whereas Shankara's view denies any

Very well stated.

HopelessStristfan, Experientialy and fruition-wise, they are identical. They use somewhat different approaches and terminology, but the inner experience and realizations are valid. One could go out and find a jivanmukta (such as Ramakrishna or Maharishi) somewhere in the caves of Himalaya mountains, and tell them straight into their face - ''you are not a buddha''. You'd be, well, taken out of your concepts pretty soon.

Itz pretty doubtful dat it would.....I agree wid the idea u r suggesting...but understand dis,the reason most monks dismissively suggest dat what z "out dere" z uncertain and unpredictable,z coz we have to use our dualistic sense perception in order to perceive it,and da sense apparatus of homo-sapiens and intellectual abilities dat come wid it are bound by fixed physiological and psychological constraints....whatever instrument we create,will be calibrated in on da basis of this sense perceptions and also the recordings of the end results of the measurements also will b perceived using our limited sense perceptions.....!!...so ultimately our perception of truth wld b our experience of it using dis limited sense apparatus dat we got.....

You have a misconception of what is meant by 'existence'.

I don't think the claim is that we don't exist. It is just that our individuality is just an infintesimally small part of consciousness. God is a bitter part, apparently. By undercutting our sense of self, our minds become more aligned with who "we really are."

@@constipatedbowels3473 "No-self" refers to something about you that would be essential identity, unchangeable, and permanent. The composite that is "you" is not denied.

@@crawlinjohn you are referring to Brahman!!!!....the unchanging, fulfilled aspect of consciousness!!!!!.....Btw,there is no such thing as a permanent "you",in any sense of the term!!!!...

Thurman is explaining/quoting from well-known Buddhist and Advaita theories, and actually, doing an excellent job doing so. He isn't an "old fool", he is a preeminent Buddhist scholar with an extraordinarily keen intellect. Your difficulty here is with how these ideas are impacted by your personal beliefs, and misunderstandings on the topic. It's unnecessary to denigrate ideas you have spent little or no time exploring simple because they create fear in you. If you are curious, test them for yourself. If you are content to lack knowledge about them, be content with your lack of knowledge. Thurman left something in there for you. It's at about 50:28.

Looks like he touched a nerve?

Sometimes it's hard to see what is in front of you. Just hoping to give Alex a hand. :)

Prof S N Balagangadhara suggested a way out of this: Regard incarnation as a heuristic, not as a doctrine. The Western intellectual discourse has a pre-theoretical assumption that a religion must be composed of doctrines, not as heuristics. But why should that assumption be also true for Buddhism? Why not be open to the possibility that Buddhism employs heuristics?

An interesting point. It's not heuristic, exactly, but a relative truth that can be described to beings that see themselves as having a separateness from things, space, and time. To work with the paradox of relating the reality of things, Buddhism employs the Two Truths doctrine. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine In the "relative" truth beings are reincarnated, and the situation that follows is based on their "karma" generated by this life, and previous lives. In the "absolute" truth there IS no self that can become reincarnated. We are "incarnated" in every moment that the thinking mind makes us a separate "being" in the universe, many times a minute. We become alive as a limited, separate "self". That process naturally dies out after awakening/satori/enlightenment, thus the end of birth and death. In its place is choiceness awareness that is always present.

This hatred for Stephen Batchelor is not helpful.