First if all, whatever you are doing with your audio- keep doing it! Never sounded better! Also, awesome video. I think your last sentence on the skandhas sums it up the best way it could ever be said.
The 5 skandhas... some of the most basic yet difficult to understand concepts of Buddhism Very Well explained. Thank you. added bonus: Quarantine Hair !!!
Master Dôgen studied on Mount Hiei, first in an eremitage, and later in the Tendai-monastery on top the hill, so he most probably knew the basic elements of "academic" Buddha-teachings (--> developed in the Abidharma and other scriptures). Only, that`s my impression, he did not follow and/or propagate elaborate Yoga-methods/techniques, which use corresponding "mental maps". This attitude of "bracketing", moreover, seems to apply to the Chán/Zen movement in general, which typically favours the "direttissima" - at least as ideal(-type).
I love the book by Caroline Brazier - ''Buddhist Psychology''. In her explanation the skhandas represent a constant process of our minds grasping at the world in order to solidify or realise some sense of substance. Part of the process is projecting our desires and feelings onto the physical world, resulting in a deluded experience of a false entitiy that we call and think of as the Self. This is, apparently, the root of suffering. ''In short, the five aggregates of grasping are Dukkha.'' - Shakyamuni Buddha on the first noble truth.
Interesting subject Brad. I wonder where the Indian idea of chakras(energy centers) fit here? Would they be grouped with consciousness? What about breath? Thx for your insight. Namaste and Aloha 🙏
For what it's worth, the teaching of the five skandhas strikes me as a way of getting used to the idea of no self, a sort of challenge. When you think of the self, what are it's characteristics or attributes? The challenge would be to point to something that you might think characterizes a self that doesn't refer to one of the skandhas.
The concept of "atman" wasn't of Hinduism because the word "Hinduism" was first used by Arabs to refer to those who live to the another side of river Sindhu river (if you see the geographical location that is current India and Pakistan). The word Sindhu became Hindu (because Persians change the s to h) people used to worship different Gods and Goddesses, each city, state and village had different deities. There were orthodox philosophies in ancient India (samkhya, mimansa, yoga, nyaya, advaita Vedanta) and both Jainism& Buddhism were considered to be Heterodox philosophies in ancient India. The concept of atman was of "advaita vedanta school of thought" which is similar to the "jiv" concept of Jainism. But Buddhism took the right approach by saying "there's no self". Buddhism was the movement to have rejected scriptures (because Hindus used to and still worship deities, believe in superstitions, follow caste system and offer rituals). There was caste system prevalent in India (which ended up after the arrival of Buddhism). But Hinduism had taken over Buddhism again all over India by the 10th century. Indians of today don't even know anything about Zen Buddhism and its patriarch Daruma (Bodhidharma). If you came to India, you'd get shocked how this country could be the birth place of Buddhism 😑. (Whatever is mentioned about India in Buddhist scriptures are only in books, the real India used to be the cruel place, Buddhism was even persecuted here but after Ashoka everything changed). Most Hindu philosophies are itself influenced by Buddhism (like advaita vedanta) but took peaceful approach. That's why Hinduism seems to be peaceful (because of advaita vedanta) but in ancient times Hinduism used to be the cruel religion.
Thank you. That's a very good clarification. What you're saying here is why I'm usually reluctant to use the word "Hinduism." But sometimes I use it anyway because I just want to make things short. I've noticed that lots of Indians these days describe themselves as "Hindus." I sometimes wonder if they know the origin of the term "Hindu."
Try to imagine an encounter between Carl Jung and the founder of Buddhism. Carl: "Have you looked into your own heart?" Buddha: "There is no heart. There are only the skandhas, with no heart or soul at the center of it all. Carl: "And what is it that is released...from the tyranny of these aggregates?" Buddha: (silence) As an alternative... Carl: "Have you looked into your own heart?" Teller3448: "What is it that looks into the heart?" Carl: (silence)
its the claim you can know an object by its properties and the aggregation thereof (an infinite regress you should already be suspicious of) the conceptual flaw is that you have to list consciousness as both super-ordinate and subordinate when you do that the theory unwinds
What if there are actually five and a half skandas? Or four and a half? Like some people have chromosomal deficiency. Maybe some people have skanda deficiency? I bet you Dogan could have wrote about that, but he was just like "Dude. The skandas don't matter anyways, so this will just confuse them even more."
This echoes the classic debate about "real/irreal reality" of the "vital space-time" (starting from/with Samsara, heading towards Nirwana, to put it plain) between the Sarvastivâdins (--> main proposition: "sarvam asti", that is, "everything exists", "thing" mainly referring to the "dharmâ", etc.) and the "old school" of the Sautrantika (--> "only now" etc.) which touched on basic concepts/realities of (trans-)conscious being according to Buddhist guide-lines. The arguments seem to be very complicated and I don`t know any concise paper on this classic debate, yet. Might still be an interesting topic for discussion.
Great video man, always learn something new from you. Don't the sakandhas relate to the five hindrances also?
Jesus Christ Good question, man
First if all, whatever you are doing with your audio- keep doing it! Never sounded better! Also, awesome video. I think your last sentence on the skandhas sums it up the best way it could ever be said.
The 5 skandhas... some of the most basic yet difficult to understand concepts of Buddhism Very Well explained. Thank you.
added bonus: Quarantine Hair !!!
"Tendencies" is a good alternative to "impulses" and fits in with modern science pretty well.
Interpretation? Reaction?
Master Dôgen studied on Mount Hiei, first in an eremitage, and later in the Tendai-monastery on top the hill, so he most probably knew the basic elements of "academic" Buddha-teachings (--> developed in the Abidharma and other scriptures). Only, that`s my impression, he did not follow and/or propagate elaborate Yoga-methods/techniques, which use corresponding "mental maps". This attitude of "bracketing", moreover, seems to apply to the Chán/Zen movement in general, which typically favours the "direttissima" - at least as ideal(-type).
Thank you!
@@HardcoreZen Thanks for your inspiring videos.
I love the book by Caroline Brazier - ''Buddhist Psychology''. In her explanation the skhandas represent a constant process of our minds grasping at the world in order to solidify or realise some sense of substance. Part of the process is projecting our desires and feelings onto the physical world, resulting in a deluded experience of a false entitiy that we call and think of as the Self. This is, apparently, the root of suffering.
''In short, the five aggregates of grasping are Dukkha.'' - Shakyamuni Buddha on the first noble truth.
Interesting subject Brad. I wonder where the Indian idea of chakras(energy centers) fit here? Would they be grouped with consciousness? What about breath? Thx for your insight. Namaste and Aloha 🙏
Can I kindly ask you to provide us with your tech specs while recording? Your audio and video became more sharp, really great looking and sounding!
For what it's worth, the teaching of the five skandhas strikes me as a way of getting used to the idea of no self, a sort of challenge. When you think of the self, what are it's characteristics or attributes? The challenge would be to point to something that you might think characterizes a self that doesn't refer to one of the skandhas.
Why not a video about the connection between Zen and Madhyamika?
Why is hinduism technically a wrong name?
The concept of "atman" wasn't of Hinduism because the word "Hinduism" was first used by Arabs to refer to those who live to the another side of river Sindhu river (if you see the geographical location that is current India and Pakistan). The word Sindhu became Hindu (because Persians change the s to h) people used to worship different Gods and Goddesses, each city, state and village had different deities. There were orthodox philosophies in ancient India (samkhya, mimansa, yoga, nyaya, advaita Vedanta) and both Jainism& Buddhism were considered to be Heterodox philosophies in ancient India. The concept of atman was of "advaita vedanta school of thought" which is similar to the "jiv" concept of Jainism. But Buddhism took the right approach by saying "there's no self". Buddhism was the movement to have rejected scriptures (because Hindus used to and still worship deities, believe in superstitions, follow caste system and offer rituals). There was caste system prevalent in India (which ended up after the arrival of Buddhism). But Hinduism had taken over Buddhism again all over India by the 10th century. Indians of today don't even know anything about Zen Buddhism and its patriarch Daruma (Bodhidharma). If you came to India, you'd get shocked how this country could be the birth place of Buddhism 😑. (Whatever is mentioned about India in Buddhist scriptures are only in books, the real India used to be the cruel place, Buddhism was even persecuted here but after Ashoka everything changed). Most Hindu philosophies are itself influenced by Buddhism (like advaita vedanta) but took peaceful approach. That's why Hinduism seems to be peaceful (because of advaita vedanta) but in ancient times Hinduism used to be the cruel religion.
Thank you. That's a very good clarification. What you're saying here is why I'm usually reluctant to use the word "Hinduism." But sometimes I use it anyway because I just want to make things short. I've noticed that lots of Indians these days describe themselves as "Hindus." I sometimes wonder if they know the origin of the term "Hindu."
@@HardcoreZen 😊 keep making these kind of videos on Zen Buddhism .
I know this is problematic but is Nirvana/Buddha-nature the same as Brahman/ultimate-reality ?
Try to imagine an encounter between Carl Jung and the founder of Buddhism.
Carl: "Have you looked into your own heart?"
Buddha: "There is no heart. There are only the skandhas, with no heart or soul at the center of it all.
Carl: "And what is it that is released...from the tyranny of these aggregates?"
Buddha: (silence)
As an alternative...
Carl: "Have you looked into your own heart?"
Teller3448: "What is it that looks into the heart?"
Carl: (silence)
its the claim you can know an object by its properties and the aggregation thereof (an infinite regress you should already be suspicious of)
the conceptual flaw is that you have to list consciousness as both super-ordinate and subordinate
when you do that the theory unwinds
What is consciousness subordinate to?
What if there are actually five and a half skandas? Or four and a half? Like some people have chromosomal deficiency. Maybe some people have skanda deficiency? I bet you Dogan could have wrote about that, but he was just like "Dude. The skandas don't matter anyways, so this will just confuse them even more."
They’re all empty.
The phrase 'sentient being' posits that there is a being who is sentient.
In other words...sentience is yours but not you.
This echoes the classic debate about "real/irreal reality" of the "vital space-time" (starting from/with Samsara, heading towards Nirwana, to put it plain) between the Sarvastivâdins (--> main proposition: "sarvam asti", that is, "everything exists", "thing" mainly referring to the "dharmâ", etc.) and the "old school" of the Sautrantika (--> "only now" etc.) which touched on basic concepts/realities of (trans-)conscious being according to Buddhist guide-lines.
The arguments seem to be very complicated and I don`t know any concise paper on this classic debate, yet. Might still be an interesting topic for discussion.
@@gunterappoldt3037 We should discuss this over donuts. I insist however that YOU order them...I want to see how you say it!
@@Teller3448 no donuts while lock down!