The self-observational approach can be true, yet the other claims made by, and around, various versions of Buddhism may not be true; it's a question of what is true about Buddhism and what does one mean by Buddhism.
Well for those asking. And those not. What happens is Buddhism has 1 particular edge. Where all religions have an underlying need to admit to an initial supernatural unexplainable entity. And scriptures backing it which are to be understood no matter what. One may even re-interpret it. But people have an obligation to make sense of the scriptures. And all religions have this. Now, Buddha's time did not have a tripitaka. Which is said to be their scripture. And it has a chapter " Kalamsutta " where it is stated. ( No verse, words, thoughts. Be those written , orally transmitted, traditionally followed. Dont believe any of them until they come down hard on logic, intelligence and discretion. Following this with Buddhism core philosophy. That is 4 noble truths & 8 fold path. One does mot even need scriptures. Why buddhism is right is because it does not compel anyone to do anything. It rather says " Be your own light ".
SAM HARRIS, YOUR A TRUE SCIENTIFIC BEING, WHO EVERY MAN AND EVERY PATRIOTS WOULD STRIVE TO BE LIKE, AND ALSO, NOT TOO UNLIKE YOU I ALSO TOO FOUND BUDDHISM, AND IN 2010 WITH BEING A MAN WHO BELIEVED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, FOUND MYSELF IN A PRISON IN LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND AND THEN, TO ME, REALISING IT BEING THE CLOSEST "RELIGION" TO WHAT I COULD COME ACROSS AND PRACTISING WHILE NOT HAVING TO PRAY TO A GOD AS A CREATOR NOR COME TO COMPROMISE MY SCIENTIFIC GREATS OR METHOD. AS YOU'LL KNOW, THE BUDDHA CALLED IT "THE SCIENCE OF THE MIND" WHICH IS MY ALL TIME BEST QUOTE. KEEP ON INSPIRING US SAM AND I LOVE YOU ON EVERY LEVEL, BROTHER, MINUS THE GAY ONE. 🥳 LOVE YOU DUDE.
Reincarnation is an essential doctrine in Buddhism. It's an unverifiable supernatural belief in something for which we cannot have an impirical evidence. Doesn't Sam Harris despise supernatural dogmas or is it the blindness of faith??
It is easier for atheists to accept Buddhism as it deals with the mind only. This is probably because in the Buddha’s day consciousness was already fully covered and discussed in Indian philosophy. Today there is ‘the hard problem of consciousness’ in the West. A puzzle for many philosophers. The problem for atheists is that if consciousness is fundamental there may be a fundamental Self from which all emerged which posits a universal intelligence which some refer to as God. An intelligence that is personalized as a Self from which all else emerges is a problem for atheistic believers. This leaves the origin of life unknown and random selection without a prototype is the only option from an atheistic perspective.
There are many who were or are here to tell us how to return to our awakened state. They teach in accordance to each individual human deep seated characteristics but guiding us towards one ultimate way. We always look ceaselessly for the next happiness but our ceaseless instinctive search is our awakening that is playing out, a dreamer is also the ready to be awakened. They are one.
As a former Buddhist, I will say Buddhism has a lot of problems as any other religions and lots of supernaturalist doctrines (that get white-washed in Buddhism for Westerners). It does have some positive practice of meditation, but said meditations gets better when lots of esoteric Buddhist doctrines are dropped.
2 all atheists: if you're concerned with that you're labelled by christians as unethical, you should consider convertin' 2 buddhism. in fact the historical buddha was a complete atheist, although some people claim he was simply a non-theist. among many things that prove that he was an atheist is the following wisdom of his: whether god exists or not is irrelevant 2 your life. on the 1 hand, that's a truth; if you aint believe so, explain why. on the other hand, if the buddha had believed that god exists, he wouldn't have dared 2 say so. there4 the historical buddha was a complete atheist.
Riya So, your argument is nonsense because we have no idea what the Buddha said on this issue. As well we have no evidence regarding what he or his contemporaries thought about a creator god, since it wasn’t a commonly discussed concept.
A few points here. The Buddha, as far as we know him in the oldest texts, believed in God and had a personal relationship with him. Only, he was the teacher in the relationship who stripped God of the delusion that he created the universe and that his existence is eternal. Also, he very clearly states thousands of times that after death one is reborn according to their karma, so that hardly fits the description of a modern atheist. Sorry to burst your bubble.
@@TejasM14 It's well established that he existed. Inscriptions on 150 edicts that the emperor Ashoka placed at every significant site from the Buddha's life and the archeological sites found there attest to the veracity of the details meticuloulsy recorded in the Pali Canon. But if you find value in the Buddha's teachings without knowing the full context I'm happy for you
@@TejasM14 First of all, Abrahamic teachings foundations are much more rational than you think. See Jordan Peterson's Psychological Significance of the Biblical stories. Why don't you send me what you've been reading, then, because the scholarship agrees he existed. It's the archeological sites that provide the strongest evidence. Not only that but many other characters and the events of their lives are vallidated by sources other than the Buddhist. The insights into the mind are incredible, obviously, but that doesn't mean that Buddhists are wrong about reincarnation. They could be right. There seems to be some compelling evidence for it coming out of the University of Virginia's Division of Perceptual Studies. I'll soon be doing a podcast with the subjects of one of the cases that lays out all the evidence, complete with statistical probabilities of the number of verified statements having been by chance. Should be interesting
@@TejasM14 Definitely talking out of your depth. If John Keay doubts the historicity of the Buddha he is at odds with the consensus of the scholarship. Skeptical of a polemic like Peterson? You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. Jordan Peterson is a psychological scientist of the highest calibre. He is a clinical psychologist with 142 scientific publications and 14254 citations. How many do you have? We'll see about the reincarnation cases. Using statistics to determine the probabilities of making 55 specific correct statements about the life of a hollywood extra, if it turns out that the odds are way below chance, means strong evidence of reincarnation has been provided, despite your disbelief. So we'll see.
Please,Sammie boy,I have had the devastating experience of "Raising the Kundalini" and I'm from Lynchburg,Va. and managing to parlay my suffering into becoming an artist/genius,so shoot me an email,please.
With all due respect, if free will is an illusion and everything is predetermined, then so is every though, concept, feeling and action of every person as well as every moral evaluation, each judgement, each death and each outrage. if some undetermined external god mind were observing what we think of as human life and existence - it would be like watching a movie that he could replay over and over again - viewing us, acting and feeling (all an illusion) like puppets. Having said all this I doubt anything you have to say has any relevance since its illusory, and all those you interact with are predetermined and you and all of us including this comment is simply scripted - what a paradoxical notion and how can you know it (if you think you do you're simple predetermined and scripted to think so - so why should I believe you, even that you are really, since my will to believe that you exist is merely and illusion that I'm prescribed to follow. I think all of this is nonsense, but this would not matter to you since I'm predetermined this think differently anyway
I don't know if we have free will or not, but I understand the argument that we don't and, as a matter of logic, I know that if we don't my not liking the proposition doesn't change it. Reading your comment, what I draw from it is that you reject the idea of not having free will out of an assumption of personal control and I don't know where that comes from either. Being the people we are, we make the choices we make no matter how many times we change or second guess them but, being the people we are, how would we ultimately choose otherwise with any given choice?
@@Malt454 Nope, I was just pointing out an inherent contradiction, paradox and absurdity in this conversation. If you, or Sam aver there is no free will. ie all things are predetermined, True or false you were predetermined to draw that conclusion and make the statement. Therefor you statement has no bases in reason, since the notion of reason is simply a predetermined statement irrespective of whether it is true or false. If you believe it true, well this has no more validity that believing it false as both positions were predetermined and as such have no relevance to what you call though or logic as this too must be a predetermined effect, you are simply an illusion and predetermined to think that you are reading sense, and whether you are or aren't is divorced from any agency on your part as you have none simply being predetermined to draw those conclusion. In my experience, when one finds paradoxes as inscrutable as these it means that we don't have the correct questions yet nor any testable theories. While the 'you' that makes the choices and initiates the thoughts, the chemistry and touches the synapses that we call thought and emotion may not be visible to us. It may be a part of self that defies self awareness - this does not mean that 'it' or this hidden 'I' don't exist or choose or decide. We simply haven't found a way to look there or at It yet.
@@GavinWeiman - Not so; if the reality is that things are predetermined then it just so happens that we're predetermined to have opposite views of the reality of the situation based on previous experience, of which neither view we can really prove. The idea that there is no free will is now quite arguable in physics and the idea that to hold it somehow reflects less reason than the opposite isn't supported by simply saying that people believe it in some predetermined way in the absence of reason, that reason then doesn't exist or that everything is an illusion. Again, we make the choices we make, including responding to these posts if and in the way we do, but the real question is, each of us being who and where we are in life when we make them, how could we do otherwise in each case? Like me, you'll respond or you won't, but how is your choice not just the sum total of everything else that bought you to that point? Even if you flip a coin, flipping it in exactly the same circumstances - even if they can never again be exactly duplicated - should always give you the same result and not knowing what that result is ahead of time doesn't give the coin, or a person making a decision based on it, free will.
This is NOT the channel run by Seth Andrews. This channel is a fraud that has stolen Seth's channel's name, logo, content, and aesthetic. Report and boycott.
Reincarnation is a Buddhist doctrine and it's a supernatural unverifiable belief. Don't you despise unveriable supernatural dogmas in other religions?? Or is it the blindness of faith ?
It's not reincarnation, it's rebirth, there's total loss of memory. Also, if something is unverifiable currently, doesn't necessarily makes it a dogma. I also don't know how it is supernatural. There have been various cases of reincarnation, children who could remember their past lives, could talk in a language they didn't even hear, could talk about stuff like aeroplanes, physics even when they didn't even know it, talked about real places they never heard about, remembered the whole location and maps.
@@deadpirateroberts9937 well yes, atleast you have an open mind rather than these “scientists” who don't have a single knowledge of philosophy and science other than outside of textbook. Which too Is half
@@sigmachadtrillioniare6372 I know a bodhisattva in Houston who told me my past life. I thought bullshit. But then I had MANY verifications in the following weeks. Mindfulness allows memory of past life.
@@exitthematrix1487 yes, in west mostly athiests who hate Christianity become “budhist” they're not budhist, they just copy the ideas to their relevance. He probably doesn't believe in karma too.
There is no strict evidence Buddhism is right at all, I do see some aspects of it to be making sense but aside from it there is no objective measure to say Buddhism is any more true than any other religion.
Buddhism as a Religion, concerning the myths, celestial demons, devas (gods) is just a collection of stories that you should use as infotainment/entertainment. Though the teachings of Buddha is very practical and grounded enough into realism and Science so depending on which spectrum of Buddhism you speak of you can be both right or wrong
Objective measure in pursuit of knowing mind doesn't always ends well. Many of the scientific principles like repeatability, truth beyond the observer breaks on the study of mind. So it's the problem of science as a methodology rather than mind itself. That's why Buddhism can explore a bit more about mind than Science can.
Sam Harris is a neuroscientist. Therefore everything he says is true. That's a famous logical fallacy called "appeal to authority". It's like blind following.
![Is religion to blame? | Robert Wright & Sam Harris [The Wright Show] (full conversation)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0dwD6XQ9Tsw/mqdefault.jpg)
![Is religion to blame? | Robert Wright & Sam Harris [The Wright Show] (full conversation)](/img/tr.png)
Feature presentation begins at ~10:20
Thanks bro
Buddhism: Observe your emotions so that you learn from them.
Asking why Buddhism is true is like asking why common sense is true. It's just true.
The self-observational approach can be true, yet the other claims made by, and around, various versions of Buddhism may not be true; it's a question of what is true about Buddhism and what does one mean by Buddhism.
Well for those asking. And those not.
What happens is Buddhism has 1 particular edge. Where all religions have an underlying need to admit to an initial supernatural unexplainable entity. And scriptures backing it which are to be understood no matter what. One may even re-interpret it. But people have an obligation to make sense of the scriptures.
And all religions have this.
Now, Buddha's time did not have a tripitaka. Which is said to be their scripture. And it has a chapter " Kalamsutta " where it is stated.
( No verse, words, thoughts. Be those written , orally transmitted, traditionally followed. Dont believe any of them until they come down hard on logic, intelligence and discretion.
Following this with Buddhism core philosophy. That is
4 noble truths & 8 fold path.
One does mot even need scriptures.
Why buddhism is right is because it does not compel anyone to do anything. It rather says " Be your own light ".
Agreed!
SAM HARRIS, YOUR A TRUE SCIENTIFIC BEING, WHO EVERY MAN AND EVERY PATRIOTS WOULD STRIVE TO BE LIKE, AND ALSO, NOT TOO UNLIKE YOU I ALSO TOO FOUND BUDDHISM, AND IN 2010 WITH BEING A MAN WHO BELIEVED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, FOUND MYSELF IN A PRISON IN LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND AND THEN, TO ME, REALISING IT BEING THE CLOSEST "RELIGION" TO WHAT I COULD COME ACROSS AND PRACTISING WHILE NOT HAVING TO PRAY TO A GOD AS A CREATOR NOR COME TO COMPROMISE MY SCIENTIFIC GREATS OR METHOD. AS YOU'LL KNOW, THE BUDDHA CALLED IT "THE SCIENCE OF THE MIND" WHICH IS MY ALL TIME BEST QUOTE. KEEP ON INSPIRING US SAM AND I LOVE YOU ON EVERY LEVEL, BROTHER, MINUS THE GAY ONE. 🥳 LOVE YOU DUDE.
You can also try reading about the ajivika philosophy. It's even more scientific than buddhism and it evolved alongside buddhism in ancient india
@@maggot92 yes, many jain, hindu philospies are there, and not to forget Taoism. Parsis are good too
Meditate an findout for yourself.
💜️
Buddha is True Buddha is Real ❤
Teacher Buddha #Atheist
Anyone can love humanity in general but dislike it in detail, because dealing with concepts is different than dealing with actual people.
Please share your thoughts on the video "Why Buddhism is True with Robert Wright" by Sam Harris
Thinking Atheist "Death, nothingness and subjectivity" by Tom Clark: ua-cam.com/video/MuitZAJqo_U/v-deo.html
Reincarnation is an essential doctrine in Buddhism. It's an unverifiable supernatural belief in something for which we cannot have an impirical evidence. Doesn't Sam Harris despise supernatural dogmas or is it the blindness of faith??
@@saadamagdy1666 lol, why do u consider something to have evidence is the actual thing that is existing, ur mind is limited to evidence
It is easier for atheists to accept Buddhism as it deals with the mind only. This is probably because in the Buddha’s day consciousness was already fully covered and discussed in Indian philosophy. Today there is ‘the hard problem of consciousness’ in the West.
A puzzle for many philosophers. The problem for atheists is that if consciousness is fundamental there may be a fundamental Self from which all emerged which posits a universal intelligence which some refer to as God.
An intelligence that is personalized as a Self from which all else emerges is a problem for atheistic believers. This leaves the origin of life unknown and random selection without a prototype is the only option from an atheistic perspective.
There are many who were or are here to tell us how to return to our awakened state. They teach in accordance to each individual human deep seated characteristics but guiding us towards one ultimate way. We always look ceaselessly for the next happiness but our ceaseless instinctive search is our awakening that is playing out, a dreamer is also the ready to be awakened. They are one.
As a former Buddhist, I will say Buddhism has a lot of problems as any other religions and lots of supernaturalist doctrines (that get white-washed in Buddhism for Westerners). It does have some positive practice of meditation, but said meditations gets better when lots of esoteric Buddhist doctrines are dropped.
2 all atheists: if you're concerned with that you're labelled by christians as unethical, you should consider convertin' 2 buddhism. in fact the historical buddha was a complete atheist, although some people claim he was simply a non-theist. among many things that prove that he was an atheist is the following wisdom of his:
whether god exists or not is irrelevant 2 your life.
on the 1 hand, that's a truth; if you aint believe so, explain why. on the other hand, if the buddha had believed that god exists, he wouldn't have dared 2 say so. there4 the historical buddha was a complete atheist.
Riya So, your argument is nonsense because we have no idea what the Buddha said on this issue. As well we have no evidence regarding what he or his contemporaries thought about a creator god, since it wasn’t a commonly discussed concept.
A few points here. The Buddha, as far as we know him in the oldest texts, believed in God and had a personal relationship with him. Only, he was the teacher in the relationship who stripped God of the delusion that he created the universe and that his existence is eternal. Also, he very clearly states thousands of times that after death one is reborn according to their karma, so that hardly fits the description of a modern atheist. Sorry to burst your bubble.
@@TejasM14 It's well established that he existed. Inscriptions on 150 edicts that the emperor Ashoka placed at every significant site from the Buddha's life and the archeological sites found there attest to the veracity of the details meticuloulsy recorded in the Pali Canon. But if you find value in the Buddha's teachings without knowing the full context I'm happy for you
@@TejasM14 First of all, Abrahamic teachings foundations are much more rational than you think. See Jordan Peterson's Psychological Significance of the Biblical stories. Why don't you send me what you've been reading, then, because the scholarship agrees he existed. It's the archeological sites that provide the strongest evidence. Not only that but many other characters and the events of their lives are vallidated by sources other than the Buddhist. The insights into the mind are incredible, obviously, but that doesn't mean that Buddhists are wrong about reincarnation. They could be right. There seems to be some compelling evidence for it coming out of the University of Virginia's Division of Perceptual Studies. I'll soon be doing a podcast with the subjects of one of the cases that lays out all the evidence, complete with statistical probabilities of the number of verified statements having been by chance. Should be interesting
@@TejasM14 Definitely talking out of your depth. If John Keay doubts the historicity of the Buddha he is at odds with the consensus of the scholarship. Skeptical of a polemic like Peterson? You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. Jordan Peterson is a psychological scientist of the highest calibre. He is a clinical psychologist with 142 scientific publications and 14254 citations. How many do you have?
We'll see about the reincarnation cases. Using statistics to determine the probabilities of making 55 specific correct statements about the life of a hollywood extra, if it turns out that the odds are way below chance, means strong evidence of reincarnation has been provided, despite your disbelief. So we'll see.
T 2,2
Please,Sammie boy,I have had the devastating experience of "Raising the Kundalini" and I'm from Lynchburg,Va. and managing to parlay my suffering into becoming an artist/genius,so shoot me an email,please.
With all due respect, if free will is an illusion and everything is predetermined, then so is every though, concept, feeling and action of every person as well as every moral evaluation, each judgement, each death and each outrage. if some undetermined external god mind were observing what we think of as human life and existence - it would be like watching a movie that he could replay over and over again - viewing us, acting and feeling (all an illusion) like puppets.
Having said all this I doubt anything you have to say has any relevance since its illusory, and all those you interact with are predetermined and you and all of us including this comment is simply scripted - what a paradoxical notion and how can you know it (if you think you do you're simple predetermined and scripted to think so - so why should I believe you, even that you are really, since my will to believe that you exist is merely and illusion that I'm prescribed to follow.
I think all of this is nonsense, but this would not matter to you since I'm predetermined this think differently anyway
I don't know if we have free will or not, but I understand the argument that we don't and, as a matter of logic, I know that if we don't my not liking the proposition doesn't change it. Reading your comment, what I draw from it is that you reject the idea of not having free will out of an assumption of personal control and I don't know where that comes from either. Being the people we are, we make the choices we make no matter how many times we change or second guess them but, being the people we are, how would we ultimately choose otherwise with any given choice?
@@Malt454 Nope, I was just pointing out an inherent contradiction, paradox and absurdity in this conversation. If you, or Sam aver there is no free will. ie all things are predetermined, True or false you were predetermined to draw that conclusion and make the statement. Therefor you statement has no bases in reason, since the notion of reason is simply a predetermined statement irrespective of whether it is true or false. If you believe it true, well this has no more validity that believing it false as both positions were predetermined and as such have no relevance to what you call though or logic as this too must be a predetermined effect, you are simply an illusion and predetermined to think that you are reading sense, and whether you are or aren't is divorced from any agency on your part as you have none simply being predetermined to draw those conclusion.
In my experience, when one finds paradoxes as inscrutable as these it means that we don't have the correct questions yet nor any testable theories. While the 'you' that makes the choices and initiates the thoughts, the chemistry and touches the synapses that we call thought and emotion may not be visible to us. It may be a part of self that defies self awareness - this does not mean that 'it' or this hidden 'I' don't exist or choose or decide. We simply haven't found a way to look there or at It yet.
@@GavinWeiman - Not so; if the reality is that things are predetermined then it just so happens that we're predetermined to have opposite views of the reality of the situation based on previous experience, of which neither view we can really prove. The idea that there is no free will is now quite arguable in physics and the idea that to hold it somehow reflects less reason than the opposite isn't supported by simply saying that people believe it in some predetermined way in the absence of reason, that reason then doesn't exist or that everything is an illusion.
Again, we make the choices we make, including responding to these posts if and in the way we do, but the real question is, each of us being who and where we are in life when we make them, how could we do otherwise in each case? Like me, you'll respond or you won't, but how is your choice not just the sum total of everything else that bought you to that point? Even if you flip a coin, flipping it in exactly the same circumstances - even if they can never again be exactly duplicated - should always give you the same result and not knowing what that result is ahead of time doesn't give the coin, or a person making a decision based on it, free will.
This is NOT the channel run by Seth Andrews. This channel is a fraud that has stolen Seth's channel's name, logo, content, and aesthetic. Report and boycott.
No its Sam Haris
@@gxlorp That's just stolen too.
Reincarnation is a Buddhist doctrine and it's a supernatural unverifiable belief. Don't you despise unveriable supernatural dogmas in other religions?? Or is it the blindness of faith ?
It's not reincarnation, it's rebirth, there's total loss of memory. Also, if something is unverifiable currently, doesn't necessarily makes it a dogma. I also don't know how it is supernatural. There have been various cases of reincarnation, children who could remember their past lives, could talk in a language they didn't even hear, could talk about stuff like aeroplanes, physics even when they didn't even know it, talked about real places they never heard about, remembered the whole location and maps.
@@deadpirateroberts9937 a lot more than just meditating
@@deadpirateroberts9937 well yes, atleast you have an open mind rather than these “scientists” who don't have a single knowledge of philosophy and science other than outside of textbook. Which too Is half
@@sigmachadtrillioniare6372 I know a bodhisattva in Houston who told me my past life. I thought bullshit. But then I had MANY verifications in the following weeks. Mindfulness allows memory of past life.
@@exitthematrix1487 yes, in west mostly athiests who hate Christianity become “budhist” they're not budhist, they just copy the ideas to their relevance. He probably doesn't believe in karma too.
There is no strict evidence Buddhism is right at all, I do see some aspects of it to be making sense but aside from it there is no objective measure to say Buddhism is any more true than any other religion.
Sam harris is a neuroscientist. I dont think there is anyone more qualified to say whether or not buddhism is true since buddhism is a study of mind
Buddhism as a Religion, concerning the myths, celestial demons, devas (gods) is just a collection of stories that you should use as infotainment/entertainment.
Though the teachings of Buddha is very practical and grounded enough into realism and Science so depending on which spectrum of Buddhism you speak of you can be both right or wrong
Objective measure in pursuit of knowing mind doesn't always ends well. Many of the scientific principles like repeatability, truth beyond the observer breaks on the study of mind. So it's the problem of science as a methodology rather than mind itself.
That's why Buddhism can explore a bit more about mind than Science can.
Exactly. Buddhism believes in reincarnation. Which is a supernatural dogmas that cannot be verified.
Sam Harris is a neuroscientist. Therefore everything he says is true.
That's a famous logical fallacy called "appeal to authority".
It's like blind following.