I see two main interpretations of nirvana in Buddhism - 1. nirvana as fading, stopping not only bodily, but also metaphysical processes that create a human as a human. 2. Nirvana, as the true nature beyond Self (which exists only in the sense that a circle of fire exists when the performer rapidly spins the torch), which is both transcendent and immanent.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding. I feel like Zizek's approach to Buddhism works in describing the features of Peter Thiel Libertarian LinkedIn Buddhism, which is a popular western strain, just as an analog of Christian Prosperity Gospel, but Zizek should be careful to essentialize it as being an obvious stand-in for Buddhism, just like one should be skeptical of Prosperity Gospel. My hunch is that Buddhism's success is in its malleability, which is probably similar to Christianity's success. I don't see the transcendental step of nirvana as necessary. You can find a system of contrasting the world of the purely sensory vs the conceptual, and understand that a sense of self can be useful and arrive out of a constellation of sensory data, but is a dialogue between that sensory data and the conceptual world. I think it's an ethical problem to get stuck in and elevate the sensory world and reject entirely the "ego" or the conceptual understanding of the self. Even Peter Thiel seemingly doesn't believe that, or else, having all the resources in the world, why would he not retire and meditate all day instead of engaging in his libertarian political projects? I don't want to strawman Buddhism myself, because I think there are likely many Buddhisms with different underlying ideologies, and because I'm no scholar on Buddhism, but I believe that we can explore altered states of consciousness, experience a flow of sensory data while temporarily not conceptualizing it, but even having experiences of 'no self', we inevitably exist out of and come back to a sense of self (like a mask we wear for different forms of social engagement), and can come to see the usefulness of it, while gaining clarity about normal experiences that don't involve a strong sense of self, like the unselfconsciousness of hitting a golf ball, or even walking. I believe there are very socially engaged sects of Buddhism, and that while the techniques can push people already inclined, or existing in certain social systems, into greater and greater solipsism (I think psychedelic use is similar), it's not a necessary goal to destroy all desire, but maybe the Buddhism I have in mind is in some way false.
There is an important distinction to make here. Anatta (skr. anatman) means "non-self", not "no self". Dougs Dharma has made a video on this topic. Ajahn Sona also mentions it from time to time.
Yeah we had a technical issue and so I had to use an older phone and hence worse microphone. But I’ve recorded a better audio version which will be uploaded to patreon. Apologies for the poor audio quality
My boy, you have to get your connection fixed. It sounds like an excellent lecture but every time you’re about to make a point your internet glitches and I’m left filling in the gaps of the code with frog dna.
Hi everyone, just wanted to say thank you for watching, and a huge thanks to the patrons who allow me to keep hosting these videos open/access. It’s such a pleasure and I truly hope it’s helpful in your own studies. If you’d like to support these classes financially, please consider becoming a patron at: www.patreon.com/jenalineandjulian
Nirvana can be described in an easy analogy. There are no transcendental effects involved when one reaches Nirvana. It is said that greed is like oil as the material allowing fire to burn. Once, the supply of oil has stopped the fire will be stopped too. Therefore, there is no place (vingnana) that is going to rest, per se. When Vingnana is doused = Nirvana. Vingnana attracts desire means diving in the paticcasamuppada ocean. (samsara journey)
Sisyphus knows that pushing the boulder to the top of the mountain is a futile task. The fall is inherent in his rise. To ascend, he knows he will have to descend. Maybe Sisyphus can accept the futility of his climbing up and the inevitablity of his climbing down. Maybe he will realize that high needs low to be high & low needs high to be low. In that way he will maybe learn that it doesn't matter if he fails, he will learn to, in the words of Samuel Beckett, "fail better" and keep trying again. He will perhaps know that he is a free man in his persistance of acting out his unfree fate. I don't know if this corresponds to the ideas in this video, but I tried to make this lecture understandable for myself through this analogy.
Nirvana/nibbana isn't supposed to be a metaphysical state or a place, but a result. Much like when a fire goes out as a result of there no longer being fuel in it. Desire is like a fuel. The Buddha described it as like the opposite of the Hindu concept of tapas or building heat. In the Buddhist scriptures, when the Buddha 'found peace' he didn't seperate himself from others he went and helped others. He still suffered, in fact he died of food poisoning.
Also, this idea of vulgar Buddhism isn't actually a western phenomenon. At least not just a western phenomenon. It happens in Asia also. It's a common misconception to think that Buddhism in Asia is somehow purer than in western countries purely because that's where it came from. Although technically, most of the Asian countries that have Buddhism in this day and age adopted it from other countries, so it isn't an indigenous religion today in any country but perhaps Nepal, since it dispeared completely from India at one point and was reintroduced. I'd also say it was more Mahayana that has inserted a lot of these ideas into Buddhism, so you can't lay the blame entirely on the West, exen though it's very de rigour.
Thanks, this is interesting but it seems odd that there's a continuous reassertion that this analysis of Buddhism (Vulgar-Buddhism) is somewhat off, and that there is a Buddhism that is aligned with Freud, Lacan, Marx and ultimately Zizek. However this direct implication isn't explored. Perhaps the problem is that acceptance of this would lead to silence. If Buddhism has this covered, which is a real possibility, then there's nothing to say. And yet we want to speak, and so we speak. And in order to speak we avoid being direct.
As long as there is Movement in mind there is a persona which means there is desire which means there is suffering but no peace. Peace comes when there is no mind but absolute immersion in life and embracement of existence.
It would be so so interesting to see Hegelian/Zizekian philosophy engage with Buddhism in a more serious manner. Here it seems that Buddhist philosophy is more of a rethorical means in order to score a philosophical point, than something with which to engage and take seriously. While there are many interesting insights to be gained here to be sure, it leaves a lot to be desired (heh) in terms of serious engagement. Although this is much more sophisticated, one cannot help but be reminded of Nietzsche's "use" of Buddhism and left wondering what type of fruits a more serious dialogue might have yielded. Edit: Paraphrasing from memory here, but Zizek once said (in one of his talks): "Maybe there are some Buddhisms that can do it, you know, where you have the fall; without the ego you fall fully into it." However, he never elaborated on what kind of Buddhist philosophy this could be, merely on his construction of "Western Buddhism," but I would love to see a more serious engagement with "Eastern" Buddhism as well - even if, or precisly because, it might not fit his agenda.
5.13 this is already a problem, this "core tenet" is not part of buddhism, buddhism don't strive to detach your relation with worldy desires since that's aversion(dvesha) one of the 3 poisons(trivisa), but be aware(sati) of your relation with worldy desires, here Zizek is proyecting and recicling an old critique of christianity and their "life denying" praxis onto buddhism, i think most of Zizek analisis on buddhism can be resumed with this, he never goes beyond a shallow and western centered view of buddhism
Some of your criticisms are precisely the criticisms of Mahayana Buddhism against Hinayana Buddhism, for example, that one can achieve liberation separate from others.
Mahayana Buddhism is basically Hinduism merged with Buddhism. It has muddied the water in Buddhism more than anything. Plus it's called Therevada, only Mahayana Buddhists call it Hineyana as an act of propaganda.
Nirvana is not real, real, it serves, among other things, to stimulate the desire to follow the Dharhma teachings, which has social and personal added value and can alleviate suffering.....
![[UNCUT] ฝันรักห้วงนิทรา | EP.8 (4/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RDYJYiDwsj0/mqdefault.jpg)
I see two main interpretations of nirvana in Buddhism - 1. nirvana as fading, stopping not only bodily, but also metaphysical processes that create a human as a human. 2. Nirvana, as the true nature beyond Self (which exists only in the sense that a circle of fire exists when the performer rapidly spins the torch), which is both transcendent and immanent.
I must say: Even as a student of Zen Buddhism, I truly enjoyed listening to this lecture and chewing over the insights and ideas that it provided.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding. I feel like Zizek's approach to Buddhism works in describing the features of Peter Thiel Libertarian LinkedIn Buddhism, which is a popular western strain, just as an analog of Christian Prosperity Gospel, but Zizek should be careful to essentialize it as being an obvious stand-in for Buddhism, just like one should be skeptical of Prosperity Gospel.
My hunch is that Buddhism's success is in its malleability, which is probably similar to Christianity's success. I don't see the transcendental step of nirvana as necessary. You can find a system of contrasting the world of the purely sensory vs the conceptual, and understand that a sense of self can be useful and arrive out of a constellation of sensory data, but is a dialogue between that sensory data and the conceptual world. I think it's an ethical problem to get stuck in and elevate the sensory world and reject entirely the "ego" or the conceptual understanding of the self. Even Peter Thiel seemingly doesn't believe that, or else, having all the resources in the world, why would he not retire and meditate all day instead of engaging in his libertarian political projects?
I don't want to strawman Buddhism myself, because I think there are likely many Buddhisms with different underlying ideologies, and because I'm no scholar on Buddhism, but I believe that we can explore altered states of consciousness, experience a flow of sensory data while temporarily not conceptualizing it, but even having experiences of 'no self', we inevitably exist out of and come back to a sense of self (like a mask we wear for different forms of social engagement), and can come to see the usefulness of it, while gaining clarity about normal experiences that don't involve a strong sense of self, like the unselfconsciousness of hitting a golf ball, or even walking.
I believe there are very socially engaged sects of Buddhism, and that while the techniques can push people already inclined, or existing in certain social systems, into greater and greater solipsism (I think psychedelic use is similar), it's not a necessary goal to destroy all desire, but maybe the Buddhism I have in mind is in some way false.
There is an important distinction to make here. Anatta (skr. anatman) means "non-self", not "no self". Dougs Dharma has made a video on this topic. Ajahn Sona also mentions it from time to time.
Thank you for your work, highly appreciate creators like you 🙏🙏
Thank you so much for these lectures!
I’m sorry to ask for a reupload but the audio cut out is really bad
Yeah we had a technical issue and so I had to use an older phone and hence worse microphone. But I’ve recorded a better audio version which will be uploaded to patreon. Apologies for the poor audio quality
Through patience I realized that the whole recording isn’t as bad as the first few minutes. I always appreciate the lectures thank you.
4:52
No true self. Just don't destroy yourself through desire. Ty!!
"The iron chain and the silken cord are both equally bonds" - Fredrich Schiller
big fan of your work. greetings from Belgium/
My boy, you have to get your connection fixed. It sounds like an excellent lecture but every time you’re about to make a point your internet glitches and I’m left filling in the gaps of the code with frog dna.
frog dna wtf
Hi everyone, just wanted to say thank you for watching, and a huge thanks to the patrons who allow me to keep hosting these videos open/access. It’s such a pleasure and I truly hope it’s helpful in your own studies. If you’d like to support these classes financially, please consider becoming a patron at: www.patreon.com/jenalineandjulian
In which book can i find zizeks joke?
Nirvana can be described in an easy analogy. There are no transcendental effects involved when one reaches Nirvana. It is said that greed is like oil as the material allowing fire to burn. Once, the supply of oil has stopped the fire will be stopped too. Therefore, there is no place (vingnana) that is going to rest, per se. When Vingnana is doused = Nirvana. Vingnana attracts desire means diving in the paticcasamuppada ocean. (samsara journey)
at this rate you should make a lecture called: "Zizek vs the world"
Zizek vs Zizek
@@coda5934 Slavoj vs Zizek
@@coda5934 unironically probably the easiest subject
Sisyphus knows that pushing the boulder to the top of the mountain is a futile task. The fall is inherent in his rise. To ascend, he knows he will have to descend. Maybe Sisyphus can accept the futility of his climbing up and the inevitablity of his climbing down. Maybe he will realize that high needs low to be high & low needs high to be low. In that way he will maybe learn that it doesn't matter if he fails, he will learn to, in the words of Samuel Beckett, "fail better" and keep trying again. He will perhaps know that he is a free man in his persistance of acting out his unfree fate.
I don't know if this corresponds to the ideas in this video, but I tried to make this lecture understandable for myself through this analogy.
Nirvana/nibbana isn't supposed to be a metaphysical state or a place, but a result. Much like when a fire goes out as a result of there no longer being fuel in it. Desire is like a fuel. The Buddha described it as like the opposite of the Hindu concept of tapas or building heat.
In the Buddhist scriptures, when the Buddha 'found peace' he didn't seperate himself from others he went and helped others. He still suffered, in fact he died of food poisoning.
Also, this idea of vulgar Buddhism isn't actually a western phenomenon. At least not just a western phenomenon. It happens in Asia also.
It's a common misconception to think that Buddhism in Asia is somehow purer than in western countries purely because that's where it came from. Although technically, most of the Asian countries that have Buddhism in this day and age adopted it from other countries, so it isn't an indigenous religion today in any country but perhaps Nepal, since it dispeared completely from India at one point and was reintroduced. I'd also say it was more Mahayana that has inserted a lot of these ideas into Buddhism, so you can't lay the blame entirely on the West, exen though it's very de rigour.
Thanks, this is interesting but it seems odd that there's a continuous reassertion that this analysis of Buddhism (Vulgar-Buddhism) is somewhat off, and that there is a Buddhism that is aligned with Freud, Lacan, Marx and ultimately Zizek. However this direct implication isn't explored.
Perhaps the problem is that acceptance of this would lead to silence. If Buddhism has this covered, which is a real possibility, then there's nothing to say. And yet we want to speak, and so we speak. And in order to speak we avoid being direct.
As long as there is
Movement in mind there is a persona which means there is desire which means there is suffering but no peace.
Peace comes when there is no mind but absolute immersion in life and embracement of existence.
No mind is nirvana.
It would be so so interesting to see Hegelian/Zizekian philosophy engage with Buddhism in a more serious manner. Here it seems that Buddhist philosophy is more of a rethorical means in order to score a philosophical point, than something with which to engage and take seriously. While there are many interesting insights to be gained here to be sure, it leaves a lot to be desired (heh) in terms of serious engagement. Although this is much more sophisticated, one cannot help but be reminded of Nietzsche's "use" of Buddhism and left wondering what type of fruits a more serious dialogue might have yielded.
Edit: Paraphrasing from memory here, but Zizek once said (in one of his talks): "Maybe there are some Buddhisms that can do it, you know, where you have the fall; without the ego you fall fully into it." However, he never elaborated on what kind of Buddhist philosophy this could be, merely on his construction of "Western Buddhism," but I would love to see a more serious engagement with "Eastern" Buddhism as well - even if, or precisly because, it might not fit his agenda.
5.13 this is already a problem, this "core tenet" is not part of buddhism, buddhism don't strive to detach your relation with worldy desires since that's aversion(dvesha) one of the 3 poisons(trivisa), but be aware(sati) of your relation with worldy desires, here Zizek is proyecting and recicling an old critique of christianity and their "life denying" praxis onto buddhism, i think most of Zizek analisis on buddhism can be resumed with this, he never goes beyond a shallow and western centered view of buddhism
Happy birthday zizek
Prosperity Gospel
It's a shame that the audio is so bad at the beginning. Thanks anyway.
Could imagine todays version of Gordon Gecko expounding 'guilt is good!' 😂
This is buggy no?
Some of your criticisms are precisely the criticisms of Mahayana Buddhism against Hinayana Buddhism, for example, that one can achieve liberation separate from others.
Mahayana Buddhism is basically Hinduism merged with Buddhism. It has muddied the water in Buddhism more than anything.
Plus it's called Therevada, only Mahayana Buddhists call it Hineyana as an act of propaganda.
We desire to suffer
Nirvana is not real, real, it serves, among other things, to stimulate the desire to follow the Dharhma teachings, which has social and personal added value and can alleviate suffering.....
"Lectures".
I like this idea that budhism works precisely because it is wrong.