Buddhism vs. Atheism 

If any spiritual teacher is not focused on the topic of transcendence....trash.

@@TheLastOutlaw289 they are

I would also enjoy a similar conversation on something like neoadvita vs buddhism!

@@StephenJamesGoodWill so would I

Yeah, I thought this video was going to be a rational debate or discussion, but it was just explaining how Atheism doesn't make sense when viewed with Buddhist presuppositions. Lame

Everything is in citta, including Bodhicitta

Yes but there's no reason for the humanist to value those things in the first place as it has no inherent meaning. There can be a theistic humanist that fixes the problem by giving a metaphysical foundation as to why to care. There is simply no reason to care about those who come after you or even the ones you love inherently within a materialistic framework. You're missing the bigger picture there and that's why you need religion I don't care which joined any of them, join a cult anything is better than atheism.

@@TheEverFreeKing You're assuming that "because I want to" isn't a valid reason to value something, when it's the only reason. I like being a human, I appreciate the work that previous humans have done to advance our comfort and understanding of the universe. No, I don't have to do a damn thing about that, could just be a hedonist, and die after a meaningless existence. But am decidedly humanist instead of nihilist. Ergo, I want to contribute to the advancement of humankind as the only endeavor of any tangible value. Telling a humanist that they can't value humanity because it has no inherent value is like telling a theist they can't believe in a god because there isn't one - it lacks all empathic reference for an argument.

The truth is many of the main or Heritage Buddhist Communities know absolutely nothing about Stephen Bachelor. Buddhism without Beliefs is as a practical matter not something that those communities would concern themselves with in truth.

Although Buddhism often assumes a personal self, that personal self is not ultimately real. It is an illusory personal self stuck in an illusory world.

​@@pannobhasa Yes but which one are you analysing? The one before self-realization or the one after self-realization. Are you analysing any old fool, or are you analysing Buddha after realization? You don't distinguish between the two states, which is extremely unintelligent, as the entire tradition is based upon the change in state of Buddha and so there are 2 states. If you can stand back and witness that people's analysis does not even recognize the existence of two separate state, you start to see how deeply uninteligent the human monkey is. When a fool analyses himself he may discover that he is nothing. But that does not mean Buddha was nothing. Second point is that what is the point of analysis if you are nothing, what would be the point? For whome is there a point to do the analysis? Third point is the analysis itself can change you. The earnest self-investigation does not leave you unchanged, what is the nature of the change to you just from the investigation. It is not that the usual conversations about Buddhism are deeply unintelligent, it is the entirety of humankind that is incredibly unintelligent, illogical, self-inconsistent. Clearly all this Buddhism has a point ... which implies firstly that Buddha entered a new state which could be "real" and different to the state of the fool. Secondly there is a point to doing all of this ... therefore there is somebody who can benefit. Finally what does "Real" mean? Is Time itself "Real", and will it last forever ? Who knows. What about The Sun ... is that "Real" ? Well ... for a small creature like an earth-monkey, they need to simply find a state that is not foolish and not deluded and not going to die. That should be their goal, and that may be possible. That would justify the efforts and has incredible value. It doesn't have to be "Real" (whatever that means). As Buddha was able to transmit to #1 and #2 the state in a few days ... it is clear that all techniques are only part of the process. But what does "transmission" mean. No I do not wish to fall into mysticism here either. When you are in the presence of some people then you feel something. What do you feel exactly? Their wisdom, their energy, their state ... I suppose you feel some part of their "energy" and by feeling it you can become it ... it helps you understand what they are, what they feel inside. And if you are a sensitive meditator used to sensing very subtle things you can use this transmission to enter the state yourself. As you feel the state from a teacher you start to vibrate in a small way like him ... and if you are skilled you can expand it and enter it. That is transmission. Yes it can be explained, as my teacher taught me.

Consciousness is energy

@@pannobhasa Energy can be measured in joules. How is consciousness measured? It certainly cannot be measured in joules.

@@Thor.Jorgensen It can't be measured at all at present, largely because scientists still really don't know what it is. (Though I have read that physicists don't know what energy really is either.) I'd guess that the electrical and chemical energy of a functioning brain could be measured at least.

@@pannobhasa Alright, but what is this "energy" you speak of then? I don't mean to be rude, but to me this sounds like science woo. Also, I don't believe you are correct. Science has the ability to detect consciousness in animals, even to varying degrees, making consciousness more of a spectrum. For example, science has determined that plants are capable of communication, but whether or not you want to label this consciousness is more a matter of opinion. It's all a matter of neurons. And while we don't know how to create consciousness, we certainly know how to measure it. And no, consciousness is not measured in "energy"

@@Thor.Jorgensen Scientists can't even agree on what consciousness IS, and if there is any semblance of a consensus, they'd define it as something along the lines of perception, which it is not. Probably more theoretical physicists than psychologists would agree that a plant is conscious (setting aside the huge number of crazy psychologists who can believe anything). Consciousness is not measured AT ALL scientifically because, again, scientists don't know what it really is, or how it is generated, or where it comes from.

It denies the existing of deities, but Buddhism eecognize the existence of devas, but they’re not allmighty allknowing perfect creators or any of that