🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂 📙 You can find my book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
This videos, although sounding rather theoretical, is actually pretty close to practice I think. For me, overthinking and theorising actually leads to a lot of unpleasant feelings. That's also something I'm working on in my practice. Thinking about what the Buddha said, it's probably more appropriate to see that having a lot of thoughts and reasoning isn't a good thing for a lot of topics. Rather it's more appropriate to see things instead of merely thinking about them. Then you can deduct from it if it is right or wrong. Thank you for this video! 😁 I think I watched it at least 5 times by now and it always gave me useful input.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - The Buddha
Great Video, Doug! 😺 This primacy of experience as a source of knowledge and wisdom is one of the main reasons why early Buddhism is so attractive to such a nonbeliever and sceptic like me. 😅 🐱🙏
All know for certain now is - There is Dukkha A cause of Dukkha A cessation of Dukkha And the truth of the path to the end of Dukkha. This is provable. Thanks Doug 🙏
there is no such certainty until far after having ascertained the nature of the mind and all the corresponding conceptual superimpositions and doubts regarding it undergo cessation.
What a great way to wake up this morning. Thank you! I’ve heard it said that the Buddha was omniscient. For a variety of reasons I always found it puzzling and noncredible, especially when meant in the sense of possessing propositional knowledge. Does Jayatilleeke write about this in his book? Or perhaps you’ve discussed it in another video.
Yes, Jayatilleke does discuss omniscience. I also did a video on the topic awhile back: th-cam.com/video/XbmBzuoR8jM/w-d-xo.html . As I recall, we say basically the same things.
Good work Doug. I was reminded of the assetions of Tertullian of Carthage who was the first Christian theologian to present the argument ad populum (if a lot of people believe it...) as well as the argument at hominem (if an individual whose opinion you respect make this claim...); both arguments being specious as the Buddha rightly points out. For the rest I am reminded of David Hume and Ludwig Wittgenstein (whom you name-check). Thank you for a very servicable overview of this subject. Going forward it would be interesting to see an exploration of Nagarjuna's Madyamakakarika and the extent to which this important Buddhist polemic might (or indeed might not ) share resonances with the 'negative theology' intent of Wittgenstein's Tratatus Logico-Philosophicus. Either way, well done!
Yes, I have a video where I mention their work and include a link in the description box where you can download it: th-cam.com/video/fKDyCszF7zE/w-d-xo.html
Dear Doug, So if I understand you well, this might lead us to a pragmatic perspective. Don’t you think this pragmatic perspective can help us to discriminate between buddhist doctrines ? Having rejected the argument from authority (‘such great master said this or that’) we are left with 1) what we consider to be the oldest corpus of Buddhist texts that has come down to us in its entirety, the pāli canon and, of course, 2) personal experience. But even if we were to imagine that this corpus and personal experience could be used to solve problems that are the subject of controversy among Buddhists (which is not obvious), the most important question from a pragmatic point of view still would be : which teaching is most likely to lead us to liberation? So the question we need to ask ourselves is : Are these doctrines (the idea of store-consciousness, Buddha nature, unconditioned consciousness, etc.) not conducive to leading us astray? To put it in more Buddhist terms: don't these ideas carry the risk of attachment to a self? Even if it were explained to us that unconditioned consciousness and the nature of Buddha would be "pure emptiness" (which remains very abstract), we would not have ruled out the danger of a subtle identification and appropriation. Now, it seems, it is precisely against these dangers that the Buddha preached non-self against upanishadic mysticism (not for theoretical reasons). With mettā, Alain
For example if we are sick and looking for a medicine to cure ourself , and there are many people claiming they are Doctors. We will only know if the medicines they give us make us healthy , then we can say we should take that medicines. When we know for ourself. That is what the buddha intended to say i think .
It's the acid test, isn't it? Does this feel right? Is it working for me. Is it taking me forward or just sending me round in circles with little or no progress or end result? Discovering what ultimately helps us along the path. A little like Christianity and the biblical sorting of the wheat from the chaff. But also remembering the difficulty that can arise from accepting false premises. What's quite important to me is to be flexible enough to change my mind if one thing or another isn't making sense. Not sticking rigidly to dogma.
The part on reason also had me think of our nowadays reliance on formal systems, such as math, formal logic and other formal languages. Some of us tend to forget that, while highly reliable, these systems are still just models of the world, not the world itself. Which led in some cases rather harmful beliefs. But the world is under no obligation to obey a model of it. As a whole, the way I perceive it, our reliance on rational models has led some people to believe that things unexplainable to rationalism must be misconceptions, illusions and makebelief. I'm under the impression that this also feeds into contemporary existential dread and nihilism.
8:08 The caste system is based on profession and not birth according to the Vedas but unfortunately discrimination of lower castes was starting to get prevalent and people themselves turned the system birth based. Buddha was against the discrimination which is not mentioned in the Gita, Vedas, etc. To also note there were animal sacrifices which were not done as how the Vedas mentions it causing the animal to undergo more suffering instead of a good rebirth which Buddha reformed.
Interesting, where is written that caste system in the Vedas are based on profession? Can you give me mantra number? Why do you think that Gita is older than Buddha? During the Buddha there were only 3 Vedas, rest all including Upanishads are after Buddha.
What are the considerations given to self-deceit, hallucinations, upholding illusions, adhering to false premises during internal reasoning, and so on? I am highly skeptical of equating kowledge with experience where knowledge implies objectivity and experience excludes logic.
Experience doesn't exclude logic, as I say in the video, the Buddha accepted logic and reason. He simply did not accept *mere* logic and reason: that is, armchair theorizing without evidence.
the buddha utterly critiqued commonplace folk introspection / folk experience and explained methods of developing rigorous observation of the objects they sought to understand. this is why basic refined mental qualities such as perfect samadhi, perfect memory recall, observation of multitude of lifetimes, etcetc, was extremely common even among standard sadhus. even pythagoras after bumping into sadhus and being taught samadhi, philosophy, mathematics including his theorem, then came back to to the west and gave birth to western civilization while claiming to be able to recall his immediate 20 preceding lives and was regarded as a literal alchemist by socrates.
@@5piles that doesn't answer my question. How do buddhists tell the difference between facts and self-deceit? Imagining your past lives is most likely self-deceit, it leads me to distrust people rather than find them enlightened
@@Nathouuuutheone do we suddenly forget basic scientific principles just because we are dealing with potential mental objects? no, so the answer to your question obviously is, they bring a cessation to all your listed defects of folk introspection by developing the rigorous observation of the object we seek to understand ie. the mind. the same way you go beyond folk astronomy. however these days since most physicalists are not prone to clear reasoning, then they can rely on the authority of the instruments their physical sciences have created: we know and can monitor the neural correlates for attention and concentration. we know the avg person is capable of 2 seconds max on avg. we know the very rare genuine tibetan practitioner is able to sustain uninterrupted perfect mental awareness unable to be impinged upon by any external sense stimulus or internal appearance for hours. so for now we at least know something like this is possible in principle. the catastrophe that is the mind of a person is falsified, and this will only get worse as neural imaging tech and brain correlate data deepens. the authentic meditators claim something beyond folk introspection, and this will only be revealed to outside spectators uninterested in serious things when we can precisely measure each of neural corelates of every fault of folk introspection and how these are absent in samadhi. and there are other authoritative examples such as tukdam which is currently being heavily researched in 'the tukdam project'. can watch about it on yt.
@@DougsDharma Our Mind can operate many different 'programs' when you build bridge, use Logic/Reason Program. When you 'create' use Intuition Program. Don't limit your Mind, expand your Mind. :)
Are you tired of my armchair theorizing, Doug? 😂 What I see here though is not just empiricism but more pragmatism: one should believe what works specifically (given the goals.) What an excellent video though. I loved what you did with the truck. That made me smile.
The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata possess a physical eye?” Subhuti replied, “So he does, Bhagavan. The Tathagata possesses a physical eye.” The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata possess a divine eye?” Subhuti replied, “So he does, Bhagavan. The Tathagata possesses a divine eye.” The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata possess a prajna eye?” Subhuti replied, “So he does, Bhagavan. The Tathagata possesses a prajna eye.” The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata possess a dharma eye?” Subhuti replied, “So he does, Bhagavan. The Tathagata possesses a dharma eye.” The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata possess a buddha eye?” Subhuti replied, “So he does, Bhagavan. The Tathagata possesses a buddha eye.”
Yes, I agree, it does sound like an appeal to authority. It's also to an extent a circular definition, since presumably the sensible people will be the people who are able to see right from wrong in the first place. I think it may be better to look at the rest of the claim and leave the issue of "sensible people" aside. On the other hand, if we're not thinking of it as a rigorous definition, but rather as a pragmatic one, then I think we know that there are circumstances where we have a handle on who the sensible people are around us, and what they espouse, yet still we fail to do those things. Perhaps in those cases it would be better just to pay attention to those sensible people.
for example we have the neural coorelates for attention and concentration, so we know who has 2sec attention spams and who has hours long samadhi. likewise all good top tier mathematicians know who is who and why. the confusion about who and who is not sensible is the function of unskilled ppl. yet better to be confused than to erroneously misperceive skill where there isn't.
Doug, your examples seem somewhat contradictory. For example, if I only go by my personal experience of the earth, then I would conclude that it is flat and doesn’t move. I have had no personal experience of the world being a sphere or moving. On the contrary, I know that the earth is a sphere because of information presented to me by others, who claim to have had direct experience with the Earth as a sphere moving through space.
Sir, your efforts are really great but you talk about many things which are demining Buddha, whenever you say that Veda existed in India at the time of Buddha. ❤
Doug, it’s wrong to insert the Upanishad as early forms of arguments. There’s no evidence to back that theory. Upanishad were non existent during Ashok and Gupta dynasty because Ashok and Gupta Dynasties were using Brahmi and pali lipi ( text ). Meanwhile Upanishads can only be found in Sanskrit ( Devnagri ).Have you read the Allah-Upanishad ? Which is weird as how can Upanishad that claims from Vedic period be writing about Allah and Moghuls. Please do thorough research.
@@DougsDharma well then it begs few questions. Which scripts were pre-Buddhist Upanishads written in ? What were their state during Kushan, Maurya and Gupta empire ?
🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂
📙 You can find my book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
This is the kind of clarity and erudition that distinguishes your presentation of Buddhism.
Much appreciated, Leo! 🙏
Sir i must say you understand Buddhism more then most of the Buddhists
🙏
The depth of field here is particularly juicy. Good job.
Thanks so much! Glad you enjoyed.
This videos, although sounding rather theoretical, is actually pretty close to practice I think.
For me, overthinking and theorising actually leads to a lot of unpleasant feelings. That's also something I'm working on in my practice. Thinking about what the Buddha said, it's probably more appropriate to see that having a lot of thoughts and reasoning isn't a good thing for a lot of topics. Rather it's more appropriate to see things instead of merely thinking about them. Then you can deduct from it if it is right or wrong.
Thank you for this video! 😁 I think I watched it at least 5 times by now and it always gave me useful input.
🙏😊
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - The Buddha
Which Sutta is that from?
@@maaaaaaaaarcel Kalama Sutta, but the internet says it may be a bad or inaccurate translation.
Ehipassiko - come see for yourself.
Doesn't that seem circular? Kind of "Do not believe unless you believe"?
Not a Buddha quote.
Great Video, Doug! 😺
This primacy of experience as a source of knowledge and wisdom is one of the main reasons why early Buddhism is so attractive to such a nonbeliever and sceptic like me. 😅
🐱🙏
Yes it's a great place to start!
An impressively thorough video, thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
Very good video, Doug.
Many thanks!
All know for certain now is -
There is Dukkha
A cause of Dukkha
A cessation of Dukkha
And the truth of the path to the end of Dukkha.
This is provable.
Thanks Doug 🙏
🙏😊
there is no such certainty until far after having ascertained the nature of the mind and all the corresponding conceptual superimpositions and doubts regarding it undergo cessation.
What a great way to wake up this morning. Thank you! I’ve heard it said that the Buddha was omniscient. For a variety of reasons I always found it puzzling and noncredible, especially when meant in the sense of possessing propositional knowledge. Does Jayatilleeke write about this in his book? Or perhaps you’ve discussed it in another video.
Yes, Jayatilleke does discuss omniscience. I also did a video on the topic awhile back: th-cam.com/video/XbmBzuoR8jM/w-d-xo.html . As I recall, we say basically the same things.
Good work Doug. I was reminded of the assetions of Tertullian of Carthage who was the first Christian theologian to present the argument ad populum (if a lot of people believe it...) as well as the argument at hominem (if an individual whose opinion you respect make this claim...); both arguments being specious as the Buddha rightly points out. For the rest I am reminded of David Hume and Ludwig Wittgenstein (whom you name-check). Thank you for a very servicable overview of this subject. Going forward it would be interesting to see an exploration of Nagarjuna's Madyamakakarika and the extent to which this important Buddhist polemic might (or indeed might not ) share resonances with the 'negative theology' intent of Wittgenstein's Tratatus Logico-Philosophicus. Either way, well done!
Have you read Ajahn Brahmali's "The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts"? Very interesting... Available free online
if I'm not wrong this book is written by Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali. isn't it?
@@sankettt correct!
Yes, I have a video where I mention their work and include a link in the description box where you can download it: th-cam.com/video/fKDyCszF7zE/w-d-xo.html
Dear Doug, So if I understand you well, this might lead us to a pragmatic perspective. Don’t you think this pragmatic perspective can help us to discriminate between buddhist doctrines ? Having rejected the argument from authority (‘such great master said this or that’) we are left with 1) what we consider to be the oldest corpus of Buddhist texts that has come down to us in its entirety, the pāli canon and, of course, 2) personal experience. But even if we were to imagine that this corpus and personal experience could be used to solve problems that are the subject of controversy among Buddhists (which is not obvious), the most important question from a pragmatic point of view still would be : which teaching is most likely to lead us to liberation? So the question we need to ask ourselves is : Are these doctrines (the idea of store-consciousness, Buddha nature, unconditioned consciousness, etc.) not conducive to leading us astray? To put it in more Buddhist terms: don't these ideas carry the risk of attachment to a self? Even if it were explained to us that unconditioned consciousness and the nature of Buddha would be "pure emptiness" (which remains very abstract), we would not have ruled out the danger of a subtle identification and appropriation. Now, it seems, it is precisely against these dangers that the Buddha preached non-self against upanishadic mysticism (not for theoretical reasons). With mettā, Alain
thank you!!!
You're welcome!
Great video as always Doug :) I was wondering if you plan in the future to comment on Tao Te Ching similarities and differences between Buddhism?
It's something I might get into eventually, though Taoism isn't something I know a lot about so it would involve some research.
For example if we are sick and looking for a medicine to cure ourself , and there are many people claiming they are Doctors.
We will only know if the medicines they give us make us healthy , then we can say we should take that medicines.
When we know for ourself.
That is what the buddha intended to say i think .
Right, and we should also pay attention to what sensible or wise people believe.
It's the acid test, isn't it? Does this feel right? Is it working for me. Is it taking me forward or just sending me round in circles with little or no progress or end result? Discovering what ultimately helps us along the path. A little like Christianity and the biblical sorting of the wheat from the chaff. But also remembering the difficulty that can arise from accepting false premises. What's quite important to me is to be flexible enough to change my mind if one thing or another isn't making sense. Not sticking rigidly to dogma.
That's right, seeing for yourself.
Please refer to understanding Milinda Panha Q&A between Greek king Melanese 1 and Nagasena
The part on reason also had me think of our nowadays reliance on formal systems, such as math, formal logic and other formal languages.
Some of us tend to forget that, while highly reliable, these systems are still just models of the world, not the world itself. Which led in some cases rather harmful beliefs. But the world is under no obligation to obey a model of it.
As a whole, the way I perceive it, our reliance on rational models has led some people to believe that things unexplainable to rationalism must be misconceptions, illusions and makebelief. I'm under the impression that this also feeds into contemporary existential dread and nihilism.
2:40 lol
🚚
Please more new videos😊
❤ I love your videos ❤
Thank you!
As Kant put, I’m realistic empirically, and idealist transcendently….
8:08 The caste system is based on profession and not birth according to the Vedas but unfortunately discrimination of lower castes was starting to get prevalent and people themselves turned the system birth based. Buddha was against the discrimination which is not mentioned in the Gita, Vedas, etc. To also note there were animal sacrifices which were not done as how the Vedas mentions it causing the animal to undergo more suffering instead of a good rebirth which Buddha reformed.
Interesting, where is written that caste system in the Vedas are based on profession? Can you give me mantra number? Why do you think that Gita is older than Buddha? During the Buddha there were only 3 Vedas, rest all including Upanishads are after Buddha.
In the case of the Bible, it is believed to be a matter of revelation and the recording of history.
What are the considerations given to self-deceit, hallucinations, upholding illusions, adhering to false premises during internal reasoning, and so on? I am highly skeptical of equating kowledge with experience where knowledge implies objectivity and experience excludes logic.
Experience doesn't exclude logic, as I say in the video, the Buddha accepted logic and reason. He simply did not accept *mere* logic and reason: that is, armchair theorizing without evidence.
the buddha utterly critiqued commonplace folk introspection / folk experience and explained methods of developing rigorous observation of the objects they sought to understand.
this is why basic refined mental qualities such as perfect samadhi, perfect memory recall, observation of multitude of lifetimes, etcetc, was extremely common even among standard sadhus. even pythagoras after bumping into sadhus and being taught samadhi, philosophy, mathematics including his theorem, then came back to to the west and gave birth to western civilization while claiming to be able to recall his immediate 20 preceding lives and was regarded as a literal alchemist by socrates.
@@5piles that doesn't answer my question. How do buddhists tell the difference between facts and self-deceit? Imagining your past lives is most likely self-deceit, it leads me to distrust people rather than find them enlightened
@@Nathouuuutheone do we suddenly forget basic scientific principles just because we are dealing with potential mental objects?
no, so the answer to your question obviously is, they bring a cessation to all your listed defects of folk introspection by developing the rigorous observation of the object we seek to understand ie. the mind. the same way you go beyond folk astronomy.
however these days since most physicalists are not prone to clear reasoning, then they can rely on the authority of the instruments their physical sciences have created: we know and can monitor the neural correlates for attention and concentration. we know the avg person is capable of 2 seconds max on avg. we know the very rare genuine tibetan practitioner is able to sustain uninterrupted perfect mental awareness unable to be impinged upon by any external sense stimulus or internal appearance for hours.
so for now we at least know something like this is possible in principle. the catastrophe that is the mind of a person is falsified, and this will only get worse as neural imaging tech and brain correlate data deepens. the authentic meditators claim something beyond folk introspection, and this will only be revealed to outside spectators uninterested in serious things when we can precisely measure each of neural corelates of every fault of folk introspection and how these are absent in samadhi.
and there are other authoritative examples such as tukdam which is currently being heavily researched in 'the tukdam project'. can watch about it on yt.
@@DougsDharma Our Mind can operate many different 'programs'
when you build bridge, use Logic/Reason Program.
When you 'create' use Intuition Program.
Don't limit your Mind, expand your Mind. :)
Are you tired of my armchair theorizing, Doug? 😂 What I see here though is not just empiricism but more pragmatism: one should believe what works specifically (given the goals.) What an excellent video though. I loved what you did with the truck. That made me smile.
😄 Yes, it's a sort of pragmatic empiricism, at least roughly speaking.
Mahayana Nirvana Sutra please
The video is on early Buddhism, the sutra you reference is from a significantly later period.
The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata possess a physical eye?”
Subhuti replied, “So he does, Bhagavan. The Tathagata possesses a physical eye.”
The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata possess a divine eye?”
Subhuti replied, “So he does, Bhagavan. The Tathagata possesses a divine eye.”
The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata possess a prajna eye?”
Subhuti replied, “So he does, Bhagavan. The Tathagata possesses a prajna eye.”
The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata possess a dharma eye?”
Subhuti replied, “So he does, Bhagavan. The Tathagata possesses a dharma eye.”
The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata possess a buddha eye?”
Subhuti replied, “So he does, Bhagavan. The Tathagata possesses a buddha eye.”
❤🙏❤
🙏😊
Did Buddha came before the Veda?
The Vedas existed perhaps a millennium before the Buddha.
"praised by sensible people," sounds like an appeal to authority. What does sensible mean? Who is sensible? Who decides?
Yes, I agree, it does sound like an appeal to authority. It's also to an extent a circular definition, since presumably the sensible people will be the people who are able to see right from wrong in the first place. I think it may be better to look at the rest of the claim and leave the issue of "sensible people" aside. On the other hand, if we're not thinking of it as a rigorous definition, but rather as a pragmatic one, then I think we know that there are circumstances where we have a handle on who the sensible people are around us, and what they espouse, yet still we fail to do those things. Perhaps in those cases it would be better just to pay attention to those sensible people.
for example we have the neural coorelates for attention and concentration, so we know who has 2sec attention spams and who has hours long samadhi.
likewise all good top tier mathematicians know who is who and why.
the confusion about who and who is not sensible is the function of unskilled ppl. yet better to be confused than to erroneously misperceive skill where there isn't.
Doug, your examples seem somewhat contradictory. For example, if I only go by my personal experience of the earth, then I would conclude that it is flat and doesn’t move. I have had no personal experience of the world being a sphere or moving. On the contrary, I know that the earth is a sphere because of information presented to me by others, who claim to have had direct experience with the Earth as a sphere moving through space.
Sir, your efforts are really great but you talk about many things which are demining Buddha, whenever you say that Veda existed in India at the time of Buddha. ❤
The Buddha mentions the Vedas in the suttas.
its very silly to mention the 5 physical sense consciousnesses but not the mental consciousness which is the most important
Humble note :- You need to understand that there is no trace of Sanskrit at the time of Buddha. Please i request you to take a note of this fact.❤
Oh, the Catholic church wont like this at all.
Doug, it’s wrong to insert the Upanishad as early forms of arguments. There’s no evidence to back that theory. Upanishad were non existent during Ashok and Gupta dynasty because Ashok and Gupta Dynasties were using Brahmi and pali lipi ( text ). Meanwhile Upanishads can only be found in Sanskrit ( Devnagri ).Have you read the Allah-Upanishad ? Which is weird as how can Upanishad that claims from Vedic period be writing about Allah and Moghuls. Please do thorough research.
Some of the Upaniṣads were pre-Buddhist, others were not. This is common knowledge in academic Buddhist research.
@@DougsDharma well then it begs few questions. Which scripts were pre-Buddhist Upanishads written in ? What were their state during Kushan, Maurya and Gupta empire ?