Jay's cathedral building analogy, which can be compared to MLK's "I may not get there with you" in his Dream speech, invites Buddhists to consider, to imagine, bodhisattva motivation--and collective karma--without individualized, personal rebirth. Roger is going a different way, but he sees the force of what Jay is saying. He has also argued (elsewhere) that when one understands the lack of an essential self, the question of whether suffering is "mine" or "yours" becomes of trivial significance. This follows some of Shantideva's arguments in ninth chapter of BCA. If "mine" vs. "yours" is not so important as we ordinarily think within this lifetime, then why worry about whether future suffering or happiness will be "mine" or "someone else's"? If actions lead to misery (for anyone), lets do as few of them as possible! When Roger describes how he became firm in his identity as a Buddhist despite not being fully convinced by the traditional arguments for rebirth, and thus entertains rebirth along with Mt. Meru etc. as part of his ritual engagement with the tradition, he is reflecting the understanding that "being a Buddhist," is not mainly about what you believe. It is not a creed. There is a commitment to practice and to be part of a community and to participate in its "imaginarium."
Is better don't forget that Madhyamaka means the Middle Way so we can not find the proper answer if the question is if "rebirth exists or don't exist". Maybe is more usefull to use the old example of the ocean and the wave. Life is everywhere and is an ocean- the vast universal ocean of Life, never started and never ends, no birth and not dying. Our personal life is unique, happens only ones, is impermanent and is like a separate wave happening on this ocean, never really separated from the Ocean. Even though it seems separate it is not. As long we are alive we manifest, we feel, we exist, we realize and we appear as a unique, momentus wave on this ocean of life. Our characteristics appear in a unique formulation (that is OUR own life- our fomulation as a being) but what constitutes us (my name and my form, my eyes, my body, my ideas, my words and my mind) is constituted by life materials and characteristics that appear in a unique combination (ME) but they are not exactly only mine. I come from an endless lineage of mothers and fathers, all mankind participated in my construction, in a way stardust created my body, endless eons created my mind, all humans created my ideas. This is what we mean "all beings had been your mother". I am a rebirth (a unique rebirth but a rebirth) of all these characteristics and after my "death" all these characteristics will appear again and again in different combination inside some other beings lives. This is what we call "rebirth" - meaning rebirth of characteristics. When we are searching for a rebirth of a great lama we are searching for a being gifted with great memory, kindness and curiosity for knowledge that will be capable to achieve the same level of wisdom for the benefit of all- as the previous rebirth of the great lama. When we see someone and we fall in love we see small glimpses of karmic attraction from endless numbers of previous lovers with quite the same reasons to fall in love. Love gives rebirth, Life is Love and Wisdom- Emptiness and Happiness. When we exist we exist as a wave of an ocean that never dies. Life never dies. When we die (and when we give birth) we spread our wisdom and our characteristics back to the ocean that constitutes us and other beings appear again by new unique combinations of the same characteristics. Ancient Madhyamaka idea about rebirth is not so complicated. We have to study more about the DNA - it can help the westerners to understand what are the universal factors that constitute us and how all these appear again and again. The self is just a convenient name for a collection of factors. There is no self, no soul, no essence, no core of personal experience apart from the ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent physical and mental factors of personal experience such as our feelings, ideas, thoughts, habits, and attitudes. So what "rebirths"? Exactly all those factors that appear as a specific aggregate now (ME) and then disaggregate (I DIE) and then appear again in a new temporal but unique agregation. This is what Mahayana Buddhism calls "rebirth" according to a "non soul" (anatman) way of thinking. Thank you for reading and I hope my reply to be beneficial on your way to liberation from suffering, ignorance and exploitation. Tasos Sagris / Void Network- Athens
Interesting discussion, thank you for the upload. The claim made by Buddhists is that rebirth is experientially verifiable. This is unlike "beliefs" such as those held by Christians concerning original sin, the day of judgement, etc. Most metaphysical positions in Buddhism are different in this fundamental way from those held in Abrahamic faiths. This, I think, is the central point.
@@gendunchoepel3480 I agree with you that modern practitioners can be non-serious. But it is news to me that there is any aspect of reality that is regarded as being inaccessible to, say, an Arihant. Would love to see your source for that.
@@gendunchoepel3480 you're so silly. the buddha spoke with many nonbuddhists about their previous lives. only dhyana is required, and of course there are the arhats
Basis of Budhism is reincarnation and law of karma . The necessity of Budhism is impermanence sufferings and concept of no soul . Budhism guides us to stay in human world and heavens until final stage 🙏🙏🙏
Thanks everyone. Why cant rebirth be married with the naturalisation of karma? Listening to this from within the Brahma Vihara, karma signifies causation. Ironically, this translation is always already a transformation itself, wherein the notion of karma is reborn as causation which, at the same time testifies to impermance - which is what really does persist and endure (though its essence is inessentialism itself). The question is not one of Rebirth or no Rebirth, but what is the appropriate translation/transformation? What is the Right Understanding of it? When body, mind, self, and world are cast off there is the cast off body, mind, self, and world. It is not a stretch to say what is left, or what has always been, is a world that loves itself. How can it not? It is the Brahma Vihara, wherein there is absolutely no reason to be anything but completely and utterly relaxed about everything all the time. When we understand a Buddha uses words but is not used by them, there is no Rebirth issue - nor yogacara-madhyamika tension. And, it is so peaceful and delightful without them.
"Secular" Buddhism is to Buddhism as Corporate Mindfullness (McMindfullness) is to the actual practice of Mindfullness. It's like adding Self to Buddhism 😅. It's kind of ridiculous. But the question of rebirth isn't important or required. If you practice diligently for a few years, the question will answer itself. We are already enlightened; we already are Buddha Nature. If you think it's something you need to 'get' in another lifetime: this is just dogma. Actualize it here and now.
Garfield has made himself influential in the US, but he is certainly not "one of the most 15 influential philosophers in the world." His work on Buddhist Studies is seen as quite weak and superficial outside the States. And why is this podcast basically Garfield interviewing Jackson? Was it set up to be so? If so, this should have been announced.
I've always been puzzled by the argument that you can't do it in one lifetime. Anyone who becomes a Buddha did it in their "current" lifetime. Only a Buddha would know if it takes more than 1 so you wouldn't know if it were possible for you until you did. Saying Milarepa became a Buddha in one lifetime in context is actually saying he wasn't a buddhist until his current lifetime ie in his past lives he didn't practice. It means that Milarepa purified all of his Karma and realized emptiness in a single lifetime.
Buddhist texts are filled with rebirth ideas, a certain sort of Karma will land you in a pleasant/unpleasant rebirth. If you are rejecting it, then you are just manipulating Buddha's teachings just to satisfy your mind influenced by materialistic scientific thinking.
Dharmakirti is totally relying on an intuition about how matter cannot produce mind, which is quite like the hard problem of consciousness, he's just working with an more ancient form of materialism and metaphysics. Either way, we can and should use new arguments against physicalism and in favor of rebirth. I am kind of disappointed that both of these figures were pretty lukewarm about defending a basic doctrine of the Buddhadharma. They should have picked at least one person willing to defend it vigorously. If the organizers know that both of these thinkers had basically the same "meh" attitude to rebirth, why did they not pick someone else? Is defending the Buddha's teaching not important?
that form possesses no subjective characteristics and vis versa is solid argument, which physicalism and its proponents like these 2 havent managed even to scratch in the past 400yrs. also dharmakirti was a mindonly presenting sautrantika, so hes not even a dualist. there needs to be new good scholarship into whether vaibhashika and sautrantika actuary asserted real dualism
@@gendunchoepel3480 sorry but it's empirical fact that there is zero scientific data establishing that form has subjective characteristics. colors do not weigh a particular amount of grams. dharmakirtis point is specifically set. as for the dualism claim, even a minor decent understanding of mindonly explains how mind and form are not dualism. let alone middleway.
@@gendunchoepel3480 the empirical fact was that there is no evidence for your assertion. similarly if you follow scientism which speculates that the nervous system produces the subjective experience of color despite no such evidence, then yes dharmakirtis assertion that form lacks subjective qualities can be easily dismissed. it is however a perfectly airtight logical indian syllogism which is so much superior to western lineage logic systems. there is the issue also that there were so many meditators with dhyana who had empirically established the nature of subjectivity directly that this too much can be seen as taken for granted. some other commentators gave reasonings against mind as an emergent property of physical. ppl like dennett and frankish who take it even further now and assert appearances of color etc are physical illusions are basically the epitome of modern institutional psychosis and would shit themselves if they ever got anywhere near even shamata and never will since they are utterly gripped by dogma over direct refined observation of their object they're supposed to be investigating.
First of all, if you don't want to accept re-birth, then who is forcing you people to follow Bhuddhism. If you don't want to follow rebirth/Karma Better, follow, your own Judo-chtistian tradition, much better. Even, Islam, Christianity and Bhuddhism all convey the same to same message of love and peace. The problem is that, you people are so materialistic that you have failed to find the essence of your own tradition. Thesedays, these people, after reading few books and little experience, wanted to become a Guru of some kind a new tradition. What, you people are following, is not a Bhuddhism, rather, what you people are following is a Bhuddhist science which also has a physical and mental science. All, the meditation and emotions related training are all part of Bhuddhism mental science. Now, what the F**k is this secular Bhuddhism? , all home grown Indian tradition are all by nature very secular. Not only Bhuddhism, Jain's, Hinduism but also Islam and Christian are all secular because all these traditions talks about love and compassion to others without race, colour, enthinicity etc which actually means secular. @jaygarfield Please, when you explain Bhuddhism to your students, you should explain what you know and if you don't know then you should honestly accept this to your students even in Harvard or some other University. Ofcourse, for you it may be about a livelihood but for others, they come with great hope to learn Bhuddhism. Today, one Advaita Hindu monk, discussing Bhuddhism, share that he attended Jay Garfield class on Tibetan Buddhism and that monk came to the conclusion that Emptiness and Fullness or Brahman is very similar.🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻.
Westerners are committed to destroying everything sacred. If they like the practices and philosophy, but not the religious ideas on which they are based, they could start their own religion based on aspects they like. That would be the honest thing to do. But that is not good enough for them. They have to usurp a millennia old label and transform it untill it bears no resemblance to the original. These guys are just psychopaths.
41:20 just like lower realms including part of the animal realm and the higher realms, the buddha stated normal ppl cannot see them. they, including mt meru and related birth required at least 1st dhyana its probably too difficult for you so stick to your physicalism salvation metaphysics
@@gendunchoepel3480 you seem a little dullwitted so I'll repeat what is being said, dharmakirti positions like most indian and tibetan commentaries rely on specific logic structure/syllogisms. if you do not read it that way, either because you're not familiar with Indian logic or are reading it using inferior western logic structure, one misses all the point being made. anyway, for the dull minded who cannot rely on clear reasoning to overcome their psychosis of physicalism that grows intuitively in every 10yo at the latest, you can instead rely on the faith through authority, for example by the tukdam in taipei 2020 which lasted for over 30 days and was the first occasion to be monitored and tested by western neuroscientists etc which destroyed physicalism. good luck slow kid!
![Engaging Buddhism | Robert Wright & Jay Garfield [The Wright Show]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-GqsYA1pGqo/mqdefault.jpg)
Jay's cathedral building analogy, which can be compared to MLK's "I may not get there with you" in his Dream speech, invites Buddhists to consider, to imagine, bodhisattva motivation--and collective karma--without individualized, personal rebirth. Roger is going a different way, but he sees the force of what Jay is saying.
He has also argued (elsewhere) that when one understands the lack of an essential self, the question of whether suffering is "mine" or "yours" becomes of trivial significance. This follows some of Shantideva's arguments in ninth chapter of BCA. If "mine" vs. "yours" is not so important as we ordinarily think within this lifetime, then why worry about whether future suffering or happiness will be "mine" or "someone else's"? If actions lead to misery (for anyone), lets do as few of them as possible!
When Roger describes how he became firm in his identity as a Buddhist despite not being fully convinced by the traditional arguments for rebirth, and thus entertains rebirth along with Mt. Meru etc. as part of his ritual engagement with the tradition, he is reflecting the understanding that "being a Buddhist," is not mainly about what you believe. It is not a creed. There is a commitment to practice and to be part of a community and to participate in its "imaginarium."
Is better don't forget that Madhyamaka means the Middle Way so we can not find the proper answer if the question is if "rebirth exists or don't exist". Maybe is more usefull to use the old example of the ocean and the wave. Life is everywhere and is an ocean- the vast universal ocean of Life, never started and never ends, no birth and not dying. Our personal life is unique, happens only ones, is impermanent and is like a separate wave happening on this ocean, never really separated from the Ocean. Even though it seems separate it is not. As long we are alive we manifest, we feel, we exist, we realize and we appear as a unique, momentus wave on this ocean of life. Our characteristics appear in a unique formulation (that is OUR own life- our fomulation as a being) but what constitutes us (my name and my form, my eyes, my body, my ideas, my words and my mind) is constituted by life materials and characteristics that appear in a unique combination (ME) but they are not exactly only mine. I come from an endless lineage of mothers and fathers, all mankind participated in my construction, in a way stardust created my body, endless eons created my mind, all humans created my ideas. This is what we mean "all beings had been your mother". I am a rebirth (a unique rebirth but a rebirth) of all these characteristics and after my "death" all these characteristics will appear again and again in different combination inside some other beings lives. This is what we call "rebirth" - meaning rebirth of characteristics. When we are searching for a rebirth of a great lama we are searching for a being gifted with great memory, kindness and curiosity for knowledge that will be capable to achieve the same level of wisdom for the benefit of all- as the previous rebirth of the great lama. When we see someone and we fall in love we see small glimpses of karmic attraction from endless numbers of previous lovers with quite the same reasons to fall in love. Love gives rebirth, Life is Love and Wisdom- Emptiness and Happiness. When we exist we exist as a wave of an ocean that never dies. Life never dies. When we die (and when we give birth) we spread our wisdom and our characteristics back to the ocean that constitutes us and other beings appear again by new unique combinations of the same characteristics. Ancient Madhyamaka idea about rebirth is not so complicated. We have to study more about the DNA - it can help the westerners to understand what are the universal factors that constitute us and how all these appear again and again. The self is just a convenient name for a collection of factors. There is no self, no soul, no essence, no core of personal experience apart from the ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent physical and mental factors of personal experience such as our feelings, ideas, thoughts, habits, and attitudes. So what "rebirths"? Exactly all those factors that appear as a specific aggregate now (ME) and then disaggregate (I DIE) and then appear again in a new temporal but unique agregation. This is what Mahayana Buddhism calls "rebirth" according to a "non soul" (anatman) way of thinking. Thank you for reading and I hope my reply to be beneficial on your way to liberation from suffering, ignorance and exploitation. Tasos Sagris / Void Network- Athens
amazing discussion. the secular view of rebirth makes a lot of sense.
Interesting discussion, thank you for the upload. The claim made by Buddhists is that rebirth is experientially verifiable. This is unlike "beliefs" such as those held by Christians concerning original sin, the day of judgement, etc. Most metaphysical positions in Buddhism are different in this fundamental way from those held in Abrahamic faiths. This, I think, is the central point.
@@gendunchoepel3480 I agree with you that modern practitioners can be non-serious. But it is news to me that there is any aspect of reality that is regarded as being inaccessible to, say, an Arihant. Would love to see your source for that.
@@gendunchoepel3480 you're so silly. the buddha spoke with many nonbuddhists about their previous lives. only dhyana is required, and of course there are the arhats
I was happy to hear both speakers had heard of Dr Ambedkar and read his Buddha and his Dhamma. Thank you for that scholarship
Jay Garfield is Brilliant.
Basis of Budhism is reincarnation and law of karma . The necessity of Budhism is impermanence sufferings and concept of no soul . Budhism guides us to stay in human world and heavens until final stage 🙏🙏🙏
Thanks everyone. Why cant rebirth be married with the naturalisation of karma? Listening to this from within the Brahma Vihara, karma signifies causation. Ironically, this translation is always already a transformation itself, wherein the notion of karma is reborn as causation which, at the same time testifies to impermance - which is what really does persist and endure (though its essence is inessentialism itself). The question is not one of Rebirth or no Rebirth, but what is the appropriate translation/transformation? What is the Right Understanding of it? When body, mind, self, and world are cast off there is the cast off body, mind, self, and world. It is not a stretch to say what is left, or what has always been, is a world that loves itself. How can it not? It is the Brahma Vihara, wherein there is absolutely no reason to be anything but completely and utterly relaxed about everything all the time. When we understand a Buddha uses words but is not used by them, there is no Rebirth issue - nor yogacara-madhyamika tension. And, it is so peaceful and delightful without them.
"Secular" Buddhism is to Buddhism as Corporate Mindfullness (McMindfullness) is to the actual practice of Mindfullness. It's like adding Self to Buddhism 😅. It's kind of ridiculous. But the question of rebirth isn't important or required. If you practice diligently for a few years, the question will answer itself.
We are already enlightened; we already are Buddha Nature. If you think it's something you need to 'get' in another lifetime: this is just dogma. Actualize it here and now.
Garfield has made himself influential in the US, but he is certainly not "one of the most 15 influential philosophers in the world." His work on Buddhist Studies is seen as quite weak and superficial outside the States. And why is this podcast basically Garfield interviewing Jackson? Was it set up to be so? If so, this should have been announced.
You can't have Buddhism without reincarnation.its the ramifications. Also it cannot be accomplished in one lifetime.
I've always been puzzled by the argument that you can't do it in one lifetime. Anyone who becomes a Buddha did it in their "current" lifetime. Only a Buddha would know if it takes more than 1 so you wouldn't know if it were possible for you until you did. Saying Milarepa became a Buddha in one lifetime in context is actually saying he wasn't a buddhist until his current lifetime ie in his past lives he didn't practice. It means that Milarepa purified all of his Karma and realized emptiness in a single lifetime.
And they say there is no dogmatism in Buddhism.
Meditate and find out for yourself the truth about rebirth.
Truth of the pudding lies in its eating.
The same can be said for tasty painted rice cakes!
Buddhist texts are filled with rebirth ideas, a certain sort of Karma will land you in a pleasant/unpleasant rebirth. If you are rejecting it, then you are just manipulating Buddha's teachings just to satisfy your mind influenced by materialistic scientific thinking.
Both accepting and rejecting are painted rice cakes. The idea of 'both accepting and rejecting being a painted rice cake' is also a painted rice cake.
Dharmakirti is totally relying on an intuition about how matter cannot produce mind, which is quite like the hard problem of consciousness, he's just working with an more ancient form of materialism and metaphysics. Either way, we can and should use new arguments against physicalism and in favor of rebirth. I am kind of disappointed that both of these figures were pretty lukewarm about defending a basic doctrine of the Buddhadharma. They should have picked at least one person willing to defend it vigorously. If the organizers know that both of these thinkers had basically the same "meh" attitude to rebirth, why did they not pick someone else? Is defending the Buddha's teaching not important?
These are academics, not religious fanatics.
that form possesses no subjective characteristics and vis versa is solid argument, which physicalism and its proponents like these 2 havent managed even to scratch in the past 400yrs.
also dharmakirti was a mindonly presenting sautrantika, so hes not even a dualist. there needs to be new good scholarship into whether vaibhashika and sautrantika actuary asserted real dualism
@@gendunchoepel3480 sorry but it's empirical fact that there is zero scientific data establishing that form has subjective characteristics. colors do not weigh a particular amount of grams. dharmakirtis point is specifically set.
as for the dualism claim, even a minor decent understanding of mindonly explains how mind and form are not dualism. let alone middleway.
@@gendunchoepel3480 the empirical fact was that there is no evidence for your assertion. similarly if you follow scientism which speculates that the nervous system produces the subjective experience of color despite no such evidence, then yes dharmakirtis assertion that form lacks subjective qualities can be easily dismissed. it is however a perfectly airtight logical indian syllogism which is so much superior to western lineage logic systems. there is the issue also that there were so many meditators with dhyana who had empirically established the nature of subjectivity directly that this too much can be seen as taken for granted. some other commentators gave reasonings against mind as an emergent property of physical. ppl like dennett and frankish who take it even further now and assert appearances of color etc are physical illusions are basically the epitome of modern institutional psychosis and would shit themselves if they ever got anywhere near even shamata and never will since they are utterly gripped by dogma over direct refined observation of their object they're supposed to be investigating.
this video is very low quality and demonstrates a very superficial academia
First of all, if you don't want to accept re-birth, then who is forcing you people to follow Bhuddhism. If you don't want to follow rebirth/Karma Better, follow, your own Judo-chtistian tradition, much better. Even, Islam, Christianity and Bhuddhism all convey the same to same message of love and peace. The problem is that, you people are so materialistic that you have failed to find the essence of your own tradition.
Thesedays, these people, after reading few books and little experience, wanted to become a Guru of some kind a new tradition.
What, you people are following, is not a Bhuddhism, rather, what you people are following is a Bhuddhist science which also has a physical and mental science. All, the meditation and emotions related training are all part of Bhuddhism mental science.
Now, what the F**k is this secular Bhuddhism? , all home grown Indian tradition are all by nature very secular. Not only Bhuddhism, Jain's, Hinduism but also Islam and Christian are all secular because all these traditions talks about love and compassion to others without race, colour, enthinicity etc which actually means secular.
@jaygarfield
Please, when you explain Bhuddhism to your students, you should explain what you know and if you don't know then you should honestly accept this to your students even in Harvard or some other University. Ofcourse, for you it may be about a livelihood but for others, they come with great hope to learn Bhuddhism. Today, one Advaita Hindu monk, discussing Bhuddhism, share that he attended Jay Garfield class on Tibetan Buddhism and that monk came to the conclusion that Emptiness and Fullness or Brahman is very similar.🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻.
..."you people" ? the seeds of anger seem to be clouding your speech.
Westerners are committed to destroying everything sacred.
If they like the practices and philosophy, but not the religious ideas on which they are based, they could start their own religion based on aspects they like. That would be the honest thing to do.
But that is not good enough for them. They have to usurp a millennia old label and transform it untill it bears no resemblance to the original.
These guys are just psychopaths.
41:20
just like lower realms including part of the animal realm and the higher realms, the buddha stated normal ppl cannot see them. they, including mt meru and related birth required at least 1st dhyana
its probably too difficult for you so stick to your physicalism salvation metaphysics
38:18
its a perfectly fit indian logical syllogism.... you're embarrassing
@@gendunchoepel3480 you seem a little dullwitted so I'll repeat what is being said, dharmakirti positions like most indian and tibetan commentaries rely on specific logic structure/syllogisms. if you do not read it that way, either because you're not familiar with Indian logic or are reading it using inferior western logic structure, one misses all the point being made.
anyway, for the dull minded who cannot rely on clear reasoning to overcome their psychosis of physicalism that grows intuitively in every 10yo at the latest, you can instead rely on the faith through authority, for example by the tukdam in taipei 2020 which lasted for over 30 days and was the first occasion to be monitored and tested by western neuroscientists etc which destroyed physicalism.
good luck slow kid!