Zizek got it all wrong, it seems: 1. Buddhists don't want to get rid of suffering as such. Suffering is a part of living and cannot be avoided. However, the reaction to suffering can be controlled and mastered through detachment from suffering. 2. Meditation is mindfulness, which is being present in the moment. It's the awareness of being aware, and paying attention to what you are paying attention to, and attached to in fact. The realization that all phenomena are without inherent essence, also called Sunyata, is a transforming factor. Therefore, meditation is not only an exercise but it becomes a way of everyday living eventually. 3. The enlightened bodhisattva knows that Nirvana and Samsara are fundamentally one and the same reality. Driven by compassion, bodhisattvas tend to help others naturally and joyfully, so there is no going back and forth between Nirvana and Samsara, i.e. the illusory world. Obviously, Zizek doesn't understand this point. 4. There is no such thing as a compassionate war in Buddhism. 5. No, you can't reach Nirvana through drugs. This is heresy, so to say. 6. Nirvana is NOT a state of permanent happiness as Zizek pretends. Nirvana is the ultimate realization that all phenomena, including the self, are empty, lacking inherent essence, being transient and interdependent. The enlightened person lives an ordinary life in an extraordinary way due to their ability to remain detached effortlessly. They know that everything is empty, including the idea of emptiness itself. It's psychological rather than intellectual. 7. Morality in Buddhism is natural kindness and compassion. However, they do not suppress spontaneity and the instinct of self-preservation or self-defense. The enlightened person doesn't have the intention to kill or harm anyone, including oneself. 8. The middle way in Buddhism is the relinquishing of all views and all extremes, including the ideas of fall and retreat. The enlightened, cultivating a mushin mind, is fully involved in the ordinary world and life in an extraordinary way, that is completely detached and yet completely caring and kind. The only problem in Buddhism, in my opinion at least, is that you cannot possibly understand, let alone criticize Buddhism fairly enough unless you have actually practiced Buddhism for years and even decades. It's because mostly all the essence of Buddhism is psychological and experiential rather than philosophical or intellectual.
Maybe because we are not familiar with that way of explaining things. I think meditation brings culture to the world intsead of pretending to destroy it, like nazis with books. In speding time doing nothing "except paying attention to one's toughts and feelings one has the opportunity to familiarize with them. With time they become values, values can be compared with others values (though reading, listening to someone's words, arts etc). This knowing of similarities between my values and others brings a sense of belonging (peace), which brings "compassionate" actions and behaviours. So there's no an end (nirvana) to this process. It is a lifetime enrichment.
maybe these are 'his problems based on his understanding' should be the title, i agree tho i didnt get far in the video because the first point in your reply was my exact thought, appreciate the breakdown i enjoyed your comment to help me learn more
Well it is possible to "get it" at a very young age even while you have absolutely no idea of buddhism or anything. Later in life one might piece everything together but if you have no interest in teaching, no one will know. You just live a peaceful and maybe a little more creative life than average.
I'm wondering if you watched the presentation to the end. He looks at different perceptions of nirvana, as a place of ascencion, distancing oneself from the world completely, opposed to loosing oneself completely by removing any distance between "self" and the "world".
Zizek hardly understands anything (except from several languages, apparently); so it's hardly a surprise that he doesn't get Buddhism. What a Marxist doesn't understand, he just ridicules or condemns.
Almost none of the actual Asian Buddhists have read any of this philosophical stuff. For them, Buddhism consists of temples, rituals and shamanic practices. Buddhism for them, is simply native folk religion (paganism).
I have a problem with "When you are in Nirvana"... what does Zizek mean by "you"? I don't think he understands the architecture of Buddhist consciousness. No mention of 'ego;... there's is NO 'you' in Nirvana.
I think you are right, but i myself find it really difficult to understand how one has to "dilute" oneself, leaving the self behind but on the other hand is reborn? Maybe you could help me with that, if you have an idea of what i am struggling with.
@@morrisw4284 on one hand, 'you' cannot kill your ego... on the other hand, your ego only relatively exists in relationship to everything else - it has no essential essence... what a bind! The ego and 'other' is one irreducible aspect of reality (dualism)... the other, is non-dual... the basic ground of consciousness - w/out quality, w/out beginning or end - this is the base experience of mind... the eternal REAL.. the basic idea is that actions stemming from your ego's self-centred impulses (desire, hatred, indifference) amplify suffering in your future egos. The good news is the simple, boring act of meditating (on ones out breadth) allows a gently 'letting go' of ego's attachment to thought and action... I kind of intervention on ego that uncover the basic non-dual aspect of reality and consciousness. I'm not smart enough (patient enough?) to fully grasp Zizek's own framework of metaphysics - it's very difficult for me to follow on my own... perhaps you can explain? :)
@@juliangosper You described it quite nicely for me to understand (at least superficially it makes sense to me i guess, although i dont think i have grasped it for myself as well as you did). Sadly i only watch youtube videos and have never read any primary literatur from zizek himself, so i can not help you with his fundamental truths or metaphysics. But i know he basis a lot of his ideas on Hegel´s philosophy so maybe looking into that will help you?
@@morrisw4284 great advice - I'm inspired by Zizek to dig into Hegel. I really like Z's style but I do wish he had more material like "A Pervert's Guide to Cinema" which really helps explain his ideas through easily grasped analogies!
Zizek should talk to a buddhist scholar, because his knowing in this subject is superfitial. Buddha never said that life is suffering, he said life is Dukkha, wich is has much more complex meaning. Pol Pot was not a buddha, he was a psychopath. Bodhisattva is a concept of Mahayana Buddhism, not all traditions in buddhism accept this concept.
Yes, absolutely. There is no real understanding there, the whole lecture is pointless imo, in a category "I wan't to talk, I'm clever". Very typical, when western scholars talk about non-dual related stuff. Jung and few others being the exceptions. Also, one should have the courtesy of blowing one's nose _before_ giving a lecture.
@@tudorscutariu1012 expecting someone to explain such thing in a YT comment is a bit too much! Do your own investigation, do not trust stragers' comments. Anyway, maybe I should have chosen my words more carefully, as the word non-dualism is typically associated with hindu tradition Advaita vedanta. It is not perhaps the 1st word that comes to mind for describing buddhism. But in a way the term is related to both religions, which share many principles and have common roots.
@@pete_k But in your opinion, from your experience, what does this term mean? I have my doubts around this term, like how knowing that I exist would make me feel at peace? I've been meditating for a few years and till now I felt lonely many times, also when I was meditating. But in recent times I view meditation as a way to familiarize with my toughts and feelings. So my loneliness is now reduced because it seems to me that my meditation, brings me to familiarize with my toughts and feelings, and they then become values, which can be compared with other people's values and finally a sense of belonging may appear. But I don't know if this understanding is the enscripted in the word "englightment" or "non-duality".
@@tudorscutariu1012 you cannot expect me to become your online teacher. I am not a teacher. There are plenty of good teachers available, and this term is explained in countless web pages. (Also, who knows, maybe you are in a point of life, where you should just deal with some psychological issues, and forget about meditation etc for a while? Random 'spiritual' advice may harm you as likely as help, if there is no real teacher-pupil interaction.)
Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Speech. These and other parts of the Noble Path both propel you to engage ethically with the world and also prevent you from harming others, if you truly follow it.
I observe that most westerners, including Zizek, it seems, approach Buddhism from a shallow place. I encourage anyone who really wants to deepen their own life to check out Buddhism on its own terms. I personally love Thich Naht Hanh. Buddhism is an ocean.
I agree with you altough I don't know so much about the ethics behind budhism. I am more familiar with meditation, and I think that the people who don't have this familiarity, they don't really understand that their entire life is in accordance with their predominant toughts and feelings (or also called stories, gods, values). If we recognize that, we can then make better choices.
He looks at different perceptions of nirvana, as a place of ascencion, distancing oneself from the world completely, opposed to loosing oneself completely by removing any distance between "self" and the "world". Why is that a shallow place?
@@tudorscutariu1012 , Lack of knowledge of ETHICS in Buddhism? Yikes, Tudor S. Just study in depth the meaning of KARMA is a bitch. That is where Ethics stays hidden.
1) Suffering is just one of the entry gates to Buddhism. 2) Nirvana is not an exotic experience. So you don't have to go somewhere higher it is the pure state of mind corrupted by society over generations. 3) Every human is capable of compassion and the more we meditate the more empathy we have. With enough compassion we can dissolve situations that lead to war. 4) There is no ethics in meditation. Buddha believes in nothing. Nothingness cannot lead to delusion. 5) Animity is a state of mutual victimhood. 6) Morals are for those who want the status quo of society. Buddhism is the status quo of pure consciousness. That may or may not be congruent with social construct of morals. 7) Inner peace is an answer to a person's life. Collective life can or cannot be derived from those answers depending upon the practitioner's accepted role in society. It's very hardly known and even less after one is done with living inside the society. 8) Plato can be called an equivalent of Buddha but in his own way. His ideas demand as much of self-dissolution as Buddhism. Buddhism is vigorious self-discovery. Plato is grounded on excellence of the actions which lead to a better world. However, he provides much less psychological methods worth execution.
His (Dr. Z) is a very common western misunderstanding of Buddhism. Suffering is a problem for many people, but the first of the four noble truths is that suffering exists, and that it therefor has an end, just as it must therefore have a beginning. Acceptance of these is how we move from somewhere else other than the suffering we experience, which can feel suffocating. Where is that somewhere else? The experience (feeling) that there not only suffering. This is to say that there are the five aggregates, and that these arise together to make up the human being, yet the human being is not these in totality, but that which also guides these. Therefore to choose to accept what is taking place is to guide the five aggregates in freedom of movment which is not present when we are stuck in the act of suffering.
Mahayana Buddhism which introduced this concept of Bodhisattva was probably done to make it more popular among the masses,so that people wouldn't be left alone in their path to salvation, which i believe is a necessity to achieve emancipation.
Being alone is scary right? But at the same time being alone is a necessity for me as a human to familiarize with my own stories. In this way I know what I value and then I can see this similarities also in other humans. This comprehension (of similarities of values between people) changes my perception around others.
@@tudorscutariu1012 In Hinduism there is a concept of handholding or awakening, particularly by a Guru. People might not be able to enlighten themselves by treading the path alone. So even great and venerated Indian Saints have had a guru. Mahayana Buddhism shares a lot with Hinduism. Mahayana Buddhism started using Sanskrit, the language of upper class, and particularly ' Brahmans'. More so, emancipation must not be seen as separated from religion that's why requires a guide. We have Moksha in Hinduism, Kaivalya in Jainism and similarly Nirvana in Buddhism
@@anik.09 oh, thank you, I have like some online models which I admire and they practice meditation. Should I consider them a guru or they must be constant in my real life.
@@tudorscutariu1012 You can obviously. But in general Guru is supposed to be a one to one thing. Like a teacher in your school. But as the world changes so does the definitions.
@@anik.09 Do you think having a guru is necessary also to feel less lonely during the "path"? Because it seems to me that there are many moments in which we feel lost and lonely and at the same time we keep deciding to focus on the presence in us (like we know that life starts from us and then expands from us to the world around).
@@tudorscutariu1012 i think enlightenment is about the relationship you have with the contents of your life...the people, places, things and adversities. So is it really beyond our grasp, or is it available to all, at any moment?
@@5hydroxyT I think it is not so easy and it takes time to recognize the beauty of life in every moment and with every object of attention. But in my experience with meditation everything sounds somewhat more beautiful. I think sometimes it seems not so easy to grasp entirely the beauty of the present moment. But it can be done with practice. I have to be kind and gentle with people because if I say that it is easy to grasp the beauty then in some way it seems falsified if it doesn't happen to me first. So I believe that sincerity is what truly matters, especially when someone comes to us for advice and just to listen. In our modern times it is very easy to find motivating discourses but in my experience they are not the solution if we don't find the beauty in ourselves first and then check also with others experiences. I don't think that enlightenment is beyond grasp. What would that mean? 🤔 Maybe enlightenment could be believed to be some magical experience but I don't think so. Life is more simple than mystical experiences that I cannot say some people haven't experienced but we should believe in our experience first. Because in the other case we are depending too much on the words of someone we consider more than us. And that is not true.
Most people getting peeved in the comment section consider themselves at peace with the Universe. Need it be reminded that Slavoj Zizek is part of the Universe?
Those that are peeved are also part of the Universe. You've simply wasted words on observing where we all are, when it was plain to anybody with eyes. Foolish.
Identifying as Buddhist doesn't mean you've made attainments. Also 'being at peace with the universe', whatever that means, was not mentioned by the Buddha to the best of my knowledge. You may have your Eastern philosophies mixed up. If you simply meant cultivating equanimity, it is encouraged but isn't the final goal (which in itself differs depending on the school or tradition). Even someone possessing this quality would still defend their faith from misinformation if they thought it was necessary. You're confusing equanimity with apathy.
The criticism on the concept of bodhisattvas, and the idea of upaya, where one attain enlightenment via ways other than meditation, are generally Mahayana Buddhist traditions.
I don't understand how he come to this conclusion. Bhuddhism is trying to solve the suffering. Answer is No. Bhuddhism teaches that the cycle of birth and death is suffering. For to believe that you need to believe the theory called punarjanma, ,Karma, and the eternity of Atman. Atman always exists.
I think he's critiquing western Buddhism, or "mindfulness Buddhism," that suggests that mere existence in the present leads to inner peace and the lessening of suffering. The belief system's centering around "peace" can translate into mere hedonism. As such, this creates the paradox of a "mindful murderer," a person who is at peace and acting in the present while doing horrible things (he discusses this). As a westerner, I obviously haven't experienced Buddhism in the east, but I do know that the acceptance of pain and lessening the suffering of other feature more prominently.
This is a paradox when you see presence (as western culture intends it) with just knowing something about your life in a certain moment. But, enlightment is something more I would argue. I think we misunderstand the ethics behind the term "presence". Why would someone decide that knowing your life is something good to do? Maybe because only if I pay attention to my own "stories", I have the opportunity to acknowledge my values (which are dominant feelings/sensations), then comparing them with "external" ones (when I listen to someone, when I read a book), then seeing similarities between mines and others values and from that deriving some "compassionate" behaviour. Peace is not an hedonic term, is more like knowing that our values count, and they are what makes us humans, I think it is a sense of belonging, which is the contrary of loneliness but at the same one has to be alone to gain familiarity with one's toughts and feelings. In short, knowing our toughts and sensations --> giving values --> ackowledge others similar values --> compassion.
His hero hegel was secretly inspired by ancient Indian vendanta. Nirvana isn't reached by meditating. If you meditate to get something from it you're already considering the future and thus missing the point. Point is a fine word too incidentally.
According to the suttas, reaching Nibbana can only happen through practicing Dhamma. "Bhavana" or "cultivation" (unfortunately translated as "meditation) is essential. Understanding the stillness of the mind happens through experiencing that stillness and knowing what lead to it. We can't learn how to swim unless we get in the water.
Nirvana is annihilation of ego self ...In advaita vedanta atma is the end reality which can be achieved by annihilation of jivatma or ego centred identity....
Meditation is not a state, is not a moment of bliss. It is very different. A state of bliss is temporary, but knowing our own most dominant toughts and feelings, this leads to values, the values can be then comparable with other people's values, then a sense of belonging can derive from knowing the similarities of our values and others ones. But we have to familiarize with our owns toughts and feelings first. Which is another way to call meditation.
i loved this guy when i first discovered him because of his delivery (i guess i never had a deep reason to enjoy his talks) but more and more the nose thing... what is the problems of his nose touching? i will look up that video
We first need to suffer then secondly we will then look for a problem to solve suffering. Is this not how the Buddha found out the truth. He suffered at both edges of the scale. First he suffered from ignorance in having excess materialism being a prince then he suffered from letting it all go in extreme like the yogis sitting in silence and prolonged meditation. So he then realised there was a vast space between these two states of mind which he called the Middle Way. His teachings then allow the inner body to heal and the chakras to be flowing once again. Karma is released and the mind is free of suffering ✨🫶🏻✨🙏🏻✨
Meditation doesn't have a defined outcome. It isn't like a regulated course of action, such as a ritual or recommended behaviour. It may change how you see things, but not in a pre-ordained way. We unfortunately have concepts about 'enlightenment', that get in the way of our actual experience.
there were multiple major Buddhism reform in history, just like there are many versions of Bible for Jesus. you just quoted japanese one for reference. that's really authentic work there
I see that the comment section is much more prepared than Zizek, mostly experts😊... Buddhism leaves too much room for the free interpretations of which we Westerners make the following use; a little meditation mostly to be physically fit, or if we've been to india, as soon as we get back we open a meditation center to pass on our incredible experience to others. I believe that if we did swimming as consistently as we do yoga and meditation classes it would be much more beneficial. Having an orderly life, a routine, discipline, good physical health, clinging to the certainties that a regular life offers, an order to submit the chaos we carry within. All this has nothing to do with spirituality.
It feels like Žižek is discussing avatars and partial descriptions/understandings that are typically used to describe aspects of 'awakening'. I'm not saying he's fighting 'strawmen' , but perhaps pointing at them? And if the 'lesson' is that humans can justify harmful actions within any system, I'm not sure why this is pointed at Buddhism specifically. FYI - (as I understand it) Nirvana is not 'distance' . In specific there are discussions of the 'near enemy' of Equanimity being Indifference. What is called for is a Porous Heart, not a Teflon Heart.
I'm happy that this man is thinking for himself, but my suggestion is that he should do more reading on the subject. And, of course, take an interest in the practice of mindfulness.
On the first point, I agree but for a different reason. The lack of morals and ethics in Buddhism, IMO, comes from the Buddhist meditation practice out of the Mahayana tradition. This teaching appeals to Westerners in particular because of its elite snobbery entitlement. Mahayana Buddhism calls itself the higher vehicle and Hinayana Buddhism the lower vehicle. Hinayana Buddhism, btw, does not recognize Mahayana Buddhism. Westerners secretly like practicing something that is considered "higher" by persons in positions of authority but they also want a payout for their efforts. They put in 10,000 hours of Buddhist meditation so they deserve [fill in the blank]. On his second point, I get what he's saying about falling into society as a Bodhisattva. However, the Bodhisattva is slave work. The notion is that as an enlightened Bodhisattva, after you die you must come back here to preach the Dharma to maintain your Bodhisattva status. If you decide to retreat you relinquish that status. Whether or not he is aware of it, Zizek is promoting slavery. Getting everyone to be a Bodhisattva is not going to change the world to make it a better place because from the start the tradition looks down on a segment of Buddhists as inferior, which extends out to other identity politics. It solidifies the first point that Mahayana Buddhism lacks morals and ethics. If taken from a historical perspective, Buddhism was a reaction to the caste system of Hinduism.
Most of Zizek's critique is conflating 'Buddhism' with its late distortions. In the true Dharma, a fully enlightened being (an Arahant) has no desire to kill. Those Chinese who considered Pol Pot enlightened did not understand the Dharma though they may have called themselves Buddhists. A serious Buddhist abides by the five precepts (the first of which is abstention from all killing). D.T. Suzuki was a talented essayist, but his remarks about the 'sword' doing the killing were largely due to his entanglement with 20th century Imperial Japan; he (and a sizeable portion of Zen sects) made irresponsible remarks that he later apologized for.
The first words of this talk shows the problem with analyzing something outside your understanding. The Buddha was concerned with transcendence of suffering, to not want it is to grasp it and lose sight of the core of all Buddha’s teachings.
Detachment, Nirvana, Meditation, escaping suffering, transcending karma (??what?)? Zen Buddhism isn’t all buddhism. There are so many types of buddhism that I would argue it doesn’t really do anything to critique just buddhism. This comes across as so naive.
The idea of Buddhism is SILENCE. Zizek can never understand Buddhism because he TALKS SO MUCH. Nothing wrong with this: he's a very interesting guy. But it's the OPPOSITE of Buddhism.
If you want to criticize "Buddhism," you should try to criticize what is common to the different schools of Buddhism, the central teaching. The schools of Buddhism don't have a monolithic body of doctrine, except for the Four Noble Truths. Zizek's critique creates a "Buddhism" that doesn't exist and is directed at the doctrines of sub-schools that often conflict with the teachings of other schools.
0:28 zizek already commited a big mistake, the point of buddhism is not to stop suffering but to reach the end of suffering, buddhist don't try to stop suffering since that ould imply a desire (tanha) to stop sufferi g and craving/desire is what cause suffering in the first place, buddhist try to understan suffering and find how operates
Questioning in buddhism is part of the practice. It's practiced by a school in tibet where monks argue opposite points to the learner. This is what what the buddha taught. If you look carefully at tge texts hecsays nit ti accept his teaching with any blind faith but test them with your own experiences. This is basis of buddhism you are missing. What is suffering?why do we suffer?- What is nirvana? Does it exist? hese are questions you have to answer yourself through your own experience.
To me the problem of Buddhism is that it takes too much to understand and shift your vision in a practical manner. I feel like it can be achieved and explained in much simpler ways.
Im curious, ive never thought of it like that. Can you give me an example of a buddhist idea that and its simpler counterpart? context i grew up buddhist but was never really a practitioner or anything and i feel its pretty simple in its explanations.
@@RaiderNation126 1.(go with the flow) let go , everytime something bad or good happens, dont attach to it , enjoy it or cry about it , feel the emotions coming in and then turn a new leaf when times passes and the natural process is to keep going. 2.(respect all nature)dont harm any creature, either animals or human , this means to respect everysingle life because every life is important, this can mean for some buddhist to eat meat is okey because somepeople cannot live without meat, their bodies are not capable of eating just veggies. But never hurt an animal more than it should. Hunting for survival is okey, but hunting for fun its extremely not okey. 3.(people who hurt other, they hurt themselves) never lie , manipulate, hurt , use , deceive, insult anyone not even your worst enemies. People who hurt others are recentful and they are only creating more evil , they are inviting evil into their bodies. You should always follow a sensation of inner peace or seek that peace that allows you to let everyone do what they want without you getting attach to the evil deeds or too involved into it. Instead teach them the correct way if you can , teach them how to be a better person, a moral person, a peaceful and happier person. 4. (You are your temple)seek greater knowledge, a powerful body, a peaceful mind, a more empathic heart, an spontaneous life , intense feelings and emotion , all for the good of the universe. And enjoy the process because only by wanting all those and seeking it you are already in a correct path. I created this manual based on my upbringing (a loving family), the buddhist theory and the christian religion among other things, there is more but this is enough for a start
""What I find attractive in Western tradition - it's terribly politically incorrect what I'm saying now - in contrast to this [Buddhist[ idea: don't get involved, maintain an inner distance.... isn't the entire western ethics - starting with Plato - entirely an ethics of falling into? Opening yourself to an encounter. Our western love is not this peaceful Buddhist smile - it's out there. It's something, and you fall fully into it." I want to put this quote over a picture of Jordan Peterson, and see if anyone will notice that something is amiss.
We had a horrible experience with a "Buddhist" neighbour. The worst thing I ever did was talk to the woman..... I honestly thought she was a nice person. Couldn't have been more wrong. FIRST RED FLAG: She said I got cancer because I was evil in a past life or was being punished for something. Honestly what kind of rubbish is that ?? I suppose the children in hospital are being punished too...??? 🤨 SECOND RED FLAG: Soon after learning I was going through treatment she began to do strange things like every time we were in our yard or had people over she would get out the sage and gong her bowl whilst walking around chanting some buddhist nonsense (very loudly) THIRD RED FLAG: She set off our smoke alarms when we weren't home (actually out getting treatment) With sage over our fence...... lots of it. Massive amounts. It was all caught on our security cameras & our home absolutely stunk like crap, yet she denied it 😂 FOURTH RED FLAG: She salted our front yard on the property line to the point nothing would grow. This went on every day & night for just over a year then...... The hilarious outcome of all of this.......😂😂...... she got divorced & moved away because her husband cheated on her 😂 😂😂😂 I know I shouldn't laugh but I guess I wasn't the evil one after all
1. The idea that one can attain Nibanna and then after the death of their body they can continue to be reborn is not what the early teachings of The Buddha taught. It was something that developed centuries later. And is not in line with what The Buddha taught. 2. The suttas make it clear, that after the fuel that keeps rebirth happening is ended, there is no choice of being reborn. In the same way, when the fuel of a flame ends, there can be no flame. 3. The suttas also make it clear that one who has reached Nibbana cannot intentionally kill. The causes that lead to one intentional killing are gone. - The desire to kill is weakened even earlier on because as one starts to see the effect doing harm has on the mind, the desire to kill, even insects starts to fade. 4. The Buddha made it clear that it is only through understanding that one becomes free of suffering. This cannot be done by taking specific chemicals. 5. It's not that happy states born of chemicals are "undeserved". It's that these states are "anicca" which can be translated as "impermanent/unreliable".
Buddhism doesn’t start with the problem of suffering, but with the problem of appearance and reality. Happiness, however you can conceive of it, is very much within a fictionality.
in hinduism we have the supreme god vishnu falling down to the earth in form of ram and krishna taking human bodies and going through struggles in form of incarnation, he shud actually get his facts right. although i think the incarnation of christ is an extension to the avatars of vishnu and the end of them coz according to hinduism we r in kali yuga where we are sin is unavoidable and only faith i.e bakti saves us.
We have to distinguish Hinayana from Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism. Also the Western abominations of Buddhism are something totally different. Zen or Chan Buddhism are again something different. We cannot generalize these strands without becoming more vulgar and superficial. Also, in Chinese communism there is the notion of (economic) liberation and the notion of (political) "turning around" or fanshen or awakening. But the CPC lacks the Buddhist notion of spiritual liberation or awakening. But there is the attempt to integrate Buddhism into communism. A highly liberating endeavour.
Zizek is hopelessly lost in a verbal approach to Buddhism, of which there are many different versions. He's a quirky master of wooly-minded obscurantism, creating impenetrable run-on cloud excursions of thought that simulate analytic acuity without providing any comprehensible framework that eventually enables the pieces to cohere in any meaningful way.
Slavo my frst point is that your first point is an assumption clearly based on ignorance and so was an incorrect one. Budhism isn't about an eradication of pain it's about what we do with pain, our response to it. In essense Budhism is, apart from many other things, about responsibility. Before I go, what's your problem with emancipation and the concept of communism, since we've never had true communism ? Your comentary is irrelevant in any serious discussion on Budhism, my suggestion is drop the contempt prior to investigation and go do some. LotsaLove
Very dangerous advice I was listening from buddhist monk when girl was talking about violence from father and he advice that show him love and compassion that was very dangerous advice.Buddhism too need some changes if we want to implement in society
Who has problems with Buddhism? :) Problems in Buddhism as perceived by who? From what angle... The narative falls apart, if it is there at all. Buddhism is about massive intellectual clarity which is definitely lacking here.
Never heard of the chemical way he mentions, after 30 years of texts in Sanskrit and Pali.... Goodness, confused mind, all over the place,how is Pol Pot thrown into the picture... Gosh...Basically, WTF
Does anyone know how the name of the japanese scholar (zizek friend that he mentions at the end of the video) is written ? Or does anyone know the buddhist school which holds that nirvana is about "falling into the world" rather than keeping distance from the world (as zizek put it)?
The leftist scholar Zizek refers to all the way at the end is Kojin Karatani, who claims Nirvana is not about maintaining an inner distance, but falling fully into the world. In Mahayana Buddhism, a bodhisattva is a person who is able to reach nirvana but delays doing so out of compassion in order to save suffering beings. The other name drop here is D. T. Suzuki.
This version of buddhism where you can take a pill to reach Nirvana makes me laugh but it's really sad the same time. No pill can't do the job for changing the data of ignorance, greed and hate which mostly forms all kinds of human desires of our human realm into friendliness, compassion, joy for achievements of others and the same evenly perception of good and bad as you see the emptiness which lays behind of all things. Without this day-by-day training of ethical things you can't enter Djana. Let alone you need a great amount of energy for that and if you do any 'killing' of any sentinent beings this will throw you back to zero and even further, no matter you feel 'piece' inside or not haha! It's not about your perception of the killing and torture. Its just a pure mechanism which will leave this data of suffering of other being in your 'Formless Realm' (causal realm as we westerners say) and you won't be able to go any further in your meditation and can't enter other realms. Just not possible. Ethics means energy in this Universe. That's why it's the key. Buddhism should be studied like a real sceince before talking very superficially about it.
I think that Buddhism is too passive, it forgets the active part of the life, that the desire is not necessarily sinful, beacause is life (Sorry my broken english)
Are you lonely? Maybe spending time with your toughts and feelings could be good in order to familiarize with them, with time maybe know your values. Then know others values and so you could feel belonging to the people because we have similar values as humans.
Dukkha ~ Suffering is just a very superficial translation of the Sanskrit term. Best described as frustration or underlying sense of frustration. And yes - man doesn't escape suffering, more is it part and parcel of the collective identity, justifying the narrative of "fight for survival". We suffer, so we have to fight for our share of happiness (self-improvement disciplines). Not seeing that precisely this strife for the better is increasing Dukkha to the max. Is perpetuating the very thing which is supposed to be overcome (some day !). Sorry I don't chave time now to develop this further ~
I hear this argument but I have to say that Buddhism provides for ethics in teachings of Sìla. The eightfold path is morality directive. I may not sit for meditation for the prescribed 2 hours a day but my whole life is oriented to observe Sìla. Buddhism in its essence is a philosophy and members of the sangha know this. Of course, the mcmindfullness practioners negate the ethics of Buddhism while clinging and profiting from 'inner peace' rhetoric. Not surprising that this westernised, orientalism perspective of Buddhism is the basis of such arguments
Also, D.T. Suzuki (if he's the one you're quoting) is by no means any kind of authority on Buddhism, he just wrote a lot of books, which turned out unhelpful to many. Basic tenets of Buddhism are the rejection of any arbitrary judgement, since reality is perfect as it is (so there is no good or evil, or even a place for any kind of morality). The problem arises when you realize that most of the population won't get enlightened in this lifetime, and they need morality to conduct themselves in a less-harmful way. Understanding Buddhism (or Christianity, Vedantic religions etc.) before and after enlightenment are practically polar opposites (that's probably why most religions end up like they do, only a tiny minority of people can truly understand the messages). Discovery of Nag Hammadi has gifted us with an unprecedented insight into early Christianity. Gospel of Thomas, for example, is perfectly understandable to awakened ones (hence Jesus' remarks on the "children of light"), but not so much to the vast majority of other Christians, so these groups ended up extinct (and we wouldn't even know about them had we haven't gotten lucky with the Nag Hammadi library).
Your first sentence is simply wrong. D.T.Z. was an authority on Zen Buddhism and I, like many, found his books to be VERY useful. The history of the Christian sects who's texts were found at Nag Hammadi is rather complex and not always known, but the 4th century Roman civil war had a lot to do with why they were supressed over sects that believed Jesus was a physical person who rose from the dead, (rather than being a composit myth, a metaphor or occurring on a higher plane) which addresses a human emotional need for a savior and put priests into the position of intermediary with God, authority for all people.
4:15 - Among the other misunderstandings and incorrect claims in this video, Slavoj doesn't seem to realize that when Mahayana Buddhists talk of 'postponing ultimate enlightenment' this is rhetorical (hyperbole) as is the request made to bodhisattvas by devotees to not enter 'final enlightenment'.... Clearly in Mahayana Buddhism the Buddhas do not abandon Samsara, otherwise the essence of the Mahayana - which is 'bodhicitta' or attaining Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings - would be contradictory. Slavoj seems like a nice guy but he also seems to be something of a pseud imho....
@@ograda3120 ‘Besides, who said anger was a ‘negative’ emotion in of itself?’ Buddha did and he was very adamant about this. Aversion (extreme form anger, mild form boredom) is one of the five psychic irritants. Enlightenment can be described as the absence of the psychic irritants. Aversion/anger should not be just observed without attachment, it is to be removed and prevented from arising again (right effort). Positive mental states (7 factors of enlightenment) are not simply to be observed, they are to be maintained and strengthened. It is OK to desire positive mental states and the pleasant feelings that can arise in those states. Buddhism is not detachment from one’s emotions, it is not apathy in the sense of its current definition but rather its original meaning (‘a’ - without, ‘pathos’ - pity, weakness, suffering). In other words Buddhism is apathetic in that you develop your emotional structures to the point where they are no longer prone to ‘pathology’ (no longer prone to the psychic irritants). It is very understandable, intuitive even, to think that anger plays a necessary role in our emotional structures but Buddha was adamantly against this view. Whilst you can get things done using anger, Buddha described it as an impure fuel source that leaves toxins/impurities in the system and these toxins set the conditions for the future arising of dissatisfaction. Love is described as a pure, renewable, limitless source of energy who’s residues actually set the conditions for positive mental states/feelings in the future (like a hydrogen fuel cell that produces drinking water for the thirsty). Buddha described anger as the greatest stain on the character but it is easier to ‘wash off’ than the other psychic irritants because it only ever arises with unpleasant feeling (whereas for example sensory desire can sometimes be accompanied with pleasant feeling). Serenity is not the opposite counterpart to anger, if anything loving kindness would be, however Buddha doesn’t teach these mental states as being diametrically opposed or connected. In fact when Buddha summarises his teachings he very specifically advocates for non ill-will, he doesn’t say you must be always in a constant state of loving kindness, just non ill-will. (There are neutral states of mind which are important). I can understand the thought of ‘if everything is impermanent then how can a state of enlightenment be described as irreversible?’. Or ‘if a positive mental state is impermanent then surely when it ceases it will lead to frustration/suffering because I’ve identified or ‘attached’ to it?’. Enlightenment is not one state of mind, it is a combination of 7 factors/states of mind. It is irreversible in the sense that you will always dwell in at least one of them, sometimes more, and the psychic irritants don’t arise. As such the change of one mental state to another in enlightenment is not accompanied by ‘frustration’ or a feeling of loss. ‘But all emotions are to be trusted as long as you hold them in perspective and in context to the given situation’. This is why Buddha starts with the true nature of reality, of existence. There is nowhere you can exist which is outside of or exempt from the nature of existence. It is only by understanding the true nature of existence (impermanent, dissatisfactory and without substance) that one can ascertain what mental states are going to lead to wellbeing in any and all contexts (love, equanimity etc) and what emotional states will lead to suffering in all contexts (aversion, sensory desire etc). ‘Or really as long as you don’t try to ‘hold on’ to them as states that exist outside the perspective/context.’ I think I understand what you mean and the worry of ‘attaching’ to (holding on to) a particular mental state is cropping up again. This needn’t be a worry, 1: because if loving kindness, for example, is useful for you in all lives, all places in the cosmos at any time, it is OK to want to cultivate it and hold onto it and 2: the closer you get to enlightenment the less of a problem (frustration) there is when loving kindness, for example, subsides because it is never replaced with a hinderance but rather a different factor of enlightenment. Much love
@@ograda3120 I think you misunderstand. I did not mean that anger is unnecessary or that it is bad in and of itself. But there is a difference when you are in control of the emotion rather than the other way around. And that is what self mastery is. It does not come by merely "falling" into the world. The buddhist masters saw that there is a need to learn, change one's perspective and work on oneself and all of that is not for nothing. Most people are swallowed by their envy, greed, insecurities etc.
@@dividen100 I appreciate that. I’m really not best placed to explain these concepts as a layman. For a far clearer and deeper understanding I cannot recommend this teacher highly enough, Ajahn Sona, who can be found on TH-cam. Peace
Meditation is not a means to reach enlightenment, on the contrary. But once you are enlightened meditation is an expression of that enlightened state. There are no specific means for reaching enlightenment, various schools have various approaches, there are more direct paths (like in Zen) and more disciplined paths that require hard work as a prerequisite for reaching enlightenment. You could get Satori out of nowhere, or under the influence of psychedelic drugs etc. It's somewhat similar to the Christian concept of God's grace, your desire to get enlightened will get you nowhere (in a sense, of course, since the desire is what puts you on that path in the first place, but in the end, enlightenment is a sudden, and possibly violent shift in perspective, by 180° that comes seemingly out of nowhere, and definitely isn't under your control).
Com todo meu respeito à Žižek, pois o acho em vários campos, um muito bom pensador contemporâneo, mas sobre o budismo, nesta sua visão bastante limitada ao conceito ocidentalizado e romantizado sobre o tema, parte com seus pressupostos de distorções históricas e aberrantes que também foram manifestadas pontualmente por outros 'pensadores' e observadores despreparados, e assim, também confunde-se em entendimentos e epifanias superficiais e mostra-se como mais um infeliz e arrogante ignorante a falar sobre esta prática e esse tema. Age como quem critica uma embalagem, em uma 'campanha de marketing' que pouco relaciona-se como a real essência do produto. Ninguém que não seja um particante dedicado de muitos anos com um bom e autorizado mestre e com uma extensa base, e mesmo um filosofo ou não, está minimamente preparado para falar sobre este tema. Quer saber sobre budismo? Consulte um tradicional lama budista. With all my respect to Žižek, as I find him in various fields a very good contemporary thinker, but on Buddhism, in his view quite limited to the westernized and romanticized concept on the subject, he starts with his assumptions of historical and aberrant distortions that also were punctually manifested by other 'thinkers' and unprepared observers, and thus, it is also confused in superficial understandings and epiphanies and shows itself as another unfortunate and arrogant ignorant to talk about this practice and this topic. He acts like someone criticizing a package, in a 'marketing campaign' that has little to do with the real essence of the product. No one who is not a dedicated participant of many years with a good and authoritative teacher and with an extensive base, and even a philosopher or not, is in the least prepared to speak on this subject. Want to know about Buddhism? Consult a traditional Buddhist lama.
I enjoy Zizek, certainly not because I agree with him. His take on Buddhism is based on associations and incidentals in which he can cite facts - but this has little or nothing to do with the essence from which Buddhism emanates.
Dear Prof Slavoj Žižek, I do really love to listen to your talks and mostly enjoy them. However, when you give talks on Buddhism you may have to do some little adjustments to your talks to give them more meaning, in my understanding. Firstly, the generalized western idea of Buddhism has always been highlighted as 'suffering', 'suffering', and 'suffering'. But it is not correct Sir! Suffering is universal nature, and happiness is only a tiny part also of this suffering thing. However, Buddhism guides disciples to experience a higher level of happiness. Sadly it is a very much less talked about topic in the west. The entire universe is manifested as impermanent and imperfect facts because they keep changing constantly. That's what science also unconditionally agrees with. Understanding this impermanent, imperfectness in nature can be achieved through meditation/wisdom. Then it would be easy to focus on real Happiness and try to understand what is it, as well as what would be the real objective or purpose of pursuing such happiness. When we are able to identify the samsara, as an impermanent jargon, in a universal context then it may convince us of the nature of birth, death, and rebirth cycles of endless recurrence of that. That is exactly the point in time we really come to experience true happiness and its value, which is known as practicing 'compassion'. Compassion could only come to someone through the hard practice of meditational 'wisdom', which finally influences compassion as the only meaningful purpose in one's life to be in service towards all living beings. This is the ultimate happiness and the way of life (the path) to experience Nirvana while alive. The meaning of Nirvana is the self-realization of the state of mind when one knows he is non-attached to the secularity hence NOT going to be born again in the samsara cycles to experience meaningless ideas (birth, existence & death) of suffering or happiness. Some people also describe this condition as 'emptiness'. Thank you Professor!
Meditation isn't necessary for enlightenment, and most likely won't happen because of it, enlightenment comes on suddenly. Like he said enlightenment happens when you accept the world (universe); as your essence and have seen beyound the myriad of illusions.
A great illusion to believe in is to think that detachment brings peace. Detachment implies you are separate from consequences and meaning. Meaning is an important attribute to human existence
You do not understand the principle. Detachment simply means to not get carried away by the impermanent nature of thought, feeling and events. Its a way of positioning yourself not a separation from because Buddhism declares separation an illusion. Zizek is right that Buddhism does not want to change the world, its a revolution of the individual not life, nor people or events.
Is not detachment that will take to “nirvana” ( the recognition of you true nature-happiness ) it’s nirvana that will naturally bring detachment because you will no longer identify completely with form.
There's more than one type of detachment. Some might conclude that suicide or self mortification is total detachment, which is extreme. We see that in pillar saints, aghori babas, sufi wanderers, or even in nihilistic SS concentration camp guards and Islamic terrorists. Zen buddhism on the other hand is about striking a balance between involvement and detachment.
As a relatively disinterested nonbeliever I am still curious why his opinions are apparently found to be so offensive (presumably by Buddhists?!) merely from some his observations (?) The excuse that Buddhism cannot be nor should it be expected to be explainable with mere words is laughable. It would seem to be much like a complex scientific theory- if you can explain it in simple and easy to understood terms, you don't understand it yourself!?
he lost me early on, i didnt not think Buddhists want to get rid of suffering, just that suffering exists life is suffering yes, and im not studied in buddhism
Immediately wrong. The Buddha simply acknowledged that life appears "unsatisfactory" and that it contains suffering. He did not suggest it was possible to avoid suffering completely, but that the acceptance of the circumstances of life can assist in not creating more mental suffering caused by resistance to reality.
If we are going to deconstruct "Buddhism" from a Western intellectual perspective then it might be worth starting by defining terms. There's no such thing as "Buddhism". As far as I understand it "Buddhism" is a term that white westerners invented for followers of "the way". I'm not trying to be nit picky clever here just trying to explain that the practices are primary and the ideas about the practices are secondary. The thing he is deconstructing is not the moon but the finger pointing at the moon. We should hold these concepts lightly and with humour.
For a man as allegedly smart Zizek, he is woefully underread about eastern philosophies. His bashing of the Bhagawad Gita as 'Evil' , without any actual contextual rationale is shocking.
In regards to the absence of a "necessary" moral content, this is true. As a matter of fact, many enlightened masters were involved in scandals and I've heard over and over that enlightenment does not make you incapable of being an asshole but it can make the process of not being an asshole much simpler 😉
@@5hydroxyT , No! Enlightenment comes in several grading.. just like you start with kindergarten, Primary secondary school, etc etc.. Without morality, there is no enlightenment. You need to define Enlightenment first.
If you read the massive collection of early Buddhist texts, you see how harmful behavior is not encouraged. It is actively discouraged because it does not lead to peace in oneself or in others. The West was naive to Buddhist practice and so followed many people who were not truly practicing the Dhamma. They were only nominally Buddhist, but not practicing "sila" which is an essential part of the path. One can't be at peace and be acting out on unskillful motivations and behaviors. It is not physically possible.
@@5hydroxyT No. It is not possible for the mind to be at peace when one has weak ethics. Due both to the effects the actions have on the mind and the fact that the motivation that leads to that behavior is also a lot of dukkha.
@@ivanruiz2218 so we have to define what makes a man ethically strong. I think it is the repeated, intimate familiarity with one's toughts/sensations/feelings, which then become values, which are comparable with others values, which brings a sense of belonging, a sense of being equanimous because we know we are like others. Then loneliness becomes weak, then worries become weak, then equanimity appears. But it takes time to say "ah, my feelings are actually real and they count".
Misrepresentation. ZIZEK sets up 'strawman' version of buddhism then attempts to knock down this false version.
agreed
Zizek got it all wrong, it seems:
1. Buddhists don't want to get rid of suffering as such. Suffering is a part of living and cannot be avoided. However, the reaction to suffering can be controlled and mastered through detachment from suffering.
2. Meditation is mindfulness, which is being present in the moment. It's the awareness of being aware, and paying attention to what you are paying attention to, and attached to in fact. The realization that all phenomena are without inherent essence, also called Sunyata, is a transforming factor. Therefore, meditation is not only an exercise but it becomes a way of everyday living eventually.
3. The enlightened bodhisattva knows that Nirvana and Samsara are fundamentally one and the same reality. Driven by compassion, bodhisattvas tend to help others naturally and joyfully, so there is no going back and forth between Nirvana and Samsara, i.e. the illusory world. Obviously, Zizek doesn't understand this point.
4. There is no such thing as a compassionate war in Buddhism.
5. No, you can't reach Nirvana through drugs. This is heresy, so to say.
6. Nirvana is NOT a state of permanent happiness as Zizek pretends. Nirvana is the ultimate realization that all phenomena, including the self, are empty, lacking inherent essence, being transient and interdependent. The enlightened person lives an ordinary life in an extraordinary way due to their ability to remain detached effortlessly. They know that everything is empty, including the idea of emptiness itself. It's psychological rather than intellectual.
7. Morality in Buddhism is natural kindness and compassion. However, they do not suppress spontaneity and the instinct of self-preservation or self-defense. The enlightened person doesn't have the intention to kill or harm anyone, including oneself.
8. The middle way in Buddhism is the relinquishing of all views and all extremes, including the ideas of fall and retreat. The enlightened, cultivating a mushin mind, is fully involved in the ordinary world and life in an extraordinary way, that is completely detached and yet completely caring and kind.
The only problem in Buddhism, in my opinion at least, is that you cannot possibly understand, let alone criticize Buddhism fairly enough unless you have actually practiced Buddhism for years and even decades. It's because mostly all the essence of Buddhism is psychological and experiential rather than philosophical or intellectual.
Maybe because we are not familiar with that way of explaining things. I think meditation brings culture to the world intsead of pretending to destroy it, like nazis with books. In speding time doing nothing "except paying attention to one's toughts and feelings one has the opportunity to familiarize with them. With time they become values, values can be compared with others values (though reading, listening to someone's words, arts etc). This knowing of similarities between my values and others brings a sense of belonging (peace), which brings "compassionate" actions and behaviours. So there's no an end (nirvana) to this process. It is a lifetime enrichment.
maybe these are 'his problems based on his understanding' should be the title, i agree tho i didnt get far in the video because the first point in your reply was my exact thought, appreciate the breakdown i enjoyed your comment to help me learn more
Well it is possible to "get it" at a very young age even while you have absolutely no idea of buddhism or anything. Later in life one might piece everything together but if you have no interest in teaching, no one will know. You just live a peaceful and maybe a little more creative life than average.
thanks for the essay Chat GPT!
@@Nostalgiator we will never know😂 fuck AI
This man is badly in need of meditation.. . He seems so anxious 😅
Almost looks like Allah is holding him at gunpoint
I've never seen someone misunderstand something as much as this man misunderstands Buddhism.
Why do you think he is misunderstanding it, if may I ask?
Tell me your a theravadin without telling me your one.
I'm wondering if you watched the presentation to the end. He looks at different perceptions of nirvana, as a place of ascencion, distancing oneself from the world completely, opposed to loosing oneself completely by removing any distance between "self" and the "world".
@@minimal3734 I agree with you on that. But how is "knowing I'm living" affecting my wellbeing? How is this translating in removing loneliness?
@@tudorscutariu1012 Right off the bat the word "dukkha"... it's a bit more nuanced than "suffering".
I think Zizek is too in love with the complex process of intellectualizing the world to truly understand what Buddhism is in practice.
I think Buddhism and western philosophy are at the opposite. Western philosophy is COMPLETELY built upon ego.
th-cam.com/video/lP4pMU7frQU/w-d-xo.html
Zizek hardly understands anything (except from several languages, apparently); so it's hardly a surprise that he doesn't get Buddhism. What a Marxist doesn't understand, he just ridicules or condemns.
He shows at the end that he gets it.
Pure cope, please never write again.
Almost none of the actual Asian Buddhists have read any of this philosophical stuff. For them, Buddhism consists of temples, rituals and shamanic practices. Buddhism for them, is simply native folk religion (paganism).
Ive wondered about this also. Such a pity
I have a problem with "When you are in Nirvana"... what does Zizek mean by "you"?
I don't think he understands the architecture of Buddhist consciousness. No mention of 'ego;... there's is NO 'you' in Nirvana.
I think you are right, but i myself find it really difficult to understand how one has to "dilute" oneself, leaving the self behind but on the other hand is reborn? Maybe you could help me with that, if you have an idea of what i am struggling with.
@@morrisw4284 on one hand, 'you' cannot kill your ego... on the other hand, your ego only relatively exists in relationship to everything else - it has no essential essence... what a bind! The ego and 'other' is one irreducible aspect of reality (dualism)... the other, is non-dual... the basic ground of consciousness - w/out quality, w/out beginning or end - this is the base experience of mind... the eternal REAL.. the basic idea is that actions stemming from your ego's self-centred impulses (desire, hatred, indifference) amplify suffering in your future egos. The good news is the simple, boring act of meditating (on ones out breadth) allows a gently 'letting go' of ego's attachment to thought and action... I kind of intervention on ego that uncover the basic non-dual aspect of reality and consciousness.
I'm not smart enough (patient enough?) to fully grasp Zizek's own framework of metaphysics - it's very difficult for me to follow on my own... perhaps you can explain? :)
@@juliangosper You described it quite nicely for me to understand (at least superficially it makes sense to me i guess, although i dont think i have grasped it for myself as well as you did). Sadly i only watch youtube videos and have never read any primary literatur from zizek himself, so i can not help you with his fundamental truths or metaphysics. But i know he basis a lot of his ideas on Hegel´s philosophy so maybe looking into that will help you?
@@morrisw4284 great advice - I'm inspired by Zizek to dig into Hegel.
I really like Z's style but I do wish he had more material like "A Pervert's Guide to Cinema" which really helps explain his ideas through easily grasped analogies!
@@juliangosper here’s a pretty good video on Zizek’s metaphysics: th-cam.com/video/CpaKKKEkn8g/w-d-xo.html
This dude should read more about Dzogchen. A book by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu might inform him more about the things he is talking about.
Zizek should talk to a buddhist scholar, because his knowing in this subject is superfitial. Buddha never said that life is suffering, he said life is Dukkha, wich is has much more complex meaning. Pol Pot was not a buddha, he was a psychopath. Bodhisattva is a concept of Mahayana Buddhism, not all traditions in buddhism accept this concept.
Yes, absolutely. There is no real understanding there, the whole lecture is pointless imo, in a category "I wan't to talk, I'm clever". Very typical, when western scholars talk about non-dual related stuff. Jung and few others being the exceptions.
Also, one should have the courtesy of blowing one's nose _before_ giving a lecture.
@@pete_k I agree with your point. I want to ask you, what you mean by non-duality?
@@tudorscutariu1012 expecting someone to explain such thing in a YT comment is a bit too much! Do your own investigation, do not trust stragers' comments.
Anyway, maybe I should have chosen my words more carefully, as the word non-dualism is typically associated with hindu tradition Advaita vedanta. It is not perhaps the 1st word that comes to mind for describing buddhism. But in a way the term is related to both religions, which share many principles and have common roots.
@@pete_k But in your opinion, from your experience, what does this term mean? I have my doubts around this term, like how knowing that I exist would make me feel at peace? I've been meditating for a few years and till now I felt lonely many times, also when I was meditating. But in recent times I view meditation as a way to familiarize with my toughts and feelings. So my loneliness is now reduced because it seems to me that my meditation, brings me to familiarize with my toughts and feelings, and they then become values, which can be compared with other people's values and finally a sense of belonging may appear. But I don't know if this understanding is the enscripted in the word "englightment" or "non-duality".
@@tudorscutariu1012 you cannot expect me to become your online teacher. I am not a teacher. There are plenty of good teachers available, and this term is explained in countless web pages.
(Also, who knows, maybe you are in a point of life, where you should just deal with some psychological issues, and forget about meditation etc for a while? Random 'spiritual' advice may harm you as likely as help, if there is no real teacher-pupil interaction.)
Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Speech. These and other parts of the Noble Path both propel you to engage ethically with the world and also prevent you from harming others, if you truly follow it.
I observe that most westerners, including Zizek, it seems, approach Buddhism from a shallow place. I encourage anyone who really wants to deepen their own life to check out Buddhism on its own terms. I personally love Thich Naht Hanh. Buddhism is an ocean.
Why don't you personally love the fucking actual scriptures?
...
I agree with you altough I don't know so much about the ethics behind budhism. I am more familiar with meditation, and I think that the people who don't have this familiarity, they don't really understand that their entire life is in accordance with their predominant toughts and feelings (or also called stories, gods, values). If we recognize that, we can then make better choices.
He looks at different perceptions of nirvana, as a place of ascencion, distancing oneself from the world completely, opposed to loosing oneself completely by removing any distance between "self" and the "world". Why is that a shallow place?
Buddhism is shallow though.
@@tudorscutariu1012 ,
Lack of knowledge of ETHICS in Buddhism? Yikes, Tudor S.
Just study in depth the meaning of KARMA is a bitch. That is where Ethics stays hidden.
1) Suffering is just one of the entry gates to Buddhism.
2) Nirvana is not an exotic experience. So you don't have to go somewhere higher it is the pure state of mind corrupted by society over generations.
3) Every human is capable of compassion and the more we meditate the more empathy we have. With enough compassion we can dissolve situations that lead to war.
4) There is no ethics in meditation. Buddha believes in nothing. Nothingness cannot lead to delusion.
5) Animity is a state of mutual victimhood.
6) Morals are for those who want the status quo of society. Buddhism is the status quo of pure consciousness. That may or may not be congruent with social construct of morals.
7) Inner peace is an answer to a person's life. Collective life can or cannot be derived from those answers depending upon the practitioner's accepted role in society. It's very hardly known and even less after one is done with living inside the society.
8) Plato can be called an equivalent of Buddha but in his own way. His ideas demand as much of self-dissolution as Buddhism. Buddhism is vigorious self-discovery. Plato is grounded on excellence of the actions which lead to a better world. However, he provides much less psychological methods worth execution.
Not nothingness but emptiness
His (Dr. Z) is a very common western misunderstanding of Buddhism.
Suffering is a problem for many people, but the first of the four noble truths is that suffering exists, and that it therefor has an end, just as it must therefore have a beginning.
Acceptance of these is how we move from somewhere else other than the suffering we experience, which can feel suffocating. Where is that somewhere else? The experience (feeling) that there not only suffering.
This is to say that there are the five aggregates, and that these arise together to make up the human being, yet the human being is not these in totality, but that which also guides these. Therefore to choose to accept what is taking place is to guide the five aggregates in freedom of movment which is not present when we are stuck in the act of suffering.
it is when I fall deeply into samsara that I found there is no one there,
and that the gate of nirvana is wide open and no one is in the way
Mahayana Buddhism which introduced this concept of Bodhisattva was probably done to make it more popular among the masses,so that people wouldn't be left alone in their path to salvation, which i believe is a necessity to achieve emancipation.
Being alone is scary right? But at the same time being alone is a necessity for me as a human to familiarize with my own stories. In this way I know what I value and then I can see this similarities also in other humans. This comprehension (of similarities of values between people) changes my perception around others.
@@tudorscutariu1012 In Hinduism there is a concept of handholding or awakening, particularly by a Guru. People might not be able to enlighten themselves by treading the path alone. So even great and venerated Indian Saints have had a guru. Mahayana Buddhism shares a lot with Hinduism. Mahayana Buddhism started using Sanskrit, the language of upper class, and particularly ' Brahmans'. More so, emancipation must not be seen as separated from religion that's why requires a guide. We have Moksha in Hinduism, Kaivalya in Jainism and similarly Nirvana in Buddhism
@@anik.09 oh, thank you, I have like some online models which I admire and they practice meditation. Should I consider them a guru or they must be constant in my real life.
@@tudorscutariu1012 You can obviously. But in general Guru is supposed to be a one to one thing. Like a teacher in your school. But as the world changes so does the definitions.
@@anik.09 Do you think having a guru is necessary also to feel less lonely during the "path"? Because it seems to me that there are many moments in which we feel lost and lonely and at the same time we keep deciding to focus on the presence in us (like we know that life starts from us and then expands from us to the world around).
3 mins in and I already found so much I disagree with Zizek's argument.
you made it 3 min, i did not, but i appreciate this being available for others
Okay tell me one thing you disagree with please
I'd love to someday visit the south Asian nation of Blabla.
Nobody invited
“enlightenment is intimacy with all things” - Dogen
Where do you think this "knowing" comes from?
there is no knowing!
@@5hydroxyT so what this phrase represent?
@@tudorscutariu1012 i think enlightenment is about the relationship you have with the contents of your life...the people, places, things and adversities. So is it really beyond our grasp, or is it available to all, at any moment?
@@5hydroxyT I think it is not so easy and it takes time to recognize the beauty of life in every moment and with every object of attention. But in my experience with meditation everything sounds somewhat more beautiful. I think sometimes it seems not so easy to grasp entirely the beauty of the present moment. But it can be done with practice. I have to be kind and gentle with people because if I say that it is easy to grasp the beauty then in some way it seems falsified if it doesn't happen to me first. So I believe that sincerity is what truly matters, especially when someone comes to us for advice and just to listen. In our modern times it is very easy to find motivating discourses but in my experience they are not the solution if we don't find the beauty in ourselves first and then check also with others experiences. I don't think that enlightenment is beyond grasp. What would that mean? 🤔 Maybe enlightenment could be believed to be some magical experience but I don't think so. Life is more simple than mystical experiences that I cannot say some people haven't experienced but we should believe in our experience first. Because in the other case we are depending too much on the words of someone we consider more than us. And that is not true.
Most people getting peeved in the comment section consider themselves at peace with the Universe. Need it be reminded that Slavoj Zizek is part of the Universe?
Those that are peeved are also part of the Universe. You've simply wasted words on observing where we all are, when it was plain to anybody with eyes. Foolish.
Identifying as Buddhist doesn't mean you've made attainments. Also 'being at peace with the universe', whatever that means, was not mentioned by the Buddha to the best of my knowledge. You may have your Eastern philosophies mixed up. If you simply meant cultivating equanimity, it is encouraged but isn't the final goal (which in itself differs depending on the school or tradition). Even someone possessing this quality would still defend their faith from misinformation if they thought it was necessary. You're confusing equanimity with apathy.
@@desapole is being at peace really apathetic or is it acceptance? One can accept the world as dark while still working to improve it
@@johndough6225 That's the point I'm making. An accomplished Buddhist has cultivated equanimity, not apathy.
@@desapole i thought you were saying making peace with the world was apathetic as opposed to equanimous, sorry if i misunderstood
What is he saying that we need to do this for? I don’t understand what his goal is when he speaks about what we need
The criticism on the concept of bodhisattvas, and the idea of upaya, where one attain enlightenment via ways other than meditation, are generally Mahayana Buddhist traditions.
I don't understand how he come to this conclusion.
Bhuddhism is trying to solve the suffering.
Answer is No.
Bhuddhism teaches that the cycle of birth and death is suffering.
For to believe that you need to believe the theory called punarjanma, ,Karma, and the eternity of Atman.
Atman always exists.
The problem with Buddhism is we are trying to understand it with the mind.
Spot on
Alan Watts:
The problem with Buddhism is .....
Clangggggggg
So dumb
This is too simple to say. What do you mean by that?
It focuses on the mind though.
He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about but this is enjoyable nonetheless.
I think he's critiquing western Buddhism, or "mindfulness Buddhism," that suggests that mere existence in the present leads to inner peace and the lessening of suffering. The belief system's centering around "peace" can translate into mere hedonism. As such, this creates the paradox of a "mindful murderer," a person who is at peace and acting in the present while doing horrible things (he discusses this). As a westerner, I obviously haven't experienced Buddhism in the east, but I do know that the acceptance of pain and lessening the suffering of other feature more prominently.
This is a paradox when you see presence (as western culture intends it) with just knowing something about your life in a certain moment. But, enlightment is something more I would argue. I think we misunderstand the ethics behind the term "presence". Why would someone decide that knowing your life is something good to do? Maybe because only if I pay attention to my own "stories", I have the opportunity to acknowledge my values (which are dominant feelings/sensations), then comparing them with "external" ones (when I listen to someone, when I read a book), then seeing similarities between mines and others values and from that deriving some "compassionate" behaviour. Peace is not an hedonic term, is more like knowing that our values count, and they are what makes us humans, I think it is a sense of belonging, which is the contrary of loneliness but at the same one has to be alone to gain familiarity with one's toughts and feelings. In short, knowing our toughts and sensations --> giving values --> ackowledge others similar values --> compassion.
His hero hegel was secretly inspired by ancient Indian vendanta.
Nirvana isn't reached by meditating. If you meditate to get something from it you're already considering the future and thus missing the point. Point is a fine word too incidentally.
According to the suttas, reaching Nibbana can only happen through practicing Dhamma. "Bhavana" or "cultivation" (unfortunately translated as "meditation) is essential. Understanding the stillness of the mind happens through experiencing that stillness and knowing what lead to it.
We can't learn how to swim unless we get in the water.
Nirvana is annihilation of ego self ...In advaita vedanta atma is the end reality which can be achieved by annihilation of jivatma or ego centred identity....
Meditation is not a state, is not a moment of bliss. It is very different. A state of bliss is temporary, but knowing our own most dominant toughts and feelings, this leads to values, the values can be then comparable with other people's values, then a sense of belonging can derive from knowing the similarities of our values and others ones. But we have to familiarize with our owns toughts and feelings first. Which is another way to call meditation.
i loved this guy when i first discovered him because of his delivery (i guess i never had a deep reason to enjoy his talks) but more and more the nose thing... what is the problems of his nose touching? i will look up that video
its a nervous tic
We first need to suffer then secondly we will then look for a problem to solve suffering. Is this not how the Buddha found out the truth. He suffered at both edges of the scale. First he suffered from ignorance in having excess materialism being a prince then he suffered from letting it all go in extreme like the yogis sitting in silence and prolonged meditation. So he then realised there was a vast space between these two states of mind which he called the Middle Way.
His teachings then allow the inner body to heal and the chakras to be flowing once again. Karma is released and the mind is free of suffering ✨🫶🏻✨🙏🏻✨
Meditation doesn't have a defined outcome. It isn't like a regulated course of action, such as a ritual or recommended behaviour. It may change how you see things, but not in a pre-ordained way.
We unfortunately have concepts about 'enlightenment', that get in the way of our actual experience.
there were multiple major Buddhism reform in history, just like there are many versions of Bible for Jesus. you just quoted japanese one for reference. that's really authentic work there
I see that the comment section is much more prepared than Zizek, mostly experts😊... Buddhism leaves too much room for the free interpretations of which we Westerners make the following use; a little meditation mostly to be physically fit, or if we've been to india, as soon as we get back we open a meditation center to pass on our incredible experience to others. I believe that if we did swimming as consistently as we do yoga and meditation classes it would be much more beneficial. Having an orderly life, a routine, discipline, good physical health, clinging to the certainties that a regular life offers, an order to submit the chaos we carry within. All this has nothing to do with spirituality.
It feels like Žižek is discussing avatars and partial descriptions/understandings that are typically used to describe aspects of 'awakening'. I'm not saying he's fighting 'strawmen' , but perhaps pointing at them? And if the 'lesson' is that humans can justify harmful actions within any system, I'm not sure why this is pointed at Buddhism specifically. FYI - (as I understand it) Nirvana is not 'distance' . In specific there are discussions of the 'near enemy' of Equanimity being Indifference. What is called for is a Porous Heart, not a Teflon Heart.
I'm happy that this man is thinking for himself, but my suggestion is that he should do more reading on the subject. And, of course, take an interest in the practice of mindfulness.
Mindfulness is just Heroin for those afraid of needles.
On the first point, I agree but for a different reason. The lack of morals and ethics in Buddhism, IMO, comes from the Buddhist meditation practice out of the Mahayana tradition. This teaching appeals to Westerners in particular because of its elite snobbery entitlement. Mahayana Buddhism calls itself the higher vehicle and Hinayana Buddhism the lower vehicle. Hinayana Buddhism, btw, does not recognize Mahayana Buddhism. Westerners secretly like practicing something that is considered "higher" by persons in positions of authority but they also want a payout for their efforts. They put in 10,000 hours of Buddhist meditation so they deserve [fill in the blank].
On his second point, I get what he's saying about falling into society as a Bodhisattva. However, the Bodhisattva is slave work. The notion is that as an enlightened Bodhisattva, after you die you must come back here to preach the Dharma to maintain your Bodhisattva status. If you decide to retreat you relinquish that status. Whether or not he is aware of it, Zizek is promoting slavery. Getting everyone to be a Bodhisattva is not going to change the world to make it a better place because from the start the tradition looks down on a segment of Buddhists as inferior, which extends out to other identity politics. It solidifies the first point that Mahayana Buddhism lacks morals and ethics.
If taken from a historical perspective, Buddhism was a reaction to the caste system of Hinduism.
Most of Zizek's critique is conflating 'Buddhism' with its late distortions. In the true Dharma, a fully enlightened being (an Arahant) has no desire to kill. Those Chinese who considered Pol Pot enlightened did not understand the Dharma though they may have called themselves Buddhists. A serious Buddhist abides by the five precepts (the first of which is abstention from all killing). D.T. Suzuki was a talented essayist, but his remarks about the 'sword' doing the killing were largely due to his entanglement with 20th century Imperial Japan; he (and a sizeable portion of Zen sects) made irresponsible remarks that he later apologized for.
Wonderful in a terrifying sense.... 😆 l love Žižek
The first words of this talk shows the problem with analyzing something outside your understanding. The Buddha was concerned with transcendence of suffering, to not want it is to grasp it and lose sight of the core of all Buddha’s teachings.
A bit of meditation wouldn't harm your tics and involuntary moves
Detachment, Nirvana, Meditation, escaping suffering, transcending karma (??what?)? Zen Buddhism isn’t all buddhism. There are so many types of buddhism that I would argue it doesn’t really do anything to critique just buddhism. This comes across as so naive.
The idea of Buddhism is SILENCE. Zizek can never understand Buddhism because he TALKS SO MUCH. Nothing wrong with this: he's a very interesting guy. But it's the OPPOSITE of Buddhism.
🙂
Lol! This is real. Philosophers have interesting things to say, but it's always been hard for me to stomach how much blathering they do.
@@mushymass9716 BLATHERING is the essence of contemporary culture.
Funny as hell how you capitalized silence.
@@owretchedman DON'T YOU KNOW yelling critiques in youtube comments section is a sign of ENLIGHTENMENT
you can not avoid suffering. Buddhism helps you tolerate suffering
More like accept it
If you want to criticize "Buddhism," you should try to criticize what is common to the different schools of Buddhism, the central teaching.
The schools of Buddhism don't have a monolithic body of doctrine, except for the Four Noble Truths. Zizek's critique creates a "Buddhism" that doesn't exist and is directed at the doctrines of sub-schools that often conflict with the teachings of other schools.
He’s wrong from the get-go. The teaching is about understanding not getting rid of suffering.
0:28 zizek already commited a big mistake, the point of buddhism is not to stop suffering but to reach the end of suffering, buddhist don't try to stop suffering since that ould imply a desire (tanha) to stop sufferi g and craving/desire is what cause suffering in the first place, buddhist try to understan suffering and find how operates
His referrence to Bodhisattva is a concept developed in Mahayana Buddhism not the original Theravada
What is said in Theravada that is different from Mahayana? Pray tell.
Thera means failed in Tamil
Hi ayana Eena means silly , lowly in Tamil
Hem. Speaking too much by thinking rather than doing. Like reading about how to train to run a marathon without even bothering to run 1 mile a day.
what??? philosophy IS thinking
Questioning in buddhism is part of the practice. It's practiced by a school in tibet where monks argue opposite points to the learner. This is what what the buddha taught. If you look carefully at tge texts hecsays nit ti accept his teaching with any blind faith but test them with your own experiences. This is basis of buddhism you are missing. What is suffering?why do we suffer?- What is nirvana? Does it exist? hese are questions you have to answer yourself through your own experience.
To me the problem of Buddhism is that it takes too much to understand and shift your vision in a practical manner. I feel like it can be achieved and explained in much simpler ways.
thats why buddhism is like life, its a journey, in life there isnt any magical button you can press and fix your problems in a instant.
Im curious, ive never thought of it like that. Can you give me an example of a buddhist idea that and its simpler counterpart? context i grew up buddhist but was never really a practitioner or anything and i feel its pretty simple in its explanations.
@@RaiderNation126 1.(go with the flow) let go , everytime something bad or good happens, dont attach to it , enjoy it or cry about it , feel the emotions coming in and then turn a new leaf when times passes and the natural process is to keep going.
2.(respect all nature)dont harm any creature, either animals or human , this means to respect everysingle life because every life is important, this can mean for some buddhist to eat meat is okey because somepeople cannot live without meat, their bodies are not capable of eating just veggies. But never hurt an animal more than it should. Hunting for survival is okey, but hunting for fun its extremely not okey.
3.(people who hurt other, they hurt themselves) never lie , manipulate, hurt , use , deceive, insult anyone not even your worst enemies. People who hurt others are recentful and they are only creating more evil , they are inviting evil into their bodies. You should always follow a sensation of inner peace or seek that peace that allows you to let everyone do what they want without you getting attach to the evil deeds or too involved into it. Instead teach them the correct way if you can , teach them how to be a better person, a moral person, a peaceful and happier person.
4. (You are your temple)seek greater knowledge, a powerful body, a peaceful mind, a more empathic heart, an spontaneous life , intense feelings and emotion , all for the good of the universe. And enjoy the process because only by wanting all those and seeking it you are already in a correct path.
I created this manual based on my upbringing (a loving family), the buddhist theory and the christian religion among other things, there is more but this is enough for a start
""What I find attractive in Western tradition - it's terribly politically incorrect what I'm saying now - in contrast to this [Buddhist[ idea: don't get involved, maintain an inner distance.... isn't the entire western ethics - starting with Plato - entirely an ethics of falling into? Opening yourself to an encounter. Our western love is not this peaceful Buddhist smile - it's out there. It's something, and you fall fully into it."
I want to put this quote over a picture of Jordan Peterson, and see if anyone will notice that something is amiss.
"Dukka" is not really the same as "suffering". So I stopped watching this after 1 minute.
Buddhist teachings (in the West, at least) rarely open with a reflection upon transcendental life in the society before the Buddha lived.
We had a horrible experience with a "Buddhist" neighbour.
The worst thing I ever did was talk to the woman..... I honestly thought she was a nice person. Couldn't have been more wrong.
FIRST RED FLAG:
She said I got cancer because I was evil in a past life or was being punished for something. Honestly what kind of rubbish is that ??
I suppose the children in hospital are being punished too...??? 🤨
SECOND RED FLAG:
Soon after learning I was going through treatment she began to do strange things like every time we were in our yard or had people over she would get out the sage and gong her bowl whilst walking around chanting some buddhist nonsense (very loudly)
THIRD RED FLAG:
She set off our smoke alarms when we weren't home (actually out getting treatment)
With sage over our fence...... lots of it. Massive amounts.
It was all caught on our security cameras & our home absolutely stunk like crap, yet she denied it 😂
FOURTH RED FLAG: She salted our front yard on the property line to the point nothing would grow.
This went on every day & night for just over a year then......
The hilarious outcome of all of this.......😂😂...... she got divorced & moved away because her husband cheated on her 😂
😂😂😂
I know I shouldn't laugh but I guess I wasn't the evil one after all
Zizek is a far less careful viewer of star wars than he is a reader of hegel
This is a known thing among various Buddhist schools, it termed as, 'Zen Devilry'
1. The idea that one can attain Nibanna and then after the death of their body they can continue to be reborn is not what the early teachings of The Buddha taught. It was something that developed centuries later. And is not in line with what The Buddha taught.
2. The suttas make it clear, that after the fuel that keeps rebirth happening is ended, there is no choice of being reborn. In the same way, when the fuel of a flame ends, there can be no flame.
3. The suttas also make it clear that one who has reached Nibbana cannot intentionally kill. The causes that lead to one intentional killing are gone.
- The desire to kill is weakened even earlier on because as one starts to see the effect doing harm has on the mind, the desire to kill, even insects starts to fade.
4. The Buddha made it clear that it is only through understanding that one becomes free of suffering. This cannot be done by taking specific chemicals.
5. It's not that happy states born of chemicals are "undeserved". It's that these states are "anicca" which can be translated as "impermanent/unreliable".
Buddhism doesn’t start with the problem of suffering, but with the problem of appearance and reality. Happiness, however you can conceive of it, is very much within a fictionality.
in hinduism we have the supreme god vishnu falling down to the earth in form of ram and krishna taking human bodies and going through struggles in form of incarnation, he shud actually get his facts right. although i think the incarnation of christ is an extension to the avatars of vishnu and the end of them coz according to hinduism we r in kali yuga where we are sin is unavoidable and only faith i.e bakti saves us.
I think 'Problems of Cocaine' would be a more fitting title. Severe agitation and rambling incoherence being two major ones.
He's not on cocaine
sorry, I meant "compounding"
We have to distinguish Hinayana from Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism. Also the Western abominations of Buddhism are something totally different. Zen or Chan Buddhism are again something different. We cannot generalize these strands without becoming more vulgar and superficial.
Also, in Chinese communism there is the notion of (economic) liberation and the notion of (political) "turning around" or fanshen or awakening. But the CPC lacks the Buddhist notion of spiritual liberation or awakening. But there is the attempt to integrate Buddhism into communism. A highly liberating endeavour.
Zizek is hopelessly lost in a verbal approach to Buddhism, of which there are many different versions. He's a quirky master of wooly-minded obscurantism, creating impenetrable run-on cloud excursions of thought that simulate analytic acuity without providing any comprehensible framework that eventually enables the pieces to cohere in any meaningful way.
Slavo my frst point is that your first point is an assumption clearly based on ignorance and so was an incorrect one. Budhism isn't about an eradication of pain it's about what we do with pain, our response to it. In essense Budhism is, apart from many other things, about responsibility. Before I go, what's your problem with emancipation and the concept of communism, since we've never had true communism ? Your comentary is irrelevant in any serious discussion on Budhism, my suggestion is drop the contempt prior to investigation and go do some. LotsaLove
Very dangerous advice I was listening from buddhist monk when girl was talking about violence from father and he advice that show him love and compassion that was very dangerous advice.Buddhism too need some changes if we want to implement in society
Seems like he went on Wikipedia to read about Buddhism. Whom did he talk to? It doesn’t seem like he knows much about Buddhism.
Who has problems with Buddhism? :) Problems in Buddhism as perceived by who? From what angle... The narative falls apart, if it is there at all. Buddhism is about massive intellectual clarity which is definitely lacking here.
What is the name of the talk? This appears to be a response to a question or an intervention that was supposed to be brief haha
Life is suffering. Its not Life has suffering
Never heard of the chemical way he mentions, after 30 years of texts in Sanskrit and Pali.... Goodness, confused mind, all over the place,how is Pol Pot thrown into the picture... Gosh...Basically, WTF
I didn't know Buddhism didn't want to suffer. It's rather not to care too much which is why stress and suffering come thru life
Does anyone know how the name of the japanese scholar (zizek friend that he mentions at the end of the video) is written ?
Or does anyone know the buddhist school which holds that nirvana is about "falling into the world" rather than keeping distance from the world (as zizek put it)?
Kojin Karatani
The leftist scholar Zizek refers to all the way at the end is Kojin Karatani, who claims Nirvana is not about maintaining an inner distance, but falling fully into the world.
In Mahayana Buddhism, a bodhisattva is a person who is able to reach nirvana but delays doing so out of compassion in order to save suffering beings. The other name drop here is D. T. Suzuki.
Zizek is talking rubbish and quoting Rubbish.
Well, who are you going to believe and/or study with, Buddha and people like Thich Nat Hahn, or Zizek?
Buddhism even after 2600 years is still kicking but communism is on it s deathbed just after a century😢😢😢
Half knowledge does more harm than good.
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds *
This version of buddhism where you can take a pill to reach Nirvana makes me laugh but it's really sad the same time. No pill can't do the job for changing the data of ignorance, greed and hate which mostly forms all kinds of human desires of our human realm into friendliness, compassion, joy for achievements of others and the same evenly perception of good and bad as you see the emptiness which lays behind of all things. Without this day-by-day training of ethical things you can't enter Djana. Let alone you need a great amount of energy for that and if you do any 'killing' of any sentinent beings this will throw you back to zero and even further, no matter you feel 'piece' inside or not haha! It's not about your perception of the killing and torture. Its just a pure mechanism which will leave this data of suffering of other being in your 'Formless Realm' (causal realm as we westerners say) and you won't be able to go any further in your meditation and can't enter other realms. Just not possible. Ethics means energy in this Universe. That's why it's the key. Buddhism should be studied like a real sceince before talking very superficially about it.
I personally find Buddhism and Communism go hand in hand. Communism seems to be the exoteric model of Buddhism, which is an esoteric practice itself.
I think that Buddhism is too passive, it forgets the active part of the life, that the desire is not necessarily sinful, beacause is life
(Sorry my broken english)
Buddhism goal is to achieve nirvana which means the cessation of the cycle of birth and death.
Are you lonely? Maybe spending time with your toughts and feelings could be good in order to familiarize with them, with time maybe know your values. Then know others values and so you could feel belonging to the people because we have similar values as humans.
Dukkha ~ Suffering is just a very superficial translation of the Sanskrit term.
Best described as frustration or underlying sense of frustration.
And yes - man doesn't escape suffering, more is it part and parcel of the collective identity, justifying the narrative of "fight for survival".
We suffer, so we have to fight for our share of happiness (self-improvement disciplines).
Not seeing that precisely this strife for the better is increasing Dukkha to the max. Is perpetuating the very thing which is supposed to be overcome (some day !).
Sorry I don't chave time now to develop this further ~
Does anyone know whats the book that talks about the reality of Buddhism? 0:57
I hear this argument but I have to say that Buddhism provides for ethics in teachings of Sìla. The eightfold path is morality directive. I may not sit for meditation for the prescribed 2 hours a day but my whole life is oriented to observe Sìla. Buddhism in its essence is a philosophy and members of the sangha know this. Of course, the mcmindfullness practioners negate the ethics of Buddhism while clinging and profiting from 'inner peace' rhetoric. Not surprising that this westernised, orientalism perspective of Buddhism is the basis of such arguments
Also, D.T. Suzuki (if he's the one you're quoting) is by no means any kind of authority on Buddhism, he just wrote a lot of books, which turned out unhelpful to many. Basic tenets of Buddhism are the rejection of any arbitrary judgement, since reality is perfect as it is (so there is no good or evil, or even a place for any kind of morality). The problem arises when you realize that most of the population won't get enlightened in this lifetime, and they need morality to conduct themselves in a less-harmful way. Understanding Buddhism (or Christianity, Vedantic religions etc.) before and after enlightenment are practically polar opposites (that's probably why most religions end up like they do, only a tiny minority of people can truly understand the messages). Discovery of Nag Hammadi has gifted us with an unprecedented insight into early Christianity. Gospel of Thomas, for example, is perfectly understandable to awakened ones (hence Jesus' remarks on the "children of light"), but not so much to the vast majority of other Christians, so these groups ended up extinct (and we wouldn't even know about them had we haven't gotten lucky with the Nag Hammadi library).
Your first sentence is simply wrong. D.T.Z. was an authority on Zen Buddhism and I, like many, found his books to be VERY useful. The history of the Christian sects who's texts were found at Nag Hammadi is rather complex and not always known, but the 4th century Roman civil war had a lot to do with why they were supressed over sects that believed Jesus was a physical person who rose from the dead, (rather than being a composit myth, a metaphor or occurring on a higher plane) which addresses a human emotional need for a savior and put priests into the position of intermediary with God, authority for all people.
4:15 - Among the other misunderstandings and incorrect claims in this video, Slavoj doesn't seem to realize that when Mahayana Buddhists talk of 'postponing ultimate enlightenment' this is rhetorical (hyperbole) as is the request made to bodhisattvas by devotees to not enter 'final enlightenment'.... Clearly in Mahayana Buddhism the Buddhas do not abandon Samsara, otherwise the essence of the Mahayana - which is 'bodhicitta' or attaining Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings - would be contradictory.
Slavoj seems like a nice guy but he also seems to be something of a pseud imho....
"Falling into the world" without self-mastery is essentially bringing your desires and hatred into the world of action
@@ograda3120 When negative emotions like fear, jealousy, hatred, anger etc have limited duration and impact
@@ograda3120 ‘Besides, who said anger was a ‘negative’ emotion in of itself?’ Buddha did and he was very adamant about this. Aversion (extreme form anger, mild form boredom) is one of the five psychic irritants. Enlightenment can be described as the absence of the psychic irritants. Aversion/anger should not be just observed without attachment, it is to be removed and prevented from arising again (right effort). Positive mental states (7 factors of enlightenment) are not simply to be observed, they are to be maintained and strengthened. It is OK to desire positive mental states and the pleasant feelings that can arise in those states.
Buddhism is not detachment from one’s emotions, it is not apathy in the sense of its current definition but rather its original meaning (‘a’ - without, ‘pathos’ - pity, weakness, suffering). In other words Buddhism is apathetic in that you develop your emotional structures to the point where they are no longer prone to ‘pathology’ (no longer prone to the psychic irritants).
It is very understandable, intuitive even, to think that anger plays a necessary role in our emotional structures but Buddha was adamantly against this view. Whilst you can get things done using anger, Buddha described it as an impure fuel source that leaves toxins/impurities in the system and these toxins set the conditions for the future arising of dissatisfaction. Love is described as a pure, renewable, limitless source of energy who’s residues actually set the conditions for positive mental states/feelings in the future (like a hydrogen fuel cell that produces drinking water for the thirsty).
Buddha described anger as the greatest stain on the character but it is easier to ‘wash off’ than the other psychic irritants because it only ever arises with unpleasant feeling (whereas for example sensory desire can sometimes be accompanied with pleasant feeling). Serenity is not the opposite counterpart to anger, if anything loving kindness would be, however Buddha doesn’t teach these mental states as being diametrically opposed or connected. In fact when Buddha summarises his teachings he very specifically advocates for non ill-will, he doesn’t say you must be always in a constant state of loving kindness, just non ill-will. (There are neutral states of mind which are important).
I can understand the thought of ‘if everything is impermanent then how can a state of enlightenment be described as irreversible?’. Or ‘if a positive mental state is impermanent then surely when it ceases it will lead to frustration/suffering because I’ve identified or ‘attached’ to it?’.
Enlightenment is not one state of mind, it is a combination of 7 factors/states of mind. It is irreversible in the sense that you will always dwell in at least one of them, sometimes more, and the psychic irritants don’t arise. As such the change of one mental state to another in enlightenment is not accompanied by ‘frustration’ or a feeling of loss.
‘But all emotions are to be trusted as long as you hold them in perspective and in context to the given situation’. This is why Buddha starts with the true nature of reality, of existence. There is nowhere you can exist which is outside of or exempt from the nature of existence. It is only by understanding the true nature of existence (impermanent, dissatisfactory and without substance) that one can ascertain what mental states are going to lead to wellbeing in any and all contexts (love, equanimity etc) and what emotional states will lead to suffering in all contexts (aversion, sensory desire etc).
‘Or really as long as you don’t try to ‘hold on’ to them as states that exist outside the perspective/context.’ I think I understand what you mean and the worry of ‘attaching’ to (holding on to) a particular mental state is cropping up again. This needn’t be a worry, 1: because if loving kindness, for example, is useful for you in all lives, all places in the cosmos at any time, it is OK to want to cultivate it and hold onto it and 2: the closer you get to enlightenment the less of a problem (frustration) there is when loving kindness, for example, subsides because it is never replaced with a hinderance but rather a different factor of enlightenment.
Much love
@@ograda3120 I think you misunderstand. I did not mean that anger is unnecessary or that it is bad in and of itself. But there is a difference when you are in control of the emotion rather than the other way around. And that is what self mastery is. It does not come by merely "falling" into the world. The buddhist masters saw that there is a need to learn, change one's perspective and work on oneself and all of that is not for nothing. Most people are swallowed by their envy, greed, insecurities etc.
@@goldie9731 Thanks for this detailed write up. Was thought provoking and a pleasure to read
@@dividen100 I appreciate that. I’m really not best placed to explain these concepts as a layman. For a far clearer and deeper understanding I cannot recommend this teacher highly enough, Ajahn Sona, who can be found on TH-cam. Peace
Zizek's nose is suffering terribly.
Meditation is not a means to reach enlightenment, on the contrary. But once you are enlightened meditation is an expression of that enlightened state. There are no specific means for reaching enlightenment, various schools have various approaches, there are more direct paths (like in Zen) and more disciplined paths that require hard work as a prerequisite for reaching enlightenment. You could get Satori out of nowhere, or under the influence of psychedelic drugs etc. It's somewhat similar to the Christian concept of God's grace, your desire to get enlightened will get you nowhere (in a sense, of course, since the desire is what puts you on that path in the first place, but in the end, enlightenment is a sudden, and possibly violent shift in perspective, by 180° that comes seemingly out of nowhere, and definitely isn't under your control).
Com todo meu respeito à Žižek, pois o acho em vários campos, um muito bom pensador contemporâneo, mas sobre o budismo, nesta sua visão bastante limitada ao conceito ocidentalizado e romantizado sobre o tema, parte com seus pressupostos de distorções históricas e aberrantes que também foram manifestadas pontualmente por outros 'pensadores' e observadores despreparados, e assim, também confunde-se em entendimentos e epifanias superficiais e mostra-se como mais um infeliz e arrogante ignorante a falar sobre esta prática e esse tema. Age como quem critica uma embalagem, em uma 'campanha de marketing' que pouco relaciona-se como a real essência do produto. Ninguém que não seja um particante dedicado de muitos anos com um bom e autorizado mestre e com uma extensa base, e mesmo um filosofo ou não, está minimamente preparado para falar sobre este tema. Quer saber sobre budismo? Consulte um tradicional lama budista.
With all my respect to Žižek, as I find him in various fields a very good contemporary thinker, but on Buddhism, in his view quite limited to the westernized and romanticized concept on the subject, he starts with his assumptions of historical and aberrant distortions that also were punctually manifested by other 'thinkers' and unprepared observers, and thus, it is also confused in superficial understandings and epiphanies and shows itself as another unfortunate and arrogant ignorant to talk about this practice and this topic. He acts like someone criticizing a package, in a 'marketing campaign' that has little to do with the real essence of the product. No one who is not a dedicated participant of many years with a good and authoritative teacher and with an extensive base, and even a philosopher or not, is in the least prepared to speak on this subject. Want to know about Buddhism? Consult a traditional Buddhist lama.
This should be called “the problem of this nut, not Buddhism. It’s very difficult to listen to this guy
I enjoy Zizek, certainly not because I agree with him. His take on Buddhism is based on associations and incidentals in which he can cite facts - but this has little or nothing to do with the essence from which Buddhism emanates.
Dear Prof Slavoj Žižek, I do really love to listen to your talks and mostly enjoy them. However, when you give talks on Buddhism you may have to do some little adjustments to your talks to give them more meaning, in my understanding. Firstly, the generalized western idea of Buddhism has always been highlighted as 'suffering', 'suffering', and 'suffering'. But it is not correct Sir! Suffering is universal nature, and happiness is only a tiny part also of this suffering thing. However, Buddhism guides disciples to experience a higher level of happiness. Sadly it is a very much less talked about topic in the west. The entire universe is manifested as impermanent and imperfect facts because they keep changing constantly. That's what science also unconditionally agrees with. Understanding this impermanent, imperfectness in nature can be achieved through meditation/wisdom. Then it would be easy to focus on real Happiness and try to understand what is it, as well as what would be the real objective or purpose of pursuing such happiness. When we are able to identify the samsara, as an impermanent jargon, in a universal context then it may convince us of the nature of birth, death, and rebirth cycles of endless recurrence of that. That is exactly the point in time we really come to experience true happiness and its value, which is known as practicing 'compassion'. Compassion could only come to someone through the hard practice of meditational 'wisdom', which finally influences compassion as the only meaningful purpose in one's life to be in service towards all living beings. This is the ultimate happiness and the way of life (the path) to experience Nirvana while alive. The meaning of Nirvana is the self-realization of the state of mind when one knows he is non-attached to the secularity hence NOT going to be born again in the samsara cycles to experience meaningless ideas (birth, existence & death) of suffering or happiness. Some people also describe this condition as 'emptiness'. Thank you Professor!
Meditation isn't necessary for enlightenment, and most likely won't happen because of it, enlightenment comes on suddenly. Like he said enlightenment happens when you accept the world (universe); as your essence and have seen beyound the myriad of illusions.
I wish he had gone into ignorance being the cause of suffering...or impermanence...
A great illusion to believe in is to think that detachment brings peace. Detachment implies you are separate from consequences and meaning. Meaning is an important attribute to human existence
You do not understand the principle. Detachment simply means to not get carried away by the impermanent nature of thought, feeling and events. Its a way of positioning yourself not a separation from because Buddhism declares separation an illusion. Zizek is right that Buddhism does not want to change the world, its a revolution of the individual not life, nor people or events.
Is not detachment that will take to “nirvana” ( the recognition of you true nature-happiness ) it’s nirvana that will naturally bring detachment because you will no longer identify completely with form.
Detachment is removing the condition for suffering aka unwholesome states, so yes, i will say that is peace
There's more than one type of detachment. Some might conclude that suicide or self mortification is total detachment, which is extreme. We see that in pillar saints, aghori babas, sufi wanderers, or even in nihilistic SS concentration camp guards and Islamic terrorists. Zen buddhism on the other hand is about striking a balance between involvement and detachment.
yes, illusions are important. they keep the economy going.
As a relatively disinterested nonbeliever I am still curious why his opinions are apparently found to be so offensive (presumably by Buddhists?!) merely from some his observations (?)
The excuse that Buddhism cannot be nor should it be expected to be explainable with mere words is laughable.
It would seem to be much like a complex scientific theory- if you can explain it in simple and easy to understood terms, you don't understand it yourself!?
he lost me early on, i didnt not think Buddhists want to get rid of suffering, just that suffering exists life is suffering yes, and im not studied in buddhism
"Today's intellectual class is generally more stupid than cabin drivers or housewives"
Costanzo Preve, italian philosopher
Well if he is an intellectual then this is a self defeating statement
@@canismajoris6733 bruh what😮
Italian philosopher or bologna maker ?
Immediately wrong. The Buddha simply acknowledged that life appears "unsatisfactory" and that it contains suffering. He did not suggest it was possible to avoid suffering completely, but that the acceptance of the circumstances of life can assist in not creating more mental suffering caused by resistance to reality.
If we are going to deconstruct "Buddhism" from a Western intellectual perspective then it might be worth starting by defining terms. There's no such thing as "Buddhism". As far as I understand it "Buddhism" is a term that white westerners invented for followers of "the way".
I'm not trying to be nit picky clever here just trying to explain that the practices are primary and the ideas about the practices are secondary. The thing he is deconstructing is not the moon but the finger pointing at the moon.
We should hold these concepts lightly and with humour.
Is Zizek a covert Mahayana Buddhist?
For a man as allegedly smart Zizek, he is woefully underread about eastern philosophies. His bashing of the Bhagawad Gita as 'Evil' , without any actual contextual rationale is shocking.
In regards to the absence of a "necessary" moral content, this is true. As a matter of fact, many enlightened masters were involved in scandals and I've heard over and over that enlightenment does not make you incapable of being an asshole but it can make the process of not being an asshole much simpler 😉
so can one be enlightened without being moral, or at least having bad morals?
@@5hydroxyT ,
No! Enlightenment comes in several grading.. just like you start with kindergarten, Primary secondary school, etc etc..
Without morality, there is no enlightenment.
You need to define Enlightenment first.
If you read the massive collection of early Buddhist texts, you see how harmful behavior is not encouraged. It is actively discouraged because it does not lead to peace in oneself or in others.
The West was naive to Buddhist practice and so followed many people who were not truly practicing the Dhamma. They were only nominally Buddhist, but not practicing "sila" which is an essential part of the path. One can't be at peace and be acting out on unskillful motivations and behaviors. It is not physically possible.
@@5hydroxyT No. It is not possible for the mind to be at peace when one has weak ethics. Due both to the effects the actions have on the mind and the fact that the motivation that leads to that behavior is also a lot of dukkha.
@@ivanruiz2218 so we have to define what makes a man ethically strong. I think it is the repeated, intimate familiarity with one's toughts/sensations/feelings, which then become values, which are comparable with others values, which brings a sense of belonging, a sense of being equanimous because we know we are like others. Then loneliness becomes weak, then worries become weak, then equanimity appears. But it takes time to say "ah, my feelings are actually real and they count".