Nonduality in Buddhist and Vedantist philosophy Prof. Robert AF Thurman, Columbia University
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ต.ค. 2017
- Nonduality in Buddhist and Vedantist philosophy Prof. Robert AF Thurman, Columbia University -- Watch live at / vedantasocietyberkeley
- เกม
![ความรักไม่ได้น่ากลัวขนาดนั้น (TRUST ME) - LYKN [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9np-lAtCRpQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Vedanta society, should definitely invite Dr. Thupten Jinpa for a more depth discussion and to get a taste of bhuddhism preserve in Tibetan Buddhism or Sanskrit Tradition bhuddhism.....
👍👍👍
I value both Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamaka Buddhism and this was a very nice presentation. I pray for the good fortune to become a monk in order to pursue the highest goal full time. Until then, I do the best I can. The Vedanta Society and TH-cam lectures such as this one offer great help along the way! Thank you for sharing this lecture 🙏
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 TH-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.
Robert Thurman enthusiasm is at different levels......👍👍👍👍
02:38 Professor Robert EF Thurman's introduction and beginning of the lecture
06:50 Buddhist teachings progress from refraining from sin to non-duality
12:17 Misunderstanding Shunyata can lead to nihilism and unethical behavior.
14:50 Rejection of the idea of no further existence after death
19:21 Belief in continuation of consciousness upon brain cessation is blind faith.
21:32 Buddhists do not believe in a singular, omnipotent creator
25:56 Nagarjuna starts by stating that things are not produced from themselves, others, both, or without causes.
28:21 Seeking ultimate reality through analysis and negation
32:39 The supreme self is the conclusion of the occasional process.
34:38 The concept of finding a point on the nose and its relation to existence.
38:37 Difference between the concept of illusion in Buddhism and Vedanta
40:49 Reality is an illusion created by our mind.
44:56 Critique of intrinsic self habit
47:02 Indian culture emphasizes human capacity for understanding reality
51:04 Non-dualism challenges the perception of ultimate and relative reality.
53:12 American universities need to prioritize knowledge over profit.
57:14 Meditative practices lead to a profound experience beyond waking, dreaming, and deep sleep.
59:20 Non-duality challenges ontology.
1:03:35 Ignorance is the cause of suffering and wisdom is bliss.
1:05:32 Non-duality views the world as empty and beings as pure Ananda
1:09:57 Buddhist and Vedantist philosophy challenges absolute caste system and theological doctrines.
1:11:52 Recognition of the slight reality and the true lesson of perfect empathy.
1:25:44 Various philosophies describe experiences and methods of understanding true nature and universe functioning.
1:30:17 Universal responsibility and hope for a better world
1:37:15 Different stages and levels in Indian philosophy
1:40:05 Understanding the historical framework of Buddhist tradition.
1:46:45 Discusses the relationship between Guru parampara and the necessity of self-discovery.
1:52:00 Expressing gratitude for the lecture
Extraordinary indeed
The ''burning bush'' (with all its branching, fire, energy - it is like a kundalini metaphor.
There's way too much sophism and intellectual struggle for superiority within buddhism. It all boils down to EXPERIENCE. The experience dissolves all philosophy and doubts. Buddhism and advaita vedanta are easily reconciled in the actual experience and fruition, those lead to identical inner vision from the perspective of the one who goes through the process. Though, philosopher will never succeed in cutting the thread of insatiable, curious and ever changing mind thirsting and lusting after arguments.
>>> Back to the source, back to feet of Ramana, Ramakrishna and Shiva.
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.
Love Robert Thurman, but I got to say I absolutely disagree with his saying Shankara and Nagarjuna were teaching the same thing. I suspect, he doesn't mean that there are no significant differences between their versions of non-dualism, but rather that they are unique in their uncompromising critic of any subtle level of dualistic thought among other views.
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.
Today I learned that Uma Thurman's middle name is Karuna. Nice. Uma is the name of Parvati, who is the consort of Shiva, and represents Shakti, the feminine power. And Karna is compassion in Sanskrit. 11:30.
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?
if you want to understand in one line 45:00,54:00,1:08:00
A dream is only as real as you are identifytied to it
12:00 Nos for everyone
37:20
BOB the BUDDHA
'Look at who we elected!'... love it
I'm really good with the prospect of Being in a future life so long as it is not as Stephen Batchelor. 😄
This hatred for Stephen Batchelor is not helpful.
Evidence of nothing is like folks vanishes into thin air.
I’m familiar with the Hindu view of Buddha, but what is the Buddhist view of Krishna? Does anyone know or care to share their thoughts?
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.
Many people know tremendous facts about Buddhism and Vedanta but few live a deep the spiritual life..there was once a Buddhist monk who could recite many texts for hours but remained drunk all his life
40:00 don't mind me; I'm just taking notes
It always angers me when people say if we look really hard we'll see we don't exist cause there's nothing there. Its there alright, we just don't have the wherewithal to detect it yet. Some new way of measurement will be discovered one day that will detect our presence. I promise that. Its ignorant to think we know everything already.
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!!!!...
He sounds like a preacher. A lot of talk and beliefs but very little listening. It's a paradox. One builds up a lot of ideas to reach Shunyata and one gets attached.
The lecture's name is non-duality and the speaker talks more about Indian religious beliefs than non-duality.
What ???
I disagree with you. Practice of meditation causes you to become nothing. Our existence is felt because of the ego. As soon as it disappears, you also become nothing. You can also come back from that state. Thank you!
There is no such thing as nothing.
He keeps saying.. The Buddhist think, the buddhist believe. Tibetan Buddhism isn't the only Buddhism in town. Not all Buddhist or Buddhism's agree. IMO,The sharpest Buddhist don't believe or disbelieve anything. It's guy's like this and Adi Shankara who almost caused the obliteration of Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhism is indigenous shamanic Hinduism stripped for export. It's not Buddhism. It's not what Buddha taught. Also no other Buddhist would be so easily distracted and have any need to invoke nechung oracles or worship Gurus like Tibetan Bon Buddhist { Trotakacharya} ala Adi Shankaracharya. Thurman also run's of the mouth a hundred miles an hour. I doubt seriously if he is ever even conscious of his breath.
Buddy, please meditate and release that anger.
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