Alan Wallace Demystifies the Debate on Salvation or Enlightenment?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 มิ.ย. 2012
- A day of dialogue between Dr Alan Wallace, Tibetan Buddhist and Laurence Freeman OSB, Benedictine monk, exploring the theme of 'Salvation or Enlightenment. In this video, Dr. Wallace presents his perspective on the issue of Salvation or Enlightenment. A Meditatio forum held in London, June 2012.
The WCCM is a global community of meditators united in a contemplative Christian tradition as taught by Fr. John Main, OSB. Our community is now present in more than 100 countries with 3000 weekly meditation groups, multiple centres, and a vibrant online community. Our mission Lis to communicate and nurture the fruits of meditation so as to foster the unity of all peoples, and to create social change by facilitating personal transformation through dialogue, silence and friendship.
SUPPORT THE WCCM:
In our mission to share the gift of Christian meditation for the unity of all peoples, the WCCM produces hundreds of hours of content each month, completely free of charge. Any gift, no matter how small, will help us continue our mission. give.wccm.org/
CONNECT WITH US
The WCCM www.wccm.org/
Bonnevaux Centre for Peace: bonnevauxwccm.org/
Join the mailing list: eepurl.com/tc5vH
Get the app: wccm.org/app/
What a great lecture... I learned a great deal about co existence with other spiritual beings.
May peace come to us all and may we welcome it, embrace it, and give it away.
Love this explanation of the different schools of Buddhism, as well as the Christian parallels...similarities and differences. Thank you Professor Wallace !!!
He became the good within you and a symbol of the good within you
Thank you for the up load. Great lecture!
I like this guy....one could say I`m a follower....he also does an extensive series of podcasts on meditation...extremely interesting and all from retreats.
You're not alone. He truly is a great being who works tirelessly for the benefit of all beings 💎🌈🙏🙇🏻♂️
peace on earth
I'm Buddhist and Jesus is the good within you the same as
Buddha the good within yourself
Meditation comes after praying everyday asking for forgiving yourself.
I find his methods very useful! I've looked into a lot of teachers and finding the right combination of someone who is not traditional but also recognizes enlightenment has been difficult for me.
Excellent - thank you!!!
This is very wise and inspiring.
First of all BUDDHISM IS NOT A RELIGION...people just use the term Religion because there is no other way to perceive it since there is a certain worship and practice... Buddhist worship is a means of respect ..not to get things done (like praying to God).its just a way of life you live , Not to showoff to others, conquer others ,kill others or make others wrong ...its about inner cleansing , inner peace ..its looking at yourself and correcting yourself .....
Some Buddhists, like me, find peace in calling their practice a religion which is fine, but we don't all need to assign ourselves to it.
@@cassandra5516 May this be of benefit🙏 Buddhism is a science, philosophy and a religion; and these western terms are not disintegrated in Buddhism. Don't get sloppy on your definitions otherwise everything from that point onwards comes out skewy.
very inspiring
The dropping of a subject-object dichotomy and the sense of a 'self' is very well attested cross-culturally in religious experience, and how it can happen is getting increasing attention in neuroscience (e.g. the book 'Stroke of Insight'). It's almost cliche in the modern world to reject the help of a teacher regarding spiritual progress, when every other skill we gain is only achieved through the help of someone more experienced.
Dr. Wallace's discussion of a mental continuum, his belief in reincarnation and Pure Lands, etc. makes for an interesting contrast with the following Zen story:
Student: "Master, what happens when you die?"
Master: "I don't know."
Student: "What? You're a Zen master!"
Master: "But not a dead one!"
If the Zen master was a real master then he was lying because he didn't want the student to become distracted by metaphysics and would rather him focus on his direct experience and practice.
A master knows about the continuity of consciousness and awareness.
The quote is attributed to Hakuin, one of the greatest Zen masters who ever lived.
The point is not that he may or may not have known what happens when you die. The point is that when you get to his level, it doesn't matter if you don't know. Only the ego wants an answer. The only true reality being the present moment, immediate experience and pure awareness is the highest teaching in all of Buddhism, but among the various strands of Buddhism, Zen's often plain language has always been good at getting this across to people.
It is a useful reminder when the temptation arises to get enmeshed in Tibetan Buddhism's elaborate cosmos and fall in love with the tradition to the detriment of change and innovation, and dismissing hard questions about the tradition, all of which I believe Dr. Wallace is guilty of doing. And many others, of course.
Getting confused and bewildered by all the cosmological teachings and abandoning the path as a result is just as problematic, but that's more of a problem for newcomers to Buddhism (although it also hits disillusioned longtime practitioners).
I think Buddhism will face many challenges in this century, including the impact of neuroscience, artificial intelligence, new theories of consciousness, the ability to rewrite the human genome etc. Tibetan Buddhism must remain open and ready to accept and dialogue with all of these communities, or it will simply be swept aside. That may include substantial revisions of the Tibetan cosmology (and the entire Buddhist cosmology). Science in turn may validate many of the findings of Tibetan Buddhism.
Interestingly, the Dalai Lama himself appears to be far more open to reinterpretations of Buddhism than many Western adherents. As he famously said at a neuroscience conference in 2005:
_“If it was possible to become free of negative emotions by a riskless implantation of an electrode - without impairing intelligence and the critical mind - I would be the first patient."_
It was my perception that Tibetan Buddhism was not ready to and even ignoring these challenges that was one reason I left the tradition, while still accepting that many of its beliefs have some or a lot of objective reality to them.
I don't want it. But I see certain issues arising that Buddhism in general needs to address. New findings about the brain, for instance, have not challenged Buddhism's claims about helping people attain mental peace, but they have challenged its reasons that people get those results, which could lead to new, more effective means of practice. Even Dr. Wallace has said this. New technologies that involve direct stimulation of the brain have proven startlingly effective - I was treated for OCD with magnets over my cranium at a clinic that can do with OCD or depression in one month what might take years of meditation to achieve, if at all. I meditated rigorously for years and it had little effect on my OCD. I still meditate, but now I have more options.
Artificial intelligence will raise the question of what we define as conscious. The Dalai Lama has said that it might be possible for a machine to support a stream of consciousness. There is nothing in the Buddhist cosmology about inorganic beings on the same level as humans, so if it is possible, what does that mean for current doctrine?
When we are able to rewrite our genomes and create ageless, very healthy humans (and we probably will), should we? Buddhism could be interpreted to have different viewpoints on this issue. On the one hand, there is the emphasis on the shortness of life and using that knowledge as a motivation to work hard to attain enlightenment. On the other, in Tibetan Buddhism there are long-life practices and yogic techniques designed to get rid of as many physical health obstacles as possible and live as long as possible in this incarnation in order to maximize one's chances of getting enlightened in one life, and there are claims that some practitioners lived 125 - 150 years, or even longer.
These are two examples. I just think, I would like to see more of a dialogue on these things.
Great!
What he means in this context is faith in the possibility to transform one's mind, which is gained by observing the behaviour and testimony of advanced contemplatives. Evidence is rapidly accruing, however, due to research into neuroplasticity and behavioural change induced by various forms of mind training.
Buddhist are people who are removing the pain after the prayer instead of relying on forgiveness
Even though I enjoyed the talk it was not "between" anyone at all. Dr. Wallace told us his half of it all; but was someone else supposed espouse the other side? Anyone know if another half of this dialogue exists?
Ibraahiym Kadessh Yes...a Benedictine monk is going to present his side...I'm sure you can find it under this person's video's (Not Wallace, the person who put up the talk.)
There are 4 videos in total - find the other 3
Proof for these religious ideas would be required first surely?
I vote for enlightenment. Blood sacrifices are evil and immoral
So I should stop doing blood sacrifices? Dammit.
valar - good for you and all of us. We ARE evolving spiritually then. In your own lifetime this can take place. Your choice. Your life. This day is your gift. Your gratefulness for the gift of life is the participation in this enlightenment. What are you betting your life on? Bet well, live your day well. Your gratefulness will then be a blessing to all you meet.
But I want to do blood sacrifices! I worship the ancient Germanic gods from the tribes east of the Rhine when the Romans ruled the western shore.
Previous guy took me literally ahahaha
love Also exist in animals. So as social creatures love can be attributed to our need of survival. If we just killed each other we wouldn’t be here.
If you're oblivious to what happens at death, yes.
If you know that there is a continuation of consciousness from lifetime to lifetime, then no.
If you know there is no easy way out of reality and you have to earn your way out, then again, no.
I have found a very scientific approach in the Buddhist teacher Shinzen Young, who you might perhaps want to check out.
Faith and belief turns to power manisfested
Learn about Nam Myoho Renge Kyo and True Buddhism called Nichiren Shoshu.
Thank you we donot get to hear a lot about Christian monastics only very very worldly Bible thumpers!!! West is too obsessed with Buddhist monks (not that it is bad) and too little with their own monks ...This is me a mediatation practicing Hindu
Long live mayanna buddhism and the universal law wich is nam myoho range kyo.
"Pervasive unsatisfactoriness' is the term used in Buddhism for that phenomenon, and it is the very fact of never been satisfied with what we have and being unable to just 'stop' feeling that way that is the heart of all the spiritual traditions.
If science can find a way to make that feeling go away and give us a sense of peace and safety, then great! So far it can't do that though - and I've tried. I've been through the wringer of the misuse of psychiatric drugs and their consequences, including a brutal narcotics addiction. But I believe it will be able to one day in the foreseeable future, with new technologies of the mind, and we won't need to spend 45 years in meditation like Dr. Wallace has.
There's no shortcut to where you want to go. You're seeking the sources of happiness and suffering outside of yourself when they can only be found within. I hope after nearly a decade you've come closer to relaize that nothing authentic and lasting can be found outside and so you've finally begun looking inward🙏
@@allizwan4569 Ketamine therapy has _really_ helped me in the last nine months or so. More than anything else in the past 15 years. It's a shortcut, or what the hell else would you call it?
And now AI is a massive challenge and opportunity for Buddhism. What happens when our machines become more intelligent than us, as may happen very soon? So interesting!
An Olympic athlete trains for 20 to 30 thousand hours for disappointment and dissatisfaction.
Why won't you invest 40 to 50 thousand for the authentic happiness and genuine satisfaction that is your heart's innermost desire?
@@ezeeproproperties8352 Because I wouldn't have to.
The standard rebuttal to this is "But all the struggle on the path is its own reward." This is confusing the means with the goal. The goal of Buddhism is to become enlightened - a much different experience than an Olympic athlete has after training for so long, which is hormonal and hedonically-based. The struggle and the reward at the end of it is the ego talking.
It's also the ego talking when Buddhist traditionalists essentially say Buddhism isn't 'worth it' if it's too easy. But some of us work far less to become enlightened than others, and yet, since the enlightened state is already overflowing with infinite wisdom and compassion, it doesn't matter that it was so quick for them vs. the rest of us breaking our spines to wake up.
Then there's a more pragmatic concern. 40-50k hours of meditation is not at all practical for almost anyone. 99% of us are not monks or super-dedicated lay practitioners like Alan. Trying meditating when you are exhausted after a hard day on the job and the kids are running around screaming. You might get half an hour in, if you're lucky. To get really involved but still keep your job and family, you have to go on short - medium retreats, and most people don't have the $$$ for that. Retreats may not cost a lot to actually do, but they cost a shitload in terms of the time taken out of your life, travelling etc.
Finally, ultimately, the issue is that we just don't have enough time anymore for meditation to save our asses. Even if the entire world suddenly dropped everything and started meditating tomorrow, it would still take 20-30 years to genuinely transform someone, and we don't have 20-30 years as a civilization. We need innovative techniques that will work today.
If we don't take advantage of the staggering power of the onslaught of the new methods of neuroscience, driven by the speed of advances in AI (neuroscience is the fastest-growing field os scientific research in the world) the bad actors will do it without question. It's not even a debate. Dictators would love to know what's going on in our heads and how to manipulate our emotions directly.
And what I am talking about IS happening, in many labs across the world, and in some hospitals in clinical settings for the treatment of mental illness, which I have. But it can and will be use for so much more.
Jack Kornfield sees this as the natural evolution of the Dharma. The Dharma itself is impermanent. He has said, "I have tremendous faith in this process. The Dharma wants to give itself away." Kornfield even had a talk with Sam Altman about GPT-4 this year. Technology is an outstanding empty form, just like meditation is.
The Dalai Lama supports this work. He says he is tired of busting his ass four or five hours a day on the cushion. This is what he had to say to a group of neuroscientists in 2005: _"If it was possible to become free of negative emotions by a riskless implementation of an electrode - without impairing intelligence and the critical mind - I would be the first patient."_
33:00 meditation also exists within the Christian tradition. lol
What's funny about that? Meditation means cultivation. Your attending school is a meditation.
Everyone meditates.
Imagine having such a twisted mind that you aim to distort and find fault in everything this precious being says instead of aiming to learn something🤦♂
Salvation is enlightenment. Death and resurrection is recreation.
Religion is man's attempt to explain and label in different ways the same inner gravity of spirit reality that is in process of unifying with our physical minds which generates our sense of divine presence. This feeling is among all of us and drives us towards the activities of worship and social sharing. The conflicts and differences arise from the various geographical, cultural, and historical influences especially with regard to the production of sacred writings. All of this is of human concept evolution. But when preexisting, non-human spiritual beings manifest themselves to us to teach, guide, and reveal cosmic knowledge it is known as Revelation, and this roughly occurs every 2000 years or so. Such Epochal Revelations (not invented or influenced by man) are 1- The pre-Adamic ministries of the pre-Nephilim revelations, these gave the groundwork for the future Hindu and Buddhism religions, 2- The Garden of Eden culture of Adam and Eve which defaulted by their disobedience to their mission which led to the Hebrew race, 3- Melchizedek's mission and covenant with Abraham that generated the Mosaic Hebrew culture and the evolving of the religion of Judaism, 4- The ministry life of Jesus, the incarnated son of God that through the New Testament and Apostle Paul generated Christianity. And 5- The URANTIA BOOK Revelation that was physically materialized by an angelic technique as a gift from the angelic corps responsible for this planetary dispensation. This Urantia Book is designed for all of humanity worldwide and brings from a universal perspective the explanations of all reality of which we can know in our time. All of the differences of religious conflicts and concepts is cleared up and explained fully in the 2097 pages of this revelation. After reading every word many times over 30 years I can recommend its value to our world at large and invite all those who seek the highest levels of knowledge to investigate the Urantia Book.
You can read it free on the Internet or order it from Amazon
Religion is simply something that is faith-based. It is based on belief as opposed to knowing.
We have 3 ways of coming to know reality in the west.
Scientific, which is the direct observation of the phenomenon that we seek to fathom.
And out findings must lend themselves to testability and subsequent 3rd party corroboration.
Philosophical is inferential knowledge.
Where we can't directly observe and measure something, we must infer by way of reason and logic.
Then when we can neither empirically know, or even infer a particular truth, that's when a religious approach to reality kicks in; where one needs to accept a truth on the authority of another - where one must simply believe and take on faith that which is being claimed.
Religion depends more how you look over life not what you think about.
+YueseiYuno SakuraKonan
Religion come from the latin word "religioso" meaning "a way of life".
We all are religious about something. The only one worthy of worship is God, the creator. And the one He revealed Himself as: JESUS.
That's not religion. That's simply your outlook on life.
Religion is something that is faith-based. It is based on belief as opposed to knowing.
We have 3 ways of coming to know reality in the west.
Scientific, which is the direct observation of the phenomenon that we seek to fathom.
And out findings must lend themselves to testability and subsequent 3rd party corroboration.
Philosophical is inferential knowledge.
Where we can't directly observe and measure something, we must infer by way of reason and logic.
Then when we can neither empirically know, or even infer a particular truth, that's when a religious approach to reality kicks in; where one needs to accept a truth on the authority of another - where one must simply believe and take on faith that which is being claimed.
@@gregorymitarsarovich113is there any evidence to support your wild claims?
If there is no permanence within the Buddhist worldview, then how can the principles of Buddhism be considered dependable, since they are also subject to the transitory changes of impermanence? Absolute truth requires absolute permanence, (from which to stabilize and measure absolute principles).
Because the principles of causality are only relative, not absolute - they are empty of all inherent nature.
@@buddhistphilosopher800
It seems to reason that any principles (or anything at all) that is relative and not absolute can not be absolutely reliable. If Buddhism acknowledges that it inherently lacks any absolute truths, then it logically follows that if we want absolute truth we must look elsewhere.
@@1StepForwardToday No, Buddhism aknowledges that all phenomenon lacks of inherent, independent, and permenant essence or substance. Emptiness is for Buddhism what is absolute.
@@buddhistphilosopher800
If emptiness is the only
absolute truth of Buddhism, then nothing else about Buddhism can be said to be absolutely true.
@@1StepForwardToday You can assert a Relative truth. Things as they seem to be, but not as they really are. These are the so-called Two Truths in Buddhism.
Haha 54:06...
Yes...I have just repented. And now the Demon just escape to the outside and God just snuck to the inside of me! I can feel the presence of God traps inside.
It amazes me how these "spiritual" types had such urge to flag your comment as 'spam' instead of simply disagreeing or "letting go" as they preach all the time. Hypocrites come in all shapes, colors and religions.
"We are all betting our lives on something." This is true. What else do we have but evidence to go on? Evidence takes many forms. . Buddhism makes contradictory truth claims to Christ on the biggest questions of origins, meaning, purpose, destiny, etc. They cannot both be true.
All I can say is this is where I am now after spending many, many years studying the major worldviews: Christianity takes into consideration every form of evidence and is the best explanation and answer to these questions that every worldview asks.
One must look past the soft-spoken (or cacophonous) voices and look at the weight of the scientific, philosophical, experiential, logical, and historical evidence and all one can do is follow that wherever it leads. A bad Christian (or Buddhist) does not make or break the orthodox claims of that faith or view of the world. Wallace as clearly taken in by someone who fulfilled his expectation of a model or guru at a certain point in his life. IMO, this is a very poor way to think that you have found truth. I will give him credit for continuing in that way, but will also say that it is a culturally expedient, safe, academically acceptable, even voguish way to be in the modern West. Much safer than being devout Christian in the academy.
I'm reading "Buddhahood Without Meditation," and the Nyingma ("ancient") teachings in that book which lay out the essence of the correction of perception is much different than what the Professor is talking about in this video. There is no personal identity -- and all phenomena are illusions -- and the book explains it very well. There is a ground of being that is the same for both samsara (enslavement) and nirvana (freedom). But there is a difference between realizing our true nature versus the non-recognition of our true nature. If we take our bodies as real, and we believe that sensory phenomena (appearances) are real, we have actually used our inner glow from our ground of being to manifest this world outwardly -- this is what we want to correct, to realize our perfection. Buddhahood is our natural state, and we are in a dream of loss of awareness. When the Professor says he needs to correct his behavior and habits, then it shows that he doesn't believe he was created in perfection and that his ego does not really exist -- yet he says that we are to "receive" -- if we did "receive" our natural state (and not distort it), it would be perfection. Thank you.
Err, there is nothing illusionary about the world unless you have a defective organ.
Jesus was a Buddhist trying to teach Buddhist principles to Jews. All the theology was created by the Church.
Do you really feel that by asserting that sentence, without evidence of any kind, is persuasive or cogent to any rational mind? The mind which seeks truth is always "hesitant" and self-doubting or self-vetting. IOW have you tried open-mindedly to think of arguments which would refute your POV? Failing that, you are simply sucking on the teat of a dogma which gives a false sense of security and right-ness. Epistemological humility and patience in seeking enlightenment are the virtues you should perhaps attend to. How about if you prefaced your sentence with, "Sometimes I'm tempted to think that..."? And then remained open to impartial and patient inquiry, open to your own further thoughts on the matter, as well as the thoughts of all other intelligent inquirers of good will. But that involves both a lot of hard philosophical "work" as well as learning to tolerate uncertainty (Zen's "don't-know mind") as you seek truth.
P.S. I think there's a lot of truth in what you say.
Yes, Buddhism offers psychological insights, and some mystical experience in its meditative aspects. Very respectable. This is why Merton and the Christian speaker can relate. For a time now, Christian contemplatives have interacted with some types of Buddhism. However, Buddhism does not offer any answers as to the fundamental nature of being, in its relation to the particular Being, God. cyclical universes to substantiate karma, refuted. Karma as a moral law, laws are not inherently prescriptive, need a law giver. No answer for what exists after death. No answer as to what the purpose of escaping the samsara is, that is, what is better about non existence? if non existence, why not suicide? etc... regardless, respectable worldview.
+Ricky Jones But what would be a position of pragmatism? suicide? wouldn't that lead to the same effect?
+Ricky Jones But for many Buddhists, the ideal is non attachment. This non attachment includes separation from loved ones. Once nirvana is realized, their purpose on earth could be no more. I guess this coincides with the Theravada branch, and probably Zen branch. The idea of the arahat is objectionable too. I admit, I'm not sure how the Bodhisattva idea fits in though to my objection. However, even with the goal of becoming a Boddhisatva, the goal is non attachment, with no salvation, only non existence... then I see little point in caring for the suffering of others.
i think it is there is no attachment to any thing that stems from self. so you no longer love one person more than another you love all equally. this is because the natural state of the human hart is to love. but attachments actually limit and disrupt love.
also nirvana is not non existence, it just dose not exist in this universe. that is why you must give up attachment to the physical world and self so you can see what is beyond self attachment.
@@abadjpyo Yes, it does. Dependent Origination and Emptiness disprove the existence of a creator god.
Karma is not a "universal law of morality", it is a law of cause and effect, the morality attributed to it is made by human beings to avoid suffering and generate positive conditions in the future.
You have no idea what Buddhism is and does if you think it's ignorant when it comes to the "fundamental nature of being".
Please do the work, and then get back to us.
This note is from only the first half hour. Much of what he says makes sense on many levels but when he starts describing his own reaction to his perception of how to handle Christian salvation I feel it is clear that he simply doesn't understand and has missed part of basic Christian education. Some of the structure of effort he has learned in Buddhism is available in Christianity. *It is not uncommon for me to not always agree with someone who I respect.
His dad is a theologian!
@@MrResearcher122 and he himself has a PhD in comparative religious studies. What @miriampia is saying is that Alan Wallace hasn't told her what she wants to here; he's basically gotten her to question her long-unquestioned beliefs, which her conceit and fundamentalism won't allow her to do.
Upon earning enlightenment one discovers their nothingness and the purposelessness of existence.
Upon the gift of divine Revelation being bestowed one discovers their Sonship and the majestic purpose of Life.
Neither of these two have direct experience of either.
Sudata
Nothingness and purposelessness?
Maybe watch it again, several times...
from my perspective, there are too many ndes that appear genuine to me. so i have no real doubt that god exists. i also do not think that any sort of meditation is gonna get you to some special level of consciousness. because most of the ndes who speak about incarnation, all say there is a veil placed over us, so that we can not have access to full consciousness. the whole point of becoming human is to experience being human. and part of that entails not knowing that we are eternal light beings encased in a physical body. so if god does not want us to know, there is nothing we can do about it. what has been posited is that a part of god's plan for us is to live our lives on earth with enhanced levels of consciousness, such that we become much more spiritual beings. until such time occurs, we are only kidding ourselves that we can grasp full consciousness. that being said, i really like alan. i truly hope he has a nde, so he can tell us about it. i totally believe he would be 100% honest. it would be totally interesting to see to what degree his perspective would change. for just about everyone who has one, their total life is changed forever, and in a good way.
What about those who had ndes of Confucius and the Buddha?
Romans 1 : 22
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"
+Mi Tar
So let me get this straight: you profess yourself wise because you read something in a book?
Where does your wisdom come from?
Experience.
experience ... interesting...where do you think people write down their perceptions of life-- books. What is the most signifiant book - the one that God gave us, when we spoke to man. Every answer to life is in that book. God's love letter to man kind. We have free will. There must be definitive right an wrong, who makes these rules? who created this life you "experience"? Wouldn't that entity deserve worship? I sure think so.
+Mi Tar
People write down their perceptions in books, yes. Why do they bother? Perhaps to teach what they've learned, but if one book already has every answer to life, what's the point? Why bother trying to teach anybody who already has all the answers, throwing your pearls before the class clown? After all, nothing has changed in the last two thousand years, right? But really, God's love letter? Ask the Midianites about that, ask all the tribes who perished in God's bigass flood. That entity deserves nothing less than to rot in His own Hell. If only He existed. . . But He doesn't, so no, He didn't create this life I experience. And no, there does not need to be a definitive right and wrong. Never was, never will be.
Neither.
Yeah...and I wasn't trying to flame anyone, I think it's an honest point. Dr. Wallace is in general hung up on the idea of faith vs. skepticism. Although I have no doubt profound changes to conscious experience are possible, a central weakness of Buddhism is that thus far it is impossible to back up many of its claims - e.g. karma, merit, reincarnation, enlightenment - without an 'appeal to authority' argument (i.e. all these gurus say it's true so it's true).
This is completely false. Buddhism has enough instructions on powerful and highly technical meditation techniques that allow you to prove these "unprovable" things yourself. Thats like the cornerstone of Buddhism, is direct knowledge and reproducibility.
@@satatik21 But that is still an appeal to authority. You can only prove these things through an incredible amount of practice that is unattainable for 99% of people in the modern world, so for all practical purposes you still have to believe what someone else is saying. Unlike in physics or mathematics where you can 'show your work' to an external observer.
If physics gets to the point where it can prove Buddhist metaphysical concepts in the same way - and I don't see why it couldn't, after all karma is a compounded thing and all compounded things can be observed and counted - with extremely powerful calculating devices like quantum computers etc., that would be different.
Alternatively, if we were to find means to radically ease and speed up the process by which everyone could get to see Buddhist concepts directly through their attainment, via breakthroughs in neuroscience or the science of psychedelics, then we wouldn't need to appeal to the authority of a small circle of gurus.
Is it just me or do Buddhists speaking in that soft tone not appear somewhat smug and patronising and a tad pretentious...why not speak normally?
Not just you, no.
Sadly, many 'Buddhists', particularly teachers, can be seen adopting a soft voice, sporting a compassionate smile. I can only suppose they think such things are signs of enlightenment (what IS that?).
Fortunately, there are other 'Buddhists' - people influenced by the practice and teaching of Buddha and/or later related traditions who may not even like to call themselves Buddhists - who behave like normal human beings.
So I'm not the only one either :P I do find it odd that on ALL of his videos, Alan Wallace can't talk like a normal person. Maybe his mind is quiet enough that it has calmed his speech, but he also does come across as somewhat smug and patronising. I think this is tied to his his many years of monastic training from a young age, which seem to have instilled quite a narrow worldview that rejects pretty much anything but the traditional Buddhist approach.
I've also noticed that when he teaches, he uses the same speech patterns of the Dalai Lama, who is his original teacher. I wonder if he subconsciously tries to 'ape' the Dalai Lama's mannerisms as a weird sort of spiritual fetishizing of the great man.
Many more of the younger generation of Buddhist teachers (30s-40s) talk like normal people. They have never been monastics and are not traditional. That very much appeals to my own mindset.
Yes. The form is the container and the expression of enlightenment. If the form is doing really bad things, how enlightened is it? If it's speaking in a soft tone (Dr. Wallace is a very kind man, I'm just making a point), is it straining to appear enlightened or is it legitimately enlightened? In Dr. Wallace's case, I just wonder if it's sometimes the former. At times he has appeared legitimately still blocked in some massive shadow areas - like me!
Yes. But no matter his qualifications, we are all still entitled to our opinions about him. That way, these people keep being challenged and the tradition does not stagnate.
Don't forget the eye-gazing.
Dr. Wallace - you were never "created" in the first place lol!!
To claim they were teaching the same truths, or even compatible ones, is demonstrably false. To conclude that one couldn't understand either's teachings. The crux of Buddhism is to divorce one's self of attachment, mental, emotional, spiritual and physical. To become empty and that from this place of emptiness one can accept the nature of life and have a tranquil existence free from suffering (Nirvana), then from the inside out one can then love. The crux of Christianity is that one must replace those attachments with attachment to God and loving service to others above the self. Then, from the outside in, through forming attachment, one is freed from anxiety, fear and pain. One is passive and teaches focus on the state of the self, the other is active and teaches that by focusing on other the self will fade away. There are minor overlaps in practice and principle but their foundations, ideas, worldviews and teachings behind those practices are polar opposites. A simple example is Buddha would say, “Do not harm the self and do not harm others.” Jesus would say, “Don’t worry about suffering harm and go out of your way to do good to others.”
In short, Buddha= the absolution of suffering for one’s self. Jesus=willingness to suffer for love.
This is one of the worst and wrong #perception of what #buddhism is and what #christianity suppose to be. These are #perception that many people in the lifetime impose on others about what these #spiritual #teacher talk about. They are both active in achieving #enlightenment and that they are speaking the same thing. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then look up #tibetan Buddhism and they speak the same thing as what #jesus is talking about. They teach to suffer for others and for love also you know. Christianity is not about replacing from it's original teaching and that is the same teaching in Buddhism. Buddhism is not about #divorcing oneself from #attachment, #menta or anything else. It's about looking at it the way it is.
Two people standing in different places can point to the same place between them. One may be high up and therefore points down, while the other is below and points up. If you only compare the direction of their pointing you'll miss what they're pointing at.
To an extent yes...I think jesus was saying his love is more powerful than anything else so there is a kind of threshold that exists in terms of pain within Christianity but that love is greater than transitory pain - there are similarities between what they said but buddhism lacks the concept of a father figure. In that sense buddhism is not a true religion but a philosophy - Buddhism's lack of a God figure and lack of the concept of belief seriously weakens it imho.
I think true Christianity is also a way of life and can act as one's philosophy as well as being a faith.
MrDOB1000 Then there came a time where people just debate over it and never knew what it means to the point that they missed the point altogether.
Ocean Tantric Lama
I have read / studied both so no I wasnt missing the point.
The IQ is off. One person extraordinarily explaining things in detail....the other just speaking from faith etc....Alan Wallace needs an intellectual challenge to match and make this equal on some level. Father Lawrence is more of a detriment to the Christian faith as he is in regards to this debate. Whole thing is skewed.
It's not about IQ at all, Alan Wallace has cultivate conative, ethical, attentional, cognitive, emotional and spiritual intelligence. And IQ isn't something you're born with. You can get smarter or stupider over time.
Arya-hindu God text : ( Final state of the men is MOKSHA means by keeping the mind peaceful by conquering all bads evils and bad evil thoughts by self purification and owning complete purification eligible to reach God and God forgives all past sins ) [ Arya-hindu almighty God Shiva ( eswar, ESAi, Eissa, Jehovah..) mother goddess parvathi (Lalita, lat , Al lat, Maya..) are eternal Pure souls ) ( only pure souls eligible to reach God ) ( pure soul Vishnu 8 avatar is Krishna and 9 avatar is Buddha and 10 avatar KALKI destroyer of ceython ) ( Krishna teachings are similar to Jesus 99-100% identical, identical meaning ) ( Buddha arya marga teaches about self purification, NIRVANA means complete purification and complete knowledge ) [ Buddha teaching , Buddha students , 1(Maha Yana : believe in God greatest path to complete perfect purification and complete knowledge ) 2 (Hinayana : non - believer in God ( believe if proof available ) is small ( smart ) path to complete perfect purification and complete knowledge , ) ( Hinayana : some believers of God may be rebellion against the GOD , because lust for super powers ) ( Hinayana : if only proofs available then believe God) . ( Buddha says perfect morality and perfect knowledge interdependent ) [ Buddha believe in GOD , reincarnation ( with out God reincarnation not possible ) ]
Pls learn Hinduism and then start writing
So, he found salvation in believing in Amitabha and he follows his ways of life. Interesting.
Who? Those of the pure land schools in Japan?
Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to salvation (heaven). The only other alternative is hell. Pray to God the Father and ask for forgiveness of sins, confess Jesus Christ died for you, and follow him with your whole heart
phengkimving2 i think you should have kept reading when you got to Jesus' cruxifixion, you would have discovered that he ROSE from the dead and is alive today
phengkimving2 calm down man, im happy to answer your questions, but you need to relax a little lol
If you read the Old Testament you'll see how disobedient the jews were throughout.. moving into the new testament, you see how they acutally murdered the messiah they were waiting for. Have you heard of the pharisiees? They were the jews who were so caught up in man made tradition, that they weren't to identify the messiah (of whom the old testament prophcied) and crucified him instead...
I think you're mixing religions here, the catholic church like to use crucifixes, born again believers dont. The bible says John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
The Church of Jesus Christ is within all the born again believers.
I agree the crucifix is a symbol of death, I try to warn people (catholics expecially) about it lol.
With regards to Judaism, they don't acknowledge the New Testament. Which is shocking because the old testament (Torah or Tanakh) prophecies (i believe over 300 prophecies) of the coming messiah. Those prophecies we're all fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
Jews aren't the only ones who can discern/ recieve revelation of the mysteries of God. Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, (NIV)
That means you too my friend :D
+Joe Magani Whatever creepo.
Wanna hear some fact ?
Before Muhammed the profet came Jesus Christ. Before Jesus Christ was the Buddha.
Those who believe otherwise should change the history of man kind.
Barbra Streisand
duhhh if Jesus created the Heaven and the Earth then obviously he was here first duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
John 1:1-4 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Buddha Allah etc are false gods that CANNOT save you. Why you'd want to follow the peodophile Muhammed is BEYOND ME.
+Joe Magani So if I was born 500 years before Jesus. He stil have the power to say he was first ?
Your logic defy human intellect.
You must be brainwash to the core.
I feel sorry for you.