“We live and die within the profundity of reality - Whatever we encounter is Buddha-life - This present reality is Buddha-life - Just living, just dying within no life or death”. ~ Kosho Uchiyama Roshi, Selected Dharma Poems, “Life and Death” (2018), Dogen Institute.
I think that judging by the many people who described their own NDEs we can conclude that there is an individual part of ourselves that carries on after death. The difference might lie in the fact that we won't feel seperated from others but one with them. This sort of connection comes by the feeling of love that is also present within our everyday life and that's the feeling that is implying connection to other individuals. So although it's strictly my opinion but I think that we can be simultaniously one with God as our true nature but also expressing ourselves as part of God that was created from God... not sure if that makes sense to anyone but that's my take on this. According to NDE experiencers and mainly the ones who were going through this as a child (without any mental conditioning from society) they had a sense of self in the experience that was consious in nature and was aware of it's individualized existence within the whole.
I respect your video the other day of admitting you experience a sense of the "dead" still being around in some way. I understand that most Zen practitioners find it more sensible to refrain from commenting on these things. But like like your enlightenment on the Sengawa river, if it's something you can't deny in your own experience, I like that you share these things. You're probably one of the very few Buddhist practitioners that I trust have something truthful to say on these matters. Even if Zen people have glimpses of different "realms", they may as well own it and admit that Buddhism deals with these kinds of things, rather than pretend it's so much like the materialistic view of the West. It isn't.
"Even if Zen people have glimpses of different "realms", they may as well own it and admit that Buddhism deals with these kinds of things, rather than pretend it's so much like the materialistic view of the West. It isn't." Exactly...great comment!
Buddha basically said not to believe in anything you cannot directly experience, no ? My sister passed away 3 years ago. Not long after that, she came to me in a dream to let me know she was more than ok. How do I know that was not just my subconscious creating the experience to ease the grief I had ? It’s hard to describe just how clear the visit was. Forget 1080 or 4 K, this was like 100000000000000 K clarity. Hard to imagine if you haven’t experienced something like that. It made this existence / reality on Earth seem like fuzzySD. I’ve been practicing Buddhism for almost 2 years now , and more than anything, I love my Sangha. Coolest peeps I’ve come across in 56 years on the planet. Brad, ‘ Karma Dipped in Chocolate ‘ introduced me to Buddhism. Thank you for that, and the laughs as well .
Yeah... There's a lot that happens in life that the standard model of understanding how things work simply does not account for. I don't know how to explain some of my own experiences around my father and mother's deaths. I think it's best to refrain from trying to hard to explain them. But I know those experiences were as real and genuine as other "normal" experiences in life (like brushing my teeth or putting on a shirt or whatever). I accept that this world isn't what I think it is. I'm not sure what it actually is, though.
@@HardcoreZen hey! Thanks for your video. I’m also in the same category, I lost my sister 6 years ago and had some very unexplainable things that happened. I will say the two things that I experienced and these are told with absolute truth. I went to visit my Dad at his house one evening after work, whilst sitting there watching tv I could see in my peripheral vision a dark shadow moving in the kitchen “ the kitchen was dark” I thought to myself I am clearly losing it and said to my dad that I was leaving and will see him soon. I went back round to see him again a few nights afterwards, he told me that some strange things had been happening in the house, I asked what they were and he then went on to say that he has been seeing a dark shadow figure moving around in the kitchen. The hairs went up on the back of my neck. Now, a skeptic would say I was hallucinating… of course I could have accepted that but two people hallucinating? I never saw this happen again and my dad is absolutely not somebody who would have ever given this any time or thought had he not experienced this himself. I have spoken with others that have had some strange experiences that no answers can be given for. What really is this? I tell myself it’s imagination but I really do not think that is the answer.
For whatever reason, I am reminded of a story of Don Juan. Carlos had just had his first book published on his adventures with his teacher Don Juan, and he was so excited about it and wanted to show Don Juan. So when he arrived to meet with him, being the sensually indulgent type, excitingly took out his book on their experiences and handed it to Don Juan. He could hardly contain himself. And Don Juan took the book like an object and wondered how it could be useful as an object. I don't remember the details, but in paraphrase, he thought it might protect his head from the rain or sun, or it might be good to swat flies, or it might make a good seat, so he sat on it, and thought, indeed, this makes a good seat. Of course, Carlos was crushed that his winning work was not appreciated or even acknowledged by his teacher for all of the talent and effort he put into it.
Great JA track. I almost started a mosh pit on my own at 6:45am. “Lightly” - good way to put it. I finally started that book we discussed in an email awhile back. The other day it felt like a red hot iron ball in my mouth; so, I had to spit it out. Enjoying the intros. Great stuff. Yup, talking about soul, etc. is like how you mentioned describing a country from a postcard. Anyway… Viva Ziggy!
Recently saw a quote that for me meshes nicely with what I think you were getting at. "You do not have a soul, you are a soul, you have a body." The definition of soul is a rabbit hole I don't care to go down. But the sentiment is real.
When you live you do the things in the moment you clean your room, listen to some music, you go shopping etc… When you’re dead you also do things in the moment of death but we cannot know these things like you say… Love your vids !
"One of the most fascinating aspects of the history of Buddhist thought is the-almost agonizing-ideological readjustments attempted by various individuals and schools to meet the difficulties posed by the doctrine of no-self, which has existed from the very beginning of Buddhism. This doctrine of no-self had difficulties explaining to its critics the nature and continuity of a subject who is reborn through a succession of lives, the mechanism of memory and karmic inheritance, the nature of cognition, the locus of moral responsibility, and a legion of other problems. Adherents of this theory searched for some sort of “agent” or “substratum” that could integrate mental functions, transmit karmic effects, and continue the personality through rebirths, but they tried to avoid admitting to any substantialistic self. For example, the idea of “life-force” was often referred to in Abhidharma Buddhism, the Vijñnavda school, and so forth. According to this view, the life-force underlies the six consciousnesses, and its duration and measure are allotted to each person on account of karmic merits; it is said to preserve warmth and consciousness. Thus, the life-force is the integrator of the body and mind. These three factors are said to depart from the body at death and to be transmitted to the next life. This idea is only one among many other theoretical concessions, such as the “original consciousness” of the Mahsaghika school, the “subconscious life-stream” of the Sthavira school, and the “person” (pudgala) of the Vatsıputrıya school." From Eihei Dogen - Mystical Realist (page 110)
I always feel that the point is not so much that there's no fixed self, but no fixed anything. All the distinctions we make are just tools our primate brains need to decide how to stay in the game. In "reality" there is only movement, and no mover. Hence no soul.
"All the distinctions we make are just tools our primate brains need to decide how to stay in the game." Thats just garden-variety materialism...not Buddhism.
Something related I write elsewhere this morning: Most people don't know what they are. What lives and what dies. The life principle has nothing to do with biology. Biology is just a chemical reaction of the DNA type. When the chemical reaction terminates, we still have the same sense of 'am here' as always. Just as in a dream, we are 'presence'. Awareness+conscience+power of intent. These 3 things are not created by atoms. They comprise our spirit, which is zero dimensional and outside of spacetime. Concentration empowers+develops the spirit over mind+body. It is not a belief. It is a direct experience that is essentially an outcome of concentration. The most intense being meditation. But it must be accompanied by a willingness to let go of all things, all attachments. Ie, a strong desire to go beyond all things, such as when despite our best efforts in life, we suffer a great loss and just don't care anymore, and we just want whatever is beyond. If your concentration is developed enough to maintain a focus on each + every breath for 12-16 hours, without missing a single one, and then you sit to meditate, maintaining that concentration in each+every breath, along with a strong desire to escape all things, you will probably enter a sleep like state where the mind+body just shut down, same as with normal sleep, but full awareness is retained. The only thing one is aware of is meditative space. Then, if one keeps trying to find a way beyond that, by probing awareness with the power of intent, one may find a mechanism that totally severs the spirit from the material universe. Body+mind+world+universe+space+time are totally vanquished into oblivion. There is only emptiness, and 'am here'. And one knows that there is no way that anything is beyond this state. And one sees what we really are, and what our life principle belongs to. And one knows that any intentions connected with mind+body will instantly bind us to a mind+body. So, one sees how sensual intents cause birth. And one sees that the spirit has no width, length, height, or mass. So, one sees that it cannot decay into smaller pieces, that it is eternal.
Love the picture of Soulsville, the Stax building in Memphis. That place started a lot of great careers in music. As for the topic, it's to my understanding that death is like taking off an old tight shoe. I'll leave it there and see if it's true.
Condolences on your father's passing. We really don't know about the passing. The soul is the question. I will have to wait for my turn for the answer, not too far away. Meanwhile, back at the sit....
It's what we already are. That is why the states are called Supra -mundane, because the ordinary sense of 'am here' exists, just like in a dream, where we are a presence consisting of awareness, conscience, and a power of intent. I call this the spirit. All creatures with a nervous system have a spirit bound to their field of consciousness, which I define as a bidirectional field of the nervous system wherein sensory input is radiated. Awareness reads this field, conscience filters, and the power of intent optionally writes to it in order to initiate thought or muscular movement. Sensual intents at the time of death instantly bind to an available field of consciousness. These things are directly known from the state of Cessation/death, a total disconnect from consciousness. The spirit is zero dimensional and outside of spacetime. Every creature has the same sense of 'am here' as you. They all have a conscience, and power of intent. They only differ because their field of consciousness differ. All this correlates with Buddhism. The only difference is slight corruptions (use or translations of the term consciousness) and a lack of vocabulary in the times of the Buddha. Soul probably intended something rooted in material or containing aspects of mind. So, it must be rejected. The spirit has no roots in matter or flesh. I noticed that the definition of soul has even changed in the English language in the last few years. It is true that 'nothing' transfers, because the spirit is zero dimensional. Presence is nothing. But it is awareness, conscience, and a power of intent. Note: I discovered all these things myself without any knowledge of Buddhism practicing Samantha meditation. But later, I saw how it fits in perfectly with Buddhism. Ie, I was not influenced by Buddhism.
Outstanding comments! In Buddha's time, the atman-soul was considered to be something with dimensions and a specific location inside the human body. Thats what Buddha rejected.
Maybe the problem is with our concept of reincarnation. We think of it as a new beginning when in actuality its just continuation. Maybe the early Zen teachers just didnt like the implied meanings. Our understanding of reincarnation implies an abrupt end then a beginning. Just a thought...
The illusion doesnt stop after death. Your consciousness is the consciousness of all things. Can you imagine my computer continuing to think it is Brad Warner after this video ends? For how long could it imagine that? Could it carry some Brad Warner-ness into the next video?
Is it about the relative truth VS the absolute truth in Buddhism? That we all do not really exist in absolute terms. That all things including ourselves do not actually exist? We merely exist in a "relative realm" that is impermanent, empty of self/core, with sufferings. Dharmakaya VS sambhogakaya VS nirmanakaya.
I know that the "Two Truths" model is standard in Buddhism, but I've never liked it much. I feel like there is just one truth even if there might be various ways of interpreting it.
Master bras what did means in ( 16:37) minutes ( a caveat that in more kind of let’s use the dirty word advanced versions of hinduism sort of um ) why you said I don’t want to offend , I don’t got😅
Is Buddha reject the reincarnation because brahma caste believes the caste brahma born from mouth god and layman born from the other part and will never replace . That why buddha reject this idea? I don’t know
For a religion that has “not knowing “ at the core of its philosophical approach it seems any speculation about a soul or what happens after death is pretty suspect.
Great question about Soto specifically....because the principle of NEW is stronger than TRUTH. Dogen's teaching is newer than the founder of Buddhism...therefore it is perceived as having a higher value. The Mahayana writers went even so far as pretending their new and profoundly different ideas were what the Buddha really meant. This cult of constant innovation builds up in layers like sedimentary rock or rings inside a tree trunk.
I don't think it has anything to do with the idea that "new" is stronger than "truth." But Teller3448 is correct in saying that it isn't all Zen Buddhists who reference Dogen. Most Rinzai Zen Buddhists hardly reference Dogen at all. DT Suzuki, for example, barely acknowledged Dogen's existence in his writings. I think it's because in the Zen tradition it's understood that Buddhism is an oral tradition rather than a written one. The Zen tradition doesn't place a high value on scriptures. Although there are some exceptions, such as the Heart Sutra. Dogen's writings are not regarded as scripture, but as part of the oral tradition (even though they are written down). I know that's weird. But if you pay attention to the way that Dogen's writings are usually cited, they're not usually cited as the words of an Ultimate Authority the way scriptures are cited by those who believe in them. On the other hand, traditions that cite the words of the Buddha from the Pali Canon have a tendency to regard the Buddha as an Ultimate Authority the way people who cite scripture in other religious traditions do. At least that's how it looks to me. The other problem with the supposed "teachings of the Buddha" is that we don't know who actually made them up. Some were probably spoken by the Buddha himself, but most probably were not. But in the case of Dogen, we're pretty sure that almost everything attributed to Dogen was actually written by Dogen.
@@HardcoreZen "I don't think it has anything to do with the idea that "new" is stronger than "truth." The phrase 'new and improved' is one of the most powerful labels in history...thats why the advertising industry uses it as their most potent weapon against humanity. People are constantly assuming that OLD means passe, archaic, washed up, the refuse of history. The punk bands used this principle to promote their music even thought most of them couldn't carry a tune to save their life. The followers of Jesus used this principle to convince a whole new generation to forsake the old Judaic laws....roll your old stone tablets into steep depths! Look at how many of your subscribers dont even bother reading any classic texts...not even the Lankavatara Sutra recommended by Bodhidharma himself. Timeless truths are sooooo out-of-date duuuuude! What do they need it for when they have your hip happening books...they're totally NOW!
@@HardcoreZen Do you believe that the Buddha achieved perfect enlightenment and thus teaches authoritatively appealing the dharma which he laid out? With regards to Mahayana I know that they take the bodhisattva path which was laid out by the Mahāsāṃghikas during the second Buddhist council and not an original concept laid out by the Buddha. They also take many sutras such as the diamond sutra, lotus sutra, heart sutra, etc and say they are attributed to the Buddha but are also likely not teachings of the Buddha himself. Even the whole twirling lotus story of the Buddha and Mahākāśyapa can’t be found in the earliest writings, this being the authoritative story for all dharma transmissions. I’m aware that a lot of Theravada Buddhists attribute abhidharma to the Buddha but most western monks understand that this is a later teaching most likely not taught by the Buddha himself. So where does authority exist in Zen? and if there is none what stops someone from teaching something that is contradictory to the original dharma or Buddhism itself?
“We live and die within the profundity of reality - Whatever we encounter is Buddha-life - This present reality is Buddha-life - Just living, just dying within no life or death”. ~ Kosho Uchiyama Roshi, Selected Dharma Poems, “Life and Death” (2018), Dogen Institute.
Nice one!
I think that judging by the many people who described their own NDEs we can conclude that there is an individual part of ourselves that carries on after death. The difference might lie in the fact that we won't feel seperated from others but one with them. This sort of connection comes by the feeling of love that is also present within our everyday life and that's the feeling that is implying connection to other individuals. So although it's strictly my opinion but I think that we can be simultaniously one with God as our true nature but also expressing ourselves as part of God that was created from God... not sure if that makes sense to anyone but that's my take on this. According to NDE experiencers and mainly the ones who were going through this as a child (without any mental conditioning from society) they had a sense of self in the experience that was consious in nature and was aware of it's individualized existence within the whole.
I respect your video the other day of admitting you experience a sense of the "dead" still being around in some way.
I understand that most Zen practitioners find it more sensible to refrain from commenting on these things. But like like your enlightenment on the Sengawa river, if it's something you can't deny in your own experience, I like that you share these things. You're probably one of the very few Buddhist practitioners that I trust have something truthful to say on these matters.
Even if Zen people have glimpses of different "realms", they may as well own it and admit that Buddhism deals with these kinds of things, rather than pretend it's so much like the materialistic view of the West. It isn't.
"Even if Zen people have glimpses of different "realms", they may as well own it and admit that Buddhism deals with these kinds of things, rather than pretend it's so much like the materialistic view of the West. It isn't."
Exactly...great comment!
Buddha basically said not to believe in anything you cannot directly experience, no ? My sister passed away 3 years ago. Not long after that, she came to me in a dream to let me know she was more than ok. How do I know that was not just my subconscious creating the experience to ease the grief I had ? It’s hard to describe just how clear the visit was. Forget 1080 or 4 K, this was like
100000000000000 K clarity. Hard to imagine if you haven’t experienced something like that. It made this existence / reality on Earth seem like fuzzySD. I’ve been practicing Buddhism for almost 2 years now , and more than anything, I love my Sangha. Coolest peeps I’ve come across in 56 years on the planet. Brad, ‘ Karma Dipped in Chocolate ‘ introduced me to Buddhism. Thank you for that, and the laughs as well .
Yeah... There's a lot that happens in life that the standard model of understanding how things work simply does not account for. I don't know how to explain some of my own experiences around my father and mother's deaths. I think it's best to refrain from trying to hard to explain them. But I know those experiences were as real and genuine as other "normal" experiences in life (like brushing my teeth or putting on a shirt or whatever). I accept that this world isn't what I think it is. I'm not sure what it actually is, though.
@@HardcoreZen hey! Thanks for your video. I’m also in the same category, I lost my sister 6 years ago and had some very unexplainable things that happened. I will say the two things that I experienced and these are told with absolute truth.
I went to visit my Dad at his house one evening after work, whilst sitting there watching tv I could see in my peripheral vision a dark shadow moving in the kitchen “ the kitchen was dark” I thought to myself I am clearly losing it and said to my dad that I was leaving and will see him soon. I went back round to see him again a few nights afterwards, he told me that some strange things had been happening in the house, I asked what they were and he then went on to say that he has been seeing a dark shadow figure moving around in the kitchen. The hairs went up on the back of my neck. Now, a skeptic would say I was hallucinating… of course I could have accepted that but two people hallucinating?
I never saw this happen again and my dad is absolutely not somebody who would have ever given this any time or thought had he not experienced this himself. I have spoken with others that have had some strange experiences that no answers can be given for. What really is this? I tell myself it’s imagination but I really do not think that is the answer.
Thanks for being consistently excellent Brad
"I've just confused you for 20 minutes and I hope you've enjoyed that." 😆 As a matter of fact, I did. Quite helpful actually. Thank you.
Also liked the metaphor about the foreign country which you've only seen a couple of postcards from.
For whatever reason, I am reminded of a story of Don Juan. Carlos had just had his first book published on his adventures with his teacher Don Juan, and he was so excited about it and wanted to show Don Juan. So when he arrived to meet with him, being the sensually indulgent type, excitingly took out his book on their experiences and handed it to Don Juan. He could hardly contain himself. And Don Juan took the book like an object and wondered how it could be useful as an object. I don't remember the details, but in paraphrase, he thought it might protect his head from the rain or sun, or it might be good to swat flies, or it might make a good seat, so he sat on it, and thought, indeed, this makes a good seat. Of course, Carlos was crushed that his winning work was not appreciated or even acknowledged by his teacher for all of the talent and effort he put into it.
Interesting! Thanks.
Great JA track. I almost started a mosh pit on my own at 6:45am. “Lightly” - good way to put it. I finally started that book we discussed in an email awhile back. The other day it felt like a red hot iron ball in my mouth; so, I had to spit it out. Enjoying the intros. Great stuff.
Yup, talking about soul, etc. is like how you mentioned describing a country from a postcard. Anyway… Viva Ziggy!
Recently saw a quote that for me meshes nicely with what I think you were getting at. "You do not have a soul, you are a soul, you have a body." The definition of soul is a rabbit hole I don't care to go down. But the sentiment is real.
The body is luggage...you can lose it at the airport.
You cant lose the soul because its the subject...not an object.
When you live you do the things in the moment you clean your room, listen to some music, you go shopping etc… When you’re dead you also do things in the moment of death but we cannot know these things like you say… Love your vids !
"One of the most fascinating aspects of the history of Buddhist thought is
the-almost agonizing-ideological readjustments attempted by
various individuals and schools to meet the difficulties posed by the doctrine
of no-self, which has existed from the very beginning of
Buddhism.
This doctrine of no-self had difficulties explaining to its critics the nature and continuity of a subject
who is reborn through a succession of lives, the mechanism of memory and karmic
inheritance, the nature of cognition, the locus of moral responsibility, and a
legion of other problems.
Adherents of this theory searched for some sort of “agent” or “substratum”
that could integrate mental functions, transmit karmic effects,
and continue the personality through rebirths, but they tried
to avoid admitting to any substantialistic self.
For example, the idea of “life-force” was often referred to in Abhidharma Buddhism,
the Vijñnavda school, and so forth.
According to this view, the life-force underlies the six consciousnesses, and
its duration and measure are allotted to each person on account of karmic
merits; it is said to preserve warmth and consciousness.
Thus, the life-force is the integrator of the body and mind.
These three factors are said to depart from the body at death and to be transmitted to the next life.
This idea is only one among many other theoretical concessions, such as the “original consciousness”
of the Mahsaghika school, the “subconscious life-stream” of the Sthavira school,
and the “person” (pudgala) of the Vatsıputrıya school."
From Eihei Dogen - Mystical Realist (page 110)
I always feel that the point is not so much that there's no fixed self, but no fixed anything. All the distinctions we make are just tools our primate brains need to decide how to stay in the game. In "reality" there is only movement, and no mover. Hence no soul.
Good point! I might steal it!
@@HardcoreZen Be my guest!
"All the distinctions we make are just tools our primate brains need to decide how to stay in the game."
Thats just garden-variety materialism...not Buddhism.
@@Teller3448 thank god I'm not a buddhist 😅
Something related I write elsewhere this morning:
Most people don't know what they are. What lives and what dies. The life principle has nothing to do with biology. Biology is just a chemical reaction of the DNA type. When the chemical reaction terminates, we still have the same sense of 'am here' as always. Just as in a dream, we are 'presence'. Awareness+conscience+power of intent. These 3 things are not created by atoms. They comprise our spirit, which is zero dimensional and outside of spacetime. Concentration empowers+develops the spirit over mind+body.
It is not a belief. It is a direct experience that is essentially an outcome of concentration. The most intense being meditation. But it must be accompanied by a willingness to let go of all things, all attachments. Ie, a strong desire to go beyond all things, such as when despite our best efforts in life, we suffer a great loss and just don't care anymore, and we just want whatever is beyond. If your concentration is developed enough to maintain a focus on each + every breath for 12-16 hours, without missing a single one, and then you sit to meditate, maintaining that concentration in each+every breath, along with a strong desire to escape all things, you will probably enter a sleep like state where the mind+body just shut down, same as with normal sleep, but full awareness is retained. The only thing one is aware of is meditative space. Then, if one keeps trying to find a way beyond that, by probing awareness with the power of intent, one may find a mechanism that totally severs the spirit from the material universe. Body+mind+world+universe+space+time are totally vanquished into oblivion. There is only emptiness, and 'am here'. And one knows that there is no way that anything is beyond this state. And one sees what we really are, and what our life principle belongs to. And one knows that any intentions connected with mind+body will instantly bind us to a mind+body. So, one sees how sensual intents cause birth. And one sees that the spirit has no width, length, height, or mass. So, one sees that it cannot decay into smaller pieces, that it is eternal.
Love the picture of Soulsville, the Stax building in Memphis. That place started a lot of great careers in music. As for the topic, it's to my understanding that death is like taking off an old tight shoe. I'll leave it there and see if it's true.
thank you for the tune at the beginning one of my favorite JA tunes - you were good too
Thanks!
Condolences on your father's passing. We really don't know about the passing. The soul is the question. I will have to wait for my turn for the answer, not too far away. Meanwhile, back at the sit....
"I will have to wait for my turn for the answer"
The whole point of Buddhism is to NOT wait...until its too late.
@@Teller3448 nobody knows unless they have died. Not a debate it’s a fact.
It's what we already are. That is why the states are called Supra -mundane, because the ordinary sense of 'am here' exists, just like in a dream, where we are a presence consisting of awareness, conscience, and a power of intent. I call this the spirit. All creatures with a nervous system have a spirit bound to their field of consciousness, which I define as a bidirectional field of the nervous system wherein sensory input is radiated. Awareness reads this field, conscience filters, and the power of intent optionally writes to it in order to initiate thought or muscular movement. Sensual intents at the time of death instantly bind to an available field of consciousness. These things are directly known from the state of Cessation/death, a total disconnect from consciousness. The spirit is zero dimensional and outside of spacetime. Every creature has the same sense of 'am here' as you. They all have a conscience, and power of intent. They only differ because their field of consciousness differ. All this correlates with Buddhism. The only difference is slight corruptions (use or translations of the term consciousness) and a lack of vocabulary in the times of the Buddha. Soul probably intended something rooted in material or containing aspects of mind. So, it must be rejected. The spirit has no roots in matter or flesh. I noticed that the definition of soul has even changed in the English language in the last few years. It is true that 'nothing' transfers, because the spirit is zero dimensional. Presence is nothing. But it is awareness, conscience, and a power of intent. Note: I discovered all these things myself without any knowledge of Buddhism practicing Samantha meditation. But later, I saw how it fits in perfectly with Buddhism. Ie, I was not influenced by Buddhism.
Outstanding comments! In Buddha's time, the atman-soul was considered to be something with dimensions and a specific location inside the human body. Thats what Buddha rejected.
Nice !
Maybe the problem is with our concept of reincarnation. We think of it as a new beginning when in actuality its just continuation. Maybe the early Zen teachers just didnt like the implied meanings. Our understanding of reincarnation implies an abrupt end then a beginning. Just a thought...
The illusion doesnt stop after death. Your consciousness is the consciousness of all things. Can you imagine my computer continuing to think it is Brad Warner after this video ends? For how long could it imagine that? Could it carry some Brad Warner-ness into the next video?
Great riff
I saw him buy that guitar pedal irl.
Really???
"The illusion of the individual self was there before I was born as Brad Warner"
What is it that experiences this illusion?
I wonder if the word that got translated as "pants" was "hakama" in the original Japanese...
Is it about the relative truth VS the absolute truth in Buddhism? That we all do not really exist in absolute terms. That all things including ourselves do not actually exist? We merely exist in a "relative realm" that is impermanent, empty of self/core, with sufferings. Dharmakaya VS sambhogakaya VS nirmanakaya.
I know that the "Two Truths" model is standard in Buddhism, but I've never liked it much. I feel like there is just one truth even if there might be various ways of interpreting it.
There is no evidence for the existence of multiple truths.
Master bras what did means in ( 16:37) minutes ( a caveat that in more kind of let’s use the dirty word advanced versions of hinduism sort of um ) why you said I don’t want to offend , I don’t got😅
How does a Zen teacher, who lives in LA, get the money for all that gear? Just curious.
Is Buddha reject the reincarnation because brahma caste believes the caste brahma born from mouth god and layman born from the other part and will never replace . That why buddha reject this idea?
I don’t know
For a religion that has “not knowing “ at the core of its philosophical approach it seems any speculation about a soul or what happens after death is pretty suspect.
Not Knowing is called Avidya...also known as ignorance.
Also known as the driving wheel of samsara.
Why do Zen Buddhists seem to reference Dogan and his teachings more than the actual Buddha himself and his teachings?
Great question about Soto specifically....because the principle of NEW is stronger than TRUTH.
Dogen's teaching is newer than the founder of Buddhism...therefore it is perceived as having a higher value.
The Mahayana writers went even so far as pretending their new and profoundly different ideas were what the Buddha really meant. This cult of constant innovation builds up in layers like sedimentary rock or rings inside a tree trunk.
I don't think it has anything to do with the idea that "new" is stronger than "truth." But Teller3448 is correct in saying that it isn't all Zen Buddhists who reference Dogen. Most Rinzai Zen Buddhists hardly reference Dogen at all. DT Suzuki, for example, barely acknowledged Dogen's existence in his writings.
I think it's because in the Zen tradition it's understood that Buddhism is an oral tradition rather than a written one. The Zen tradition doesn't place a high value on scriptures. Although there are some exceptions, such as the Heart Sutra. Dogen's writings are not regarded as scripture, but as part of the oral tradition (even though they are written down). I know that's weird. But if you pay attention to the way that Dogen's writings are usually cited, they're not usually cited as the words of an Ultimate Authority the way scriptures are cited by those who believe in them.
On the other hand, traditions that cite the words of the Buddha from the Pali Canon have a tendency to regard the Buddha as an Ultimate Authority the way people who cite scripture in other religious traditions do. At least that's how it looks to me.
The other problem with the supposed "teachings of the Buddha" is that we don't know who actually made them up. Some were probably spoken by the Buddha himself, but most probably were not. But in the case of Dogen, we're pretty sure that almost everything attributed to Dogen was actually written by Dogen.
@@HardcoreZen "I don't think it has anything to do with the idea that "new" is stronger than "truth."
The phrase 'new and improved' is one of the most powerful labels in history...thats why the advertising industry uses it as their most potent weapon against humanity. People are constantly assuming that OLD means passe, archaic, washed up, the refuse of history.
The punk bands used this principle to promote their music even thought most of them couldn't carry a tune to save their life. The followers of Jesus used this principle to convince a whole new generation to forsake the old Judaic laws....roll your old stone tablets into steep depths!
Look at how many of your subscribers dont even bother reading any classic texts...not even the Lankavatara Sutra recommended by Bodhidharma himself. Timeless truths are sooooo out-of-date duuuuude! What do they need it for when they have your hip happening books...they're totally NOW!
@@HardcoreZen Do you believe that the Buddha achieved perfect enlightenment and thus teaches authoritatively appealing the dharma which he laid out?
With regards to Mahayana I know that they take the bodhisattva path which was laid out by the Mahāsāṃghikas during the second Buddhist council and not an original concept laid out by the Buddha. They also take many sutras such as the diamond sutra, lotus sutra, heart sutra, etc and say they are attributed to the Buddha but are also likely not teachings of the Buddha himself. Even the whole twirling lotus story of the Buddha and Mahākāśyapa can’t be found in the earliest writings, this being the authoritative story for all dharma transmissions.
I’m aware that a lot of Theravada Buddhists attribute abhidharma to the Buddha but most western monks understand that this is a later teaching most likely not taught by the Buddha himself.
So where does authority exist in Zen? and if there is none what stops someone from teaching something that is contradictory to the original dharma or Buddhism itself?
🙏🧘♀️
Just wondering if all the Dogen/Eiheiji fans have seen THIS yet: ua-cam.com/video/-4QEII5Cme8/v-deo.html
No one knows and it doesn't matter.
You can't speak for all people as to what they know or don't know.
@@chadkline4268 It’s unknowable.
Your mouth can mess up your head.