The Buddha's Competitors: Unearthing the Dharma
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 พ.ย. 2018
- In the early texts the Buddha speaks of six main teachers of his day with whom he disagrees. We will look at those six, and their ideas as presented in the early canonical material. We'll also take a look at a seventh major competitor to early Buddhism that we find throughout the texts.
If you get benefit out of these videos, please check out my Patreon page at / dougsseculardharma
Suttas mentioned:
Brahmajāla Sutta (DN 1): suttacentral.net/dn1/en/bodhi
Sāmaññaphala Sutta (DN 2): suttacentral.net/dn2/en/bodhi
Mahāsakuludāyi Sutta (MN 77): suttacentral.net/mn77/en/bodhi
Other texts of interest:
Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Sāmaññaphala Sutta and Its Commentaries: amzn.to/2Q1S3c5
Anālayo, “Views and the Tathāgata - A Comparative Study and Translation of the Brahmajāla in the Chinese Dīrgha-āgama” in Buddhist and Pāli Studies in Honour of Ven. Prof. K. Anuruddha.
discourse.suttacentral.net/t/...
www.quora.com/Why-do-Jains-bo...
www.carvaka4india.com/2011/08/...
Thanks to Patrons:
Matthew Smith
Kathy Voldstad
#dougsdharma #dougsseculardharma #buddhism #secularbuddhism
-----------------------------
Please visit the Secular Buddhist Association webpage!
secularbuddhism.org/
Disclaimer: any Amazon links are affiliate links where I will earn a very small commission on purchases you make, at no additional cost to you. This goes a tiny way towards defraying the costs of making these videos. Thank you!
Slight edit: at 13:02 that isn't the Buddha who says those things, it's Pakudha Kaccāyana. It should be clear from the context. (H/t to Hermes Liberty below).
LOL, the 6 dislikes are from the 6 competitors.
😆
On the subject of Brahminism, there's an interesting tension in the Pali Canon regarding the efficacy of ritual. On the one hand, the Buddha says more than once that rituals and gods can't be reliably relied upon to supply even results, to say nothing of spiritual results. But in other places, the Buddha describes people and cultures as thriving, in part, because the citizens keep the traditions of their fore-bearers and tending their shrines. I suppose this comes down to the way the canon prioritizes instruction to monks vs instruction to lay people.
Very good point, may be worth making a video about. I’ll put it on the list. 🙂
I think Chan in China, as per Taoist wisdom, noticed this paradox too. China resolved this by encompassing both Confucianism and Taoism as themselves the yin and yang of civilization. The universe is ultimately natural and spontaneous *and* disciplined and deliberate action can effectively make use of this.
A good understanding can come from considering the context, as Doug mentioned. IMHO, The teachings were given in two forms: provisional and ultimate. They are also delivered with the kind of audience that is hearing them in mind. When you read and listen in that way, sometimes the teachings can make more sense rather than being contradictory. The same would apply to the lay teachings and those for monks, etc. The difference between relative and ultimate truth prevents confusion and it can be a useful key. That is often overlooked.
I love the section of the Dhammapada about Brahmanas. Thanks for all the interesting subjects you have covered on this wonderful channel Doug. Happy Independence Day!
🙏😊
Great channel Doug. As someone interested in philosophy and the history of ideas, this level of detail regarding Eastern thought isn’t readily available in such an easily digestible format. Thanks for sharing such detailed, quality content!
You’re very welcome wcropp1, thanks for watching! That’s kind of why I’m doing the channel. 🙂
Today, the full moon day, is the birth day of Siddhartha who became the Buddha. Wish you all "Peace & Harmony".
Happy Vesak! 🙂
Thanks for what you do and always responding to me and others. I listen to your videos all night at work. Appreciate you.
Very nice, thanks for letting me know Kyoto Masterlord! 🙏
Fantastically done Doug!! Especially very nice of you to put sources in the description :). One thing I found peculiar when I read the suttas is that even though just like you mentioned, that the Buddha had relatively numerous exposition and discussions/debates around Jainism and Brahmanism, he had apparently a great concern about Makkhali Gosala, so great that he mentioned him as the one that really does the most harm like no other in Anguttara Nikaya (AN 1:319). And in every iteration of how Makkhali's teaching is mentioned in the sutta, it's always so exhaustive and detailed which is kind of hinting how The Buddha really wanted to make it clear to the Sangha that this teaching is the true enemy of humanity. What do you think? Did the spread of Buddha Dhamma have something to do with the extinction of Makkhali's fatalism? But perhaps it's just my wild conjecture. Keep up the good Dhammadesana mate! Metta cittena :)
Thanks for the kind words Guttacaro. It’s a good question about the history of the Ājīvika school and Buddhism, but probably difficult to know for sure, I don’t believe there is much data remaining. If I find some out I may put it into another video, we’ll see. 🙂
As to why the Buddha thought Makkali Gosala’s teaching was so pernicious, I think that had to do with his implicit rejection of ethics and personal development. At least the Jains and Brahmins believed in these things. For the Buddha, ethics was a necessary first step for any teaching I think.
Thank you so much for bringing this together. It's been difficult to consolidate teachings and differentiate methods from various philosophies and approaches. Your concise explanations truly help. Also, I like the rate of speed with which you speak.
You're very welcome!
Thanks for all of these videos, Doug. Your work is greatly appreciated!
You're very welcome Dosia, it's my pleasure!
One of the best channels if not the best channel on youtube, clear, precise and concise, to give us all opportunity to understand, grasp and hopefully experience the Dharma. Thank you
You're very welcome, it's my pleasure. 🙏😊
Hey Doug! Great content! Much more pleasant than any lecture I've seen, you share joy among with knowledge. Thank you!
My pleasure, glad it was helpful!
Sir, your breadth of knowledge is outstanding, and especially, the choice of words used for description is phenomenal.
Your are doing a noble job Sir. Please keep it up.
Very kind of you to say. I'll do my best! 🙏
Good explaination. Pretty accurate and authentic. Legit scholar! We definitely need more of this.
Thanks, Julian! 🙏
Thanks for enhancing thine code :) My energy resonates with buddhism.
You're welcome MU, keep up the energy!
Great video Doug. It will help me when I read the pertinent suttas to understand just what views and who was behind them the Buddha was rebutting. Your clarity is commenable and I thank you for it.
Though a bit off topic maybe, in regard to Brahmanism, if my memory serves me adequately from a course on India I took about 45 years ago, since the subcontinent of India was invaded and conquered by people who came out of Persia, through Afghanistan but originally with historical roots in the Caucasus region, they were attempting (consciously or not) to establish themselves as the superior group, and what better way than to have control over others and a system that controls the ritual aspect of daily life. If each class had to follow expectations according to their class, then it is a great means of social control where the rule by the fairer skinned Brahman class remain preeminent. They of course were lighter skinned and as it evolved into Hinduism, classes within classes developed, so for example a barber's son would be expected to carry on the same work. The Buddha pointedly breaks through the early attempt to establish this system based on class, color, and some say maybe even gender (though the last may be questionable and worthy of a video :-), and he therefore in debate made it all about action and the ethical nature of one's life rather than the class of one's birth. In a somewhat interesting way he co-opted their term for the their class, and explained that a true Brahman is one who lives ethically, and therefore he invited all classes to participate in his dhamma regardless of external conditions. Though it is pure speculation, and the Buddha wasn't much for speculation, it would be interesting to know just what India was like when Buddhism held its own with the developing Hinduism of later centuries. Hinduism at a later time (if it could be called Hinduism at the time) wisely subsumed Buddha into their system, which on one level was a pretty good way to make him just another incarnation of Brahma, if of course I remember correctly.
Thanks Michael, lots of great points here. It's largely speculation how Vedic Brahmanism got started, how Indo-European culture morphed into what would become Brahmanism, and how the caste system got going. But yes, the Buddha did push back on all that by recasting the concepts inherent in Brahmanism to more ethical ends. As for women in Buddhism, I did an earlier video on that that might interest you: th-cam.com/video/864ksDOZwXk/w-d-xo.html
I could listen to your videos for hours 🤓
A nother great lecture
Thank you 🙏
So nice of you. 🙏
Thank you for teaching me!
You're very welcome!
Hello Doug, first of all, very greatfull for sharing your knowlege on this channel, great overview on different buddhists schools. As a Tibetan Buddhist and Yoga practioner, i found great similarities and clear indian vedic influence in Varjrayana. As Buddha himself was a hindu, and grew up on a Vedic tradition, and was a great yogi himself, it makes total sense to me. But for sure, the Tantra for sure could have been brought later on from other hindu masters, in constant cultural and religious exchange in Tibet. I found the Tantra practice extremelly powerfull, and not at all imoral, or sex or alcohol related...like you mentioned, maybe It happend in India, in a Vedic context, i find It hard see or belive something like that on a Tibetan Buddhist ceremony...
Thanks for your input Andre!
Wonderful Explaination
Thanks Akhihito. 🙏
Buddhism is the oldest religion in India
Namo Budhhay 🙏🏻
Well, Jainism is older. Also, it depends what we consider Vedic Brahmanism. If we consider it Hinduism (it's the historical basis of Hinduism) then that is also older. But age doesn't really matter.
A Brahmanical theory that was developing in the Buddha's time-the Sāṅkhya, or classification school. This school had its beginnings in the thought of Uddālaka, a ninth-century B.C. philosopher who posited a “root”: an abstract principle out of which all things emanate and which remains immanent in all things.
Philosophers who carried on this line of thinking offered a variety of theories, based on logic and meditative experience, about the nature of the ultimate root and about the hierarchy of the emanation. Many of their theories were recorded in the Upaniṣads and eventually developed into the classical Sāṅkhya system around the time of the Buddha.
However, instead of following this pattern of thinking, the Buddha attacks it at its very root: the notion of a principle in the abstract, the “in” (immanence) & “out of” (emanation) superimposed on experience. Only an uninstructed run of the mill person, he says, would read experience in this way. (Sutta No 1. Majjhima Nikaya)
As such, views such as Dhammakaya (an innate Dhamma body - a Thai movement), merger with cosmo or universal consciousness, Brahman; a universal Buddha (someone told me Sakyamuni is a manifestation from Variocana), original mind, Buddha nature and even misconception of Nibbana (notions like "to enter nibbama"; a Buddhist elder told me the nature of nibbana is permanence, bliss, self and purity. A Sikh told me merger with God is the same as nibbana) will definitely be subject to the same criticism by the Buddha in MN 1.
As Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote
"Although at present we rarely think in the same terms as the Sāṅkhya philosophers, there has long been-and still is-a common tendency to create a “Buddhist” metaphysics in which the experience of emptiness, the Unconditioned, the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa, etc., is said to function as the ground of being from which the “All”-the entirety of our sensory & mental experience-is said to spring and to which we return when we meditate. Some people think that these theories are the inventions of scholars without any direct meditative experience, but actually they have most often originated among meditators, who label (or in the words of the discourse, “perceive”) a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal, identify with it in a subtle way (as when we are told that “we are the knowing”), and then suppose that level of experience to be the ground of being out of which all other experience comes."
That's right, and it's often forgotten.
The Buddha was reacting against the nature of dukkha. His major concern was the way out of dukkha.
That's exactly right Yong Jie An.
Great work Doug. Really appreciate work. How about Brahmajala Sutta discussed relative to views? Contemporaneously to Buddha but also across historical arc. Einsteins views on eternally recurring universe va Big Bang and the resultant views, or theists vs scientists etc. It’s an underdiscussed Sutta and very complete. Pt2 I mean.
Yes! The problem with that sutta is it’s SO BIG! I have to think about whether it’s possible to summarize it in some way for the general public. Thanks, Venerable.
@@DougsDharma hi, seemed that it could be reduced into four chunks i think. Self in Time, [in the Past, variations thereof, Self in the present, Self in the future,] Eternal variations, Self in the World of Space, Spatial self, varieties of infiniteness.. Self in the now, more hedonistic, nihilistic types... then Eel-wriggling evasion views. The whole first chunk about Sila takes up a lot of the sutta, and there is also that Creation myth thrown in. You have the knack of making these things publicly digestible, for which I take my hat off to you. That is what is so badly needed in these times. Really applaud your input!
What an interesting talk. The Indian peninsula truly is a millennia old melting pot of religions, philosophies and teachings. I remember reading how Buddhism flourished at a period when there was a general discontent with the religious status quo. These nihilistic philosophies Doug describes could be a responds to this stifling status quo. I can imagine how the Buddha's teaching must have been a fresh wind in a time when so many people were fed up with the stagnated religious cast system, and cynicism crept in . This is the first time i hear that the Buddha could have followed Jainism.
Yes in many ways the India of the Buddha's day was similar to ancient Greece in its flourishing of philosophical ideas and investigations.
Caste system did not exist till 1871,India has a Varna/ Jati system,very different from the caste system,which is a administrative hodgepodge of Indian society as the British colonials understood it.That’s why they called it the ‘caste’ system from the Portuguese ‘ created ‘casta’ system in South America. It was a case of trying to understand an alien culture by drawing false equivalences. Unfortunately, today the damage is done and all Western and colonial aligned literature in the world, academic, and otherwise follows the same system. Terms like ‘brahminical’ and idea like ‘ buddhism happened due to the existing caste system’,are a product of western academia based on their own understanding of the colonial accounts. This is not denial of exploitation of certain people, but rather a debate about the erroneous and misrepresented identity of the victims and perpetrators which, in itself is a very long discussion .buddha never had a problem with the Varna system and neither was the Varna system birth dependent at the time .In his very first sermon, he also acknowledged that the next Buddha would be from the Brahmin or Kshatriya Varna.Buddhism and Vedic or Hindu religion were never at major loggerheads with each other, as is being projected today. It was just a different nastik philosophy coming from the great mind of a personal seeker, who found the truth in his own the way and decided to share it with people. It was very common to find different Astik and nastik followers within the same family. Emperor Ashoka’s family too had a Buddhist, an Ajiviki and a Jain all actively practicing their faiths. In India, one faith does not and never has cancelled the other as is taught in south Asian studies today. The concept is of of abrahamic origin not Indic faiths.Just one of the many areas where irreparable damage has been done to the Indic narrative in the last 200 years. Buddhism is also the most favored indic faith in the west due to its perception of being a monotheistic philosophy. This confusion due to limited understanding, goes so deep that the perceived polytheism in Hindu religion is also not actually polytheism but actually pluralism, a fact never made it clear in any study of Indian religions
@@RG-un2vl First of all 'modern Western Academia ' is not the same as 100 year old Western academia. I'm getting so tired of people who blame ' Western academics ' when they don'y agree with historical concepts. There is no Western versus Eastern academia anymore. There are religious academics from allover the world who work together. Or rather , who disagree with eachother. Also, i'm talking about the old caste system.Obviously . And i'm also not talking about 'monotheistic philosophy ' , i'm talking about societal influence.
@@spiritualanarchist8162there is western vs eastern ( so to speak)because western academia still follows colonial narratives, with a few changes here and there to sound different.Like changing Aryan invasion to Aryan migration but still endorsing it's colonial racial theory intact, while at the same time arguing that it is not a colonial theory anymore.There is no 'old' 'caste' system.When one uses the word 'caste',one subscribes to all the made up baggage that comes with it( like using terms like Dalit as a 'lower caste' that did not exist a 100 years back but is so popular in western academia). and has nothing to do with Hindu religion.'Caste' 'cannot even remain consistent about whether it is Varna or Jati (,two parallel systems)because it's an colonial administrative hodgepodge of the two with no clarity .. Another popular one is the made up but very popular 'caste'' pyramid.' Which uses Varnas' but describes Jatis,or the term 'brahmanical' .What does that even mean?.Varna/ Jati system is way more complicated than that with no specific upper and lower 'caste'.Its not a neat little package of good vs evil.🙄.But good vs evil sells and is a good smoke screen for uninformed people which I admit is the majority.If you want to see the intellectual damage colonialism has done and people benefitting from it 150 years later,this is it and if one studies original texts it is very apparent.So you might be tired of hearing it but unfortunately it's true.
@@RG-un2vl What 'West are you even talking about ? There is no 'West versus East ' . There is British ' colonialism and Dutch colonialism. But there is also ' Japanese colonialism ,Chinese Communist colonialism , etc,etc. Any academic' s job is to look beyond those influences. It's not about ' selling ' anything. Humans are flawed.Both in the Eat and West there are nationalistic tendencies. But anyway, did you ever visit a modern University ? Because, rather Ironically . You divide West (evil ) versus East (good) , and base all your arguments on this simplified division.
can u make a video about main problems in bhuddism?. like existing od dharmmas, yogaczara system and madiamika etc. all problems witch was spoken inside od bhuddism world and are still discuse
Thanks for the suggestion franciszek. 🙏
Janamahawira was the only teacher from.those six teachers got an apriciation from buddha and that because his teachings. And they were both lived as neighbors. Theire monasteries was separated by a small wall and but stil both buddha and mahawira never met eachother face to face. But there was thousands of debates about both teachings from their deceiples.
Hi Doug! I've often heard/seen Hinduism being said to be the oldest religion. I can't recall you mentioning it though. Did Hinduism mutate into being from Brahmanism and other belief systems? Was it around at the time of the Buddha?
Hi Patrick, generally speaking it’s understood that in the Buddha’s day the religion/belief system was “Brahmanism”. It morphed into Hinduism over the next few centuries with the creation of epics like the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. But the origin of both religions is the Vedas, which are some of the oldest known texts.
@@DougsDharma it may have been a rather simplistic question but whenever I have looked for the answer on Google etc I have always felt like the answer was vague. So thanks for clearing that up for me. One more question...Why weren't the teachings of the Buddha written down at the time, instead of at a later date?
Ah, apparently because the Buddha’s culture was not literate. It was at the dawn of literacy in India. The tradition from the Vedas was one of careful memorization, particularly of holy texts.
It's a tough question to answer. No such thing as modern day Hinduism could be found in that time. There was many local deities along with Brahmanism was practiced and worshiped during that era. But then these local deities were brought into the fold of the Brahmanism and the religion is made into a amalgamation of lots of faith and local deities into Brahmanism. This was done by folding them back into lesser deities of Rig Veda and creating many forms for already existing deities. But those deities have taken over the religion more than main deities of Rig Veda.
Modern day Hinduism is amalgamation of many practices of the subcontinent. The basis remains the Vedas however, which are the oldest. You can say that Brahmanism became today's Hinduism after incorporating refined concepts of Buddhism such as redefining karma, Sharma etc plus bhakti plus ireinterpretation of Vedas and Upanishads. Hinduism was always there, but it's form changed. Back in the day in India, religions were not violent adversaries but rather scientific thoughts which were debated just like how scientific theories are
I just thought of the question before I came to this episode
💙 Jay Bhim 💙 Namo Buddhay 💙
You have said it well. The four major competitors of Buddha are from Tamilnadu (pakkudha kaccayana, Markali, Puranar and Ajita kesakambali) The first three established Aseevagam (Ajivika) still in practice in Tamilnadu, there are thousands of temples for Markali (Ayyanar) and Puranar. The entire Brahmanism borrowed a lot from Aseevagam. For more details visit youtube channel Ancient Tamil Religion.
Thanks very much! 🙏
Would be interesting to know how he answered those opposing views
Yes, well I do discuss some of that in other videos, it'd probably be too much for a single video though!
I have always held the Apannaka Sutta as a reason to believe that the Buddha was using the supernatural sensibilities of his followers as a tool to inspire them to follow the path, the safe bet model inspires agnosticism in my practice. My gut feeling is that the assertations of certainty in these matters was a later addition to the Apannaka Sutta, Otherwise why would the safe bet argument be raised, if the Buddha was certain about literal rebirth surely he would just assert that and not need to hedge his bets as it were.
Yes, I talk a bit about the Apaṇṇaka Sutta here: th-cam.com/video/LgN3MT6m4zI/w-d-xo.html . I doubt the Buddha would have tried to lure his followers with claims he himself didn't believe. That is a strategy that crops up from time to time in the Mahāyāna, but it's a late addition. The Buddha cared a lot about honesty and truthfulness.
If it were just in the Apaṇṇaka that he asserted the certainty of rebirth that would be one thing, but rebirth claims are virtually universal in the texts and so really cannot have been a later addition, much though I might personally prefer that to be the case. That sutta is simply one way (similar to Pascal's Wager in western theology) to try to convince someone who wasn't yet convinced. It is tellingly an ethical argument however, which does seem like the sort of strategy the Buddha might have used.
Is there anything in Buddhism that talks about why pleasure and pain seem to be closely related?
Hmmm ... they are both aspects of what is termed "feeling" (vedanā). I'm not sure how else they are closely related though.
Doug's Secular Dharma *Seems like I’ve always heard they are the other side of the same coin. Just a thought. Thank you.
สาธุ! สาธุ! สาธุ!
🙏🙏🙏
🙏😊
The subject taught by buddhas were according to human and earth issues not beyond the other higher realms. Buddha's teaching are always in related to human and earth affairs, cultivation ability of a human being.
You should contact our Tamil Professor Nedunchezhiyan who has done 30 years of research on Aseevaham and its relation with Jainism and Buddhism. Its All language issue as all the 4 out if 6 competitors are Tamil scholars and budha was with the. For 18 years in Tamilnadu.
While not exactly the point of this video.....
This is a huge reminder how Eurocentric academia is in the united states. Here we have a variety of schools of philosophy, that while not taught in Philosophy 101, absolutely have counter parts given shared thought with schools of philosophy in the Greek and Roman tradition.
Given we insist in philosophy that it is about ideas and not people (there fore there is no shame in finding your line of thought has historical precedence) this are relevant voices in so much as we can hear them (surviving texts and such).
Yes. On the subject of eurocentrism in philosophy, I discussed a recent book out by Bryan Van Norden: th-cam.com/video/Kt2jMkOTrqA/w-d-xo.html
The subject speak by Buddha was a bafic guides from history era of his time. Of course they will be new versions in the modern times which is added due to conditions f modern era should not be compared.
So, basically, at least to my eyes, Buddha just wanted to negotiate all of 7 competitors of his time and created his own brand.
Well I guess that's one way to look at it VidPro Surabaya. 🙂
Have you addressed in any vids why buddhism lost in India after majority India at some point had Buddhist influence
Yes, it's here: th-cam.com/video/y8GNgWatUwE/w-d-xo.html
Buddha himself was from the Samana tradition which gave another religion called Jainism , also Aseevagam which is aother name for the Samana heritage....
Yes the Buddha was a renunciant, such as the Jains, Ājīvikas, or Upaniṣadic Brahmins.
Did you say Buddha believed in rebirth and karma insofar as karma determined your next existence? It seems to me that he didn't believe in eternalism. One of his major teachings is not-self so how could he believe in a self that passes from one lifetime to the next?
Hi Aron, it may seem strange but there’s no question from the suttas that’s what he believed. It wasn’t eternalism since there is no permanent self that is transmitted from one moment to another much less one lifetime to another. Rather it’s a causally connected series of mental and physical states that ‘make up’ what we think of as a person.
If I may, I usually illustrate the concept of rebirth which is not-self in this fashion:
- imagine a field of weed in form of an infinite lane
- imagine on one side of the lane, there is fire burning the weed.
- as the fire burns, it spreads towards the other weeds and leaving ashes behind
- the weeds keep growing on the other side and expanding through the lane on and on
So, here on one side the fire will keep burning, moving forward the lane, leaving ashes behind. While the weeds also keep reproducing on the other side, growing forward and filling up the empty lane perpetually with new saplings.
The fire is the life, and the weed is the five aggregates that continuously renewing themselves with karma as one of its roots.
In this analogy, you can see that even though the fire moves forward (continuing existence) we don't say that 'the fire is the same'. In the same way we are reborn, but nothing stays the same, just like how our body cells are decaying and replacing itself with new ones continuously.
I know this analogy is not perfect, as the concept of non-self or anatta is really not that easy to explain in analogy, much less in literal fashion. But I hope this helps understanding concept of rebirth. :)
P.S. additionally, in this analogy I likened the Nibbana or Nirvana as when the weeds stop growing and the fire will have nothing to burn anymore, thus becomes extinguished (Nibbana in Pali means 'blowing out' or 'extinguished') :)
Aron Mindfulman
1 second ago
I just wanted to know if we were on the same page, so to speak.
I think it's like one candle passing on to the other, you can't say it entirely new candle flame but it's not old flame either. Just continuous ad infinity. What changes is not real, or solid, hence if the self changes, it's not real, not solid, no self eternal self.
There are '5 Aggregates Of Clinging' which cause to continue the mind.
I guess this is how those 5 Aggregates Of Clinging started to work together:
i.) Body
= Matter or Form (rupa)
ii.) Data = Sensation or Feeling (vedana) (a cosmic structural change)
iii.) The amount of Data = Perception and/or cognition (sanna)
iv.) The power/pattern of attachment = Volition or Mental Formation (sankara)
v.) Attachment or Attraction = Consciousness/mind (Vinnana)
Accourding to Buddhism we have an illusion about an existence of a permanent soul. Mahasatipatthana Sutta (The way of mindfulness) helps us remove that illusion and then we will not reborn.
Eg:
Seeing the Arising and Vanishing Matter or Form (rupa), Sensation or Feeling (vedana), Perception and/or cognition (sanna), Volition or Mental Formation (sankara), Consciousness (vinnana) (The Five Aggregates Of Clinging (upadana-skandha)) are not me, not mine. Nor my soul. Those are impermanent, suffering, non-self or non-significant-soul/ non-beneficial.
Spinoza seems to be similar to Brahmanism - as in God is the Universe context?
Also the first couple of views seems to be similar to Western Nihilism or Existentialism.
Can Sanjaya be compared with someone like Richard Dawkins (without considering his academic work!)?
Well they can be compared, there are similarities, but there are also differences. I don't think Dawkins is similar to Sañjaya's extreme skepticism, because Dakwins does believe that plenty of things can be known. The scientific skepticism of today is quite different from the extreme skepticism of ancient Greece and India.
And in my scl time we learned that there was 64 shramana religions against bhrahmana religion in india when buddha become buddha and established buddhism. And all that 64 was based on two types of methods to overcome suffering and they were 1 extreme pain giving to body and 2 extreme happiness giving to body. And just because of buddhas way is deferent than them buddhism was not included as 65. And buddha himself claimed his teachings are can not include as 65. * when i mentioned there was 65 religions there they were more alike philosophies. Not like religions*
Interesting, thanks!
ignou philosophy course would help you further your research 👍👍
What is the history dalit's caste of bihar india ?
Good question, do you know?
@@DougsDharma no .
I m from vaishali bihar where budha lived and in the name of budha here is only one stupa .i m from dusadh community .we were not in varna system .but after independece our grandparents follow hinduism ,we are untouchables in past ..i want to know my origin ..i feel very useless living like this where everything belongs to uppercaste people .Land ,money,power,respect everything .
Brother, mrityunjay. You are JUST HUMAN ! That's All !!! Castes do NOT make sense at all. So, forget about your 'Ancestry'. Science tells us that we are all 'Homo Sapiens'. That's it !!! So, just ignore your so called Ancestry. If anyone discriminates against you, use LOGICAL REASONING to falsify them. If anyone becomes Physical, go to the Police. No one is above or below you ! Remember that !!! I come from a Brahmin family. Does that make me Special ??? Absolutely NOT !!! I am just a Human like you !!!!
Now, I don't know anything about the History of Casteism in Bihar. I know that Caste Based Discrimination exists there. I just don't know how bad it is. Can you tell me how bad it is in Bihar ? I have never faced Caste Based Discrimination. I want to know what you have been through and what the condition is in Bihar ...
Mara takes the form of a crow.
buddhas teaching is not different from non dual vedanta. i am a hindu and non dual vedanta originally speaks about actual hinduism.i believe most of americans know swami vivekananda.he was very famous hindu(non dual vedantic ) monk.and he was fond of lord buddha.if some one reads his writing he can understand actual hinduism and buddhism is complementary to each other.because buddhism is emission of non dual vedanta where only supreme soul(infinite awareness) is described and small i or jibatma is illusion in non dual vedanta and buddha emphasised on upliftment of masses.he didnt emphasise on rituals he saved people from outrage of personal god believer hindu bramhin.but sometimes he got misunderstood by his followers and as a result they denied existence of infinite awareness and after demise of lord buddha great hindu saint adi sankaryacharya came and reestablished non dual vedanta and most of rebel children of hinduism again got absorved in hinduism(non dual vedantic approach) and buddhism became an important branch of hindu philosophy and as a result buddhism almost got obsolete from its birthland india
Thanks for your thoughts saswata. As I said in response to a prior comment of yours, I don't believe the term "non-dual" (advaita) ever occurs within the early texts. Non-dual vedantism is anachronistic to the Buddha; he wasn't a believer in the Vedas and didn't ever express a philosophy of "non-dualism". For an article on this by Bhikkhu Bodhi see: www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html
@@DougsDharma thanks for your response. one thing is very logical.i am PhD in particle physics so i can understand and make someone understand physics in a better way.and any layman can realize that nothing can come out from empty .illogical.something must be there beyond time and space.we call it universal mind .and this theory can be realised by thousands of Hindu sages in India.(ex Ramana Maharishi,Ramakrishna, vivekananda,)and having respect on bhikku bodhi I am compelled to say that neither he is from not science (quantum physics) background nor he is enlightened.so he never get the non dualistic point and any truth seeker or scientist will reject his point of view because science only accept realization and invention not any philosophy which we have to believe without realization and from scientific point of view i can only describe causation of universe with help of non dual vedanta but not any ancient scripture else. .and I also read teaching of buddha.and also read Upanishads and vedanta.i find underline truth of both teaching same.buddha didn't believe in rituals of vedas.i would to request to read katyaupnishad and Vedanta at least once.i am pretty sure you will also find same reality and Buddha never denied existence of God(non personal).but some of his followers misunderstood this and denied existence of universal self.thus Buddhism turned from agnostic to athesic.if someone denies existence of universal mind so it's one sort of materialism (charvaka).so if I kill this sort of believer according to this philosophy I am not killing to none because nothing exists as self.so why will we become ethical? doesn't make any sense . illogical.if someone says Buddha chose middle way.that also does not make any sense to any truth seeker.because without knowing actual truth any layman can choose middle way for his own safety.then what is difference between enlightened one and normal person? There must be reason what Buddha didn't get any interest to reveal it.Ultimate truth is always beyond time and space.and not being a Hindu but having a scientific approach I realize mystical hidden truth is unveiled in vedanta.great scientist Nichola Tesla was very much interested and influenced by vedanta.you can read his biography and contribution of Vedanta about his invention and even nobe prize winner in physics erwin schrodinger was very much influenced on non dualistic vedanta.if any enlightened person clearly doesn't tell the ultimate truth then it's our very common nature that we assume that truth according to ourselves and thus loop hole of any religion starts and that's why most of scientists dont find any interest in religion.because it seems to them illogical.and in India there is a tradition that what truth is revealed to any enlightened person it can be revealed to me as well.indian philosophy based on experience realization but not on blind believe and lord Buddha also emphasized on realising but not on blind belief.i i wish this comment should be taken in constructive way so that all of us can understand philosophy in a better way and also expect your valuable response
@@DougsDharma can u provide me strong evidence where buddha rejects philosophy of non dual vedanta please?
It’s not that he rejected it, it’s that it is anachronistic. It wasn’t in his vocabulary. He talked about dualisms all the time, begin with the first chapter of the Dhammapada.
I just gotta say having a dharma name myself that if you go by your dharma name and you're not a monk you are a dork. Lol 😆
Buddha did not teach brahmaism but enlightenment (the highest achievements) an individual in successive lifetime. But a lifespan of a brahma is very2 long and they live a more refined lift compare to a human.
Brahminism description is way off.
Buddha himself was a Kshatriya and is is a defacto "brahminism" follower. He is described as chastising Brahmins for being depraved like "dogs" for practicing inter caste marraige and criticizes them for disobeying his strict birth-based samkhyan guna interpretation.
From that description we can clearly see that Brahmins were not the ones promoting a "Strict" caste hierrarchy.
Additionally you seem to suggest that there was a 5 class distinction at the time of the Buddha. AFAIK there is no reason to believe that this was the case, and it was likely a loose 4 class system.
Thanks for your thoughts Sheil. Yes the notion of an "outcaste" doesn't seem to have been well-defined at this time, although there are a few indications here and there. For more on the Buddha and caste see: th-cam.com/video/hefnN8THmuI/w-d-xo.html
Sheil, in which Sutta does Buddha chastise Brahmins for being depraved like dogs, practicing inter-caste marriage and disobeying him ? Please mention that.
Anyway, just so you know, many Brahmans certainly were promoting a strict caste hierarchy. There are many Suttas in which Buddha debunks the Caste System. He even criticised the Vedas and the Brahmans. Read Vāsettha Sutta and Tevijja Sutta ...