Eastern Traditions: What is the Human Person? | Episode 2402 | Closer To Truth
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 พ.ค. 2024
- ▶ Get early access to episodes of Season 24 on our website: shorturl.at/jtUZ6
How do Buddhism, Chinese traditions, and Hinduism address the essence of human sentience? What is consciousness? What is the self? What is qi? Do humans have souls or spirits? Are humans dualistic beings? Or pure souls/spirits?
Featuring interviews with Swami Sarvapriyananda, Swami Medhananda, Jay Garfield, and Franklin Perkins.
Explore all of our videos on Eastern Traditions: shorturl.at/agM69
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
![[UNCUT] รัฐสั่งหยุดปล่อยคลื่น! แต่หยุดพลังปะทุ “น้องหญิง” ไม่ได้ I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RmQh47eIiV0/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you Closer To Truth, Mr Kuhn, for not being Richard Dawkins. It is wonderful to be open-minded and not closed off to all human information and experience.
If claims don't make any logical and empirical sense it is not close-mindedness to not listen to them.
@@nicolacamposarcone5152
Logic and empiricism are not the Logos. They are not even attempts to understand the Logos. So it makes little sense to perceive them as encapsulating the totality of reality, or the nature of reality. In materialism they are elevated to being fundamental. Meanwhile ‘the hard problem of consciousness’ remains unsolved while the empirical, based on human perception and theory, moves on dangerously untethered from its roots.
@@ALavin-en1krWell I think it is absurd to belive that there is a Logos, meaning a Ultimate Truth, even if your brain perceives it as a necessity, it is not guaranteed that the need of the human brain to order in a causal way his worldview is related to truthfinding, I am not a subjectivist of course and I don't belive that "There are no truths" because I am not dumb, I think everything we can reach are always better perspectives and interpretations. You should read Nietzsche to really understand what I mean
@@nicolacamposarcone5152 The scientific method is certainly a powerful one, yet due to its glacial, bottom-up, heuristic approach it will take the remainder of the life of the universe, and then some, to figure out the what/why/how of said universe.
All attempts to derive meaning from this bizarre existence can and should be vulnerable to criticism, for the simple fact that they are created by humans, who are thus far utterly fallible.
@@ALavin-en1kr nicola doesn't seem to understand that logic is relative and not absolute. your mind,senses,intelligence, have their purpose and value only in relation to the self and not unto themselves.
Wow, Robert, this was truly one of your best videos yet. Outstanding, and thank you.
Wonderful, intellectually provocative episode. I'm not a god-believer (agnostic on that), but I do resonate with the Hindu approach as described by the two Swamis. It ultimately boils down to the question of what is "self", how it relates to nonlocality (QM). I think the nature of dreaming provides clues to that - I often get the impression, in a dream, that I am encountering another "self's" experiences, through their body, in some other part of the universe. "A spiritual being having a human experience." Exactly. And VERY interesting perspectives by Jay Garfield & Franklin Perkins on Buddhism. Much to digest; both for me & for Robert, it seems.
You might like some of Bernardo Kastrup's theory on consciousness, he has lots of talks on TH-cam
Thanks so much for doing this eastern focused episodes! I'd love to see more on Jainism.
The problem with Jainism is that since it is the oldest religion in the world dating back to some 90k years....many of its texts are not being able to be translated to present languages. But still it has great great informations .
Every -ism is just an idea that will find its proves and cons.
1:28 "I was wrong." ... spoken like a true seeker!
@TomRathborne
and ' . . . I didn't know I didn't know . . .'
🧐 Enjoyed the exposure to Eastern traditions, when I was a kid, a neighbor told me, variety is the spice of life, as I meld agnostic wisdom into Religious/ Spiritual traditions Closer to Truth 👌
Also, it is said, variety is the soul of pleasure.
Thanks brilliant video
Let's now explore how we can apply logic, math, and physics to formalize the relationship between objectivity and subjectivity in epistemology within the monadological framework.
First, let's define our basic entities and relations:
- Let M be the set of all monads (fundamental psychophysical entities).
- Let P be a set of "propositions" or "statements."
- Let T be a set of "truth values," with at least two elements, "true" and "false."
- Let B be a function from M × P to T, where B(m, p) represents the "belief" or "truth assignment" of monad m to proposition p.
- Let J be a function from P(M) × P to T, where J(S, p) represents the "justification" or "epistemic support" for proposition p based on the beliefs of the set of monads S.
Now, let's formalize the idea of objectivity and subjectivity in epistemology:
- Objectivity: ∀p ∈ P, ∃t ∈ T, such that ∀S ⊆ M, J(S, p) = t.
- Subjectivity: ∃p ∈ P, such that ∀t ∈ T, ∃S ⊆ M, J(S, p) ≠ t.
In other words, objectivity means that for every proposition, there exists a truth value that is justified by the beliefs of any set of monads, while subjectivity means that there are some propositions for which no single truth value is justified by the beliefs of all sets of monads.
We can formalize this further using the mathematical framework of modal logic and epistemic logic:
- Let K be a Kripke model, where the worlds are sets of monads and the accessibility relation represents "epistemic accessibility" or "sharing of beliefs."
- Let □ be a modal operator, where □p means "p is known" or "p is objectively true."
- The objectivity and subjectivity of epistemology can be expressed as:
- Objectivity: ∀p ∈ P, either □p or □¬p.
- Subjectivity: ∃p ∈ P, such that ¬□p and ¬□¬p.
Here, objectivity is formalized as the principle that for every proposition, either it or its negation is known or objectively true, while subjectivity is formalized as the existence of propositions for which neither they nor their negations are known or objectively true.
Finally, we can connect this to physics by noting that this formalism is compatible with both objective and subjective aspects of scientific knowledge:
- Objective aspects of science include empirical observations, mathematical theorems, and experimentally verified laws and regularities.
- Subjective aspects of science include theoretical interpretations, conceptual frameworks, and the role of human creativity and intuition in the scientific process.
The monadological framework accommodates both perspectives by recognizing that scientific knowledge arises from the interplay between the objective features of reality and the subjective perspectives of the monads (observers or knowers) investigating it.
In summary, by using tools from logic, math (modal logic and epistemic logic), and physics (empirical observations and theoretical interpretations), we can formalize the both/and nature of objectivity and subjectivity in epistemology within the monadological framework:
- Epistemology involves understanding the relationships between the beliefs of knowers (monads) and the truth values of propositions.
- Some propositions may have objective truth values that are justified by the beliefs of any set of knowers, while others may have subjective truth values that depend on the specific perspectives of the knowers.
- This formalism is compatible with both objective and subjective aspects of scientific knowledge in physics and other fields.
This analysis highlights the capacity of the monadological framework to provide a comprehensive and nuanced account of the nature of knowledge and the process of scientific inquiry. By embracing a both/and approach and drawing on the tools of logic, mathematics, and physics, we can develop a more sophisticated and accurate understanding of the complex interplay between objectivity and subjectivity in our quest for understanding the world around us.
An ideological angle has been successfully located. Let's see how well it gets along with all the other ones.
Very good explanation by the swami.
I love how he summarized Confucionism vs Taoism as cultivating (self sacrifice and character building through discipline) vs uncultivating (back to pure nature)
Very well summarised within a short time. I would like to point out Vedantic traditions do not exhaust the Hindu tradition. The Sankhya & Yoga system has their own kind of dualistic metaphysics and very unique concept of person. Then there is Tantra, which is massively misunderstood and deserves a fair treatment. Also besides Hinduism and Buddhism there is Jainism which is a sophisticated religion even though adherents are much less in number. Again it's view of person is different from both Hinduism and Buddhism. Jainism for instance categories living beings based on number of sense organs. That's a very interesting way of looking at it.
Loved this episode. I hope the whole season is focused on asking Eastern philosophy these questions
I’m not any closer to truth either, Robert but the journey is fascinating. Thank you for this
Dear Robert it would be so great if someday you interview any of the modern Theravada monks or nuns, as Ajahn Brahm, who graduated in theoretic physics.
Yeah man, mind boggling
I’m so glad you have opened the box to eastern philosophy. Follow advaita vedanta because it challenges you to prove in your experience that everything it says is true. In that way, you achieve true knowledge, not second hand knowledge from gurus, philosophers etc.
“Man is a drop of blood and a thousand concerns” - Sadi Shirazi
Folks, we will never get closer to truth without incorporation of non-western religion and philosophy. East and West fit together. Check out the works of Walter Evans-Wentz.
My favorite channel
The truth can only be found in the Bhagaved Gita. All the answers to life we seek are in the Bhagaved Gita.
GREAT video. Kudos.
Personally I think anyone who has an interest in consciousness and philosophy needs to take meditation and Buddhist philosophy very seriously. Most rational people understand that accepting dogma on faith (or coercion) is probably the worst epistemology. But what they probably don’t get is that thinking and logic aren’t the only games in town, indispensable though they are. The eastern traditions featuring meditation (of which Buddhism is merely one, although I’d argue the most complete) give you the tool by which you would investigate these things and authenticate or dispute the claims yourself. Meditation is the microscope by which you can investigate the nature of mind first-person.
Personally I accept the Buddhist view of not-self - not merely because I wrestled with it and its competing views with my intellect, but because like nearly everyone else I initially accepted the conventional view of self most of my life, then learned to observe the not-Self nature of consciousness using meditation, and know from firsthand experience what habits, shortcuts, and assumptions my mind does when it slips back into Self.
The same is true of the rest of Buddhist philosophy - emptiness, impermanence, the nature of suffering. Don’t merely wrestle with the intellect and weigh arguments; learn to test it for yourself.
no need to reject, we know equivalence between local and global in computational dynamics.
Thank you, great video. More we talk more we think more we think more we talk, if I keep doing this and become aware of it, because I realize it I open the door of experience then…no thinking no talking. Silence is me, I am silence.
Brilliant! I really enjoy these videos. 🖖
You can't understand it because "it's largely analytic"? Ins't that the means by which you need to understand things... How is eastern tradition ever going to provide mechanistic functionality? You have to analyze the motion to get to ground truth.
Good interviews. I would want there to be nothing but I'm stuck with something. Perhaps there are different dimensions of "reality" so that all of the eastern traditions can be somewhat correct. I think ultimate reality consists of no 'separate' mind. It's a Oneness. What that Oneness is can't be described.
yes this condense it down
In Hindu religion and philosophy consciousness is God, the human consciousness shares in this consciousness as an individualized self. This is the most appealing and most realistic. The Buddha likely did not like that the many expressions of god were taken by some as many gods. There is consciousness, mind, magnetism, electromagnetism, electricity, and elements and we are all of these.
causation (future) to consciousness (present) to physical nature (past)?
We have a left brain that attends to the daily details of life and a right brain that attends to our deepest inner sense of being. We need both. What we don't need: to let our left brain be the master. The ancient masters knew this, but had to resort to mythology and stories. Now we know, thanks to modern mindfulness science. Deep respect for ancient masters!
Do, dont talk. Walk, dont run
Please interview Rupert Spira. I truly believe he has found the path to the Ultimate Reality.
The self Isn't the human being, it accepts a human body based on its karma.
The Need For Harmonious Societies
Are the differences and similarities in western and eastern understanding/s of human consciousness explainable by the differences and similarities in their local physical and demographic environments?
Buddhism and Hinduism are not opposed- buddhism is just 1 step further than Hinduism. It isn't that nothing actually exists according to buddhism- it's about a confusion about what the thing or nonthing that exists behind everything is.
A reality of changing things is all that can be used as reference to point to any self behind everything. And a reality of changing things is not existence at all bc real existence is unsupported and unchanging. That's why Buddha says that a cosmic self doesn't actually exist...bc that concept of cosmic self is still dependent on the impermanent things around it to make it what it is. The Buddha is said to have realized that- otherwise he was hindu as well. You could view buddha as the one who rediscovered the true meaning behind the vedas
The #1 uniting practice in all of Eastern traditions is mindfulness. The rest is philosophy.
That's a very interesting observation.
Please forgive me if I come across as racist. The first two Hindu dudes I found to be brilliant, simple and uplifting. I could listen to them all day long. The last two white dudes almost put me to sleep with their cerebral jabbering.
There is nothing wrong with suffering. The wrong part of suffering is nothing how to apply suffering to soothe you and others around you. Patience is suffering and vice versa. Without issues there are no solutions. When you are ready you alone will delegate how you spend time intentionally with the the first four creations called the elements. If you dont know it now, your problem will still serve you double portions of it when you are old and frail.
I don't need someone to tell me what I am. I know what I am from within. What I need to know is how and why the universe. Is there an intelligent creator or not? That is the ultimate question.
The Physical Universe was created to give a temporary home for lost souls for a chance to return HOME through regaining their faith in a loving God, because it was losing faith in God's love that we fell from Heaven and ended in a cold dark emptiness (hell)...
@@evaadam3635 At least that is what you think. It is better for God to speak for himself. Otherwise you could terribly misrepresent him.
Whether there is an intelligent creator or not is a silly question.
@@peweegangloku6428 it did not come from me but came from the light that I believe I received because of my strong faith in a loving God...
...and if God reveals Himself to you to grant what you asked, then it would compromise your soul's chance of salvation through freely believing without knowing God ... your lost soul was sent here not to know but TO BELIEVE so to return Home....
The self of Adwaita Vedanta is no thing and is divinity within you, which is no material existence and is called the Atman.
An individual- which is called Jeevatma is a mix of two - the Atma which is the provider of sentience in this Mind Body Complex.
This mind body complex is subject to Gunas- satva Rajas and Tamas and acquires a sense of ‘I’ness and becomes a doer and is given a name and develops a limited being who comes in this world lives grows and dies while doing actions or Karma to fulfill his desires in this life and seeks happiness in material which is filled with incompleteness, un fulfilment and attachment. This leads to more and more actions and it dies to be born again.
He does not know that he is a spiritual being having a human experience.
Those who seek to know this are spiritual seekers.
This knowledge is contained in Upanishads and can be obtained by a Guru who is knower of this knowledge- in Sanskrit is called as Brahmavid!
The purpose of human life is to ultimately achieve that and he will keep coming to life or born again till he seeks and realises his true nature. He needs to seek to go to closure to the truth!
I don't think there is a difference between the Buddhists non self and the Hindu self. Both end up into same thing or no-thing. The difference is in explanation and description and wordings used.
If you don't think there's a difference, then you fundamentally misunderstand both.
@@TheMahayanist actually i am sure there is no difference. Same conclusion was reached my many people and but because these people existed in different times nd surroundings, their description of the same conclusion varied.
Understanding is not enough buddy, we have to realise these teachings in life.
@@TheMahayanist both are right...one is subjective and another is objective....
What is not the question. How? is the question.
A lot of the discussion sounds analogous to -
To go two light years distance in 1 year the book X says you go faster than the speed of light. Of course you have to. Duh. The question is how to travel faster than speed of light.
If consciousness is not a physical casual mechanistic process, then how is it moving our vocal organs to talk about itself? Eastern philosophy isn't thinking straight.
or you are just thinking too linearly. Maybe not all things in reality share a causal relationship as we once thought. You cannot assume that there is this analytic reality to which everything exists.
@@AlexLifeson1985 Actually, contextualizing this physical exchange vector adds to non-linearity, more detail emerges and better accounting takes place.
Turiya was translated in English to consciousness. It's a different consciousness from existential consciousness. Instead, I would say to acknowledge it as turiya.
Consciousness only appears as this body and world .
Similar to a sleeping person mind that create a person in the dream who use all the function as normal human being. In other word, it is only mind appearing as dream body and world.
Its an intreresting question - more hypothesis follows.
If we are able to explain the relation between consciousness and how the whole world works through that, then we assume it is some kind of a 'force' .
My understanding is that its the underlying reality in which all of these happens - the deep subjective reality which we reach when we detach, become hyper focussed, free from desires, ego - we observe and become that reality.
I really doubt if any philosphy can answer that question how from the consciousness the whole world came to be and works .
The human person is what annoys the crap out of me.
You MUST accept suffering. It is a MOST, intentionally or not.
"What is the Human Person?"
You may understand a Human Person better if you understand what an Animal Person is....
...Animal Persons are people who define their whole being as just animal bodies driven by natural instincts, slaves of physical laws beyond their control and, so, feel not accountable...
..and because Animal Persons identify themselves with their mental and physical attributes that can be different from others, they become the source of bigotry, discriminations, indifference, false pride, inflated egoes, superiority or inferiority complex, etc., etc., - they are genuine trouble makers who are crowding in prisons....
..on the other hand, Human Persons are God-loving people who believe that their true being is an immortal soul equal to all, no more no less, no superior nor inferior. They are humble, kind, and caring to others because they believe that we are all children of a loving God whom they love..
Many there are who intentionally do not want to recon soul, and they don't even care what, by denying the Soul, indirectly means and themselves make no attempt to understand such erroneous sentiments or fallacy.
Consubstantiality - there requires a medium. Light, sound, waves, modalities. This Iindicates Soul.
An artwork requires the canvas, that you don't see, and the forms brought out onto the canvas came from the intellect or the artist.
In nature, everything is reflected.
Broadcast, signal, radio = God, Soul, man. Father, son, Holy spirit.
One can not say there is not Soul, as in, there being a truly nothing. There is a substratum, a soul, a medium. If there was no soul how do you go about explaining all of this? These guys(materialists) can not explain anything fundamental. They can talk computation, fibre ob lasers, mri, but this didn't exists 100.,000 years ago, and dependents upon the very substratum that they deny. They say, "Everything is physical," and this says what? It means what? It changes what? You think you're fooling God? Acknowledging the Divjne makes you feel childish? Is that it? You think you're to smart in acknowledging the Divine? You think you know what Truth, Justice, Virtue, essence, being is, you know what these are and whence they come? You think Wisdom is a joke?
We're here only to pay bills and do business...is that what all this is about? Let's all just shake hands and smile for the camera?
Reasoning with people is difficult.
It doesn't matter if we're talking science, feild theory, metaphysics, physics, or mysticism - same thing. It's the same thing. The exact same thing.
Making up obvious fictional characters doesn't explain anything either. At least these guys(materialists) are trying to learn something. You are just playing make believe and trying to hide it behind ultimately meaningless metaphors.