Jordan Peterson Tells The Story Of Buddha 

That is not what the Buddha was suggesting at all, that would allow the most deluded to prize it, your common sense is not as common as it appears. Buddhism is the deconstruction of all assumptions, all of our assumptions are wrong.

@@ohwell2163 It’s actually this line, believe nothing no matter where you read it or who said it unless it agrees with your own reason and common sense. Buddha. Theirs inscriptions. Namaste

@@NINTY-LGND and so he must be wrong, there are objectives in this world, objective material influence. Ignore it, allow your mind to spiral into self-gratification and delusion. I know that couldn’t be in anything he taught, he teaches about destroying the delusion of ‘you’. There is no you to be agreed with. I recall a story in which he meets on the road with some monks, and they ask him “Lord, what have you learnt?” And he replies “Nothing.”.

@@ohwell2163 I m not saying right or wrong. It’s what you believe . It you found reasoning great!

Most people confuse what their “common sense” is. If you forgot everything youve ever heard or read, where is that common sense coming from? What is it, without ANY external input?

Same as the Christian story

Yeah bro I have never been told that Buddha's father was visited by an angel.

An angel did not come to the king. The King met with Wisemen who foretold the possible outcomes for Siddhartha.

I highly doubt that Jordan Peterson has read any of the Suttas. Which is ridiculous considering that he is a university professor who is giving lectures on Buddhism.

I mean the Guru-shishya parampara is literally one of the main tradition among all the indian traditions, The Guru after being enlightened realizes this world as maya(illusion), yet out of his compassion he choses to stay and act in the world, in order to help others who are stuck in the ocean of samsara. Jordan peterson simply yaps a word salad and people think he is some sort of intellectual.

@@oddindian1 Plus buddha saw 4 men and not just an old guy

@@user-rb9vp1of4z I said wisemen not wiseman.

Agreed. Though once you're fully enlightened seems you don't or can't reincarnate, so wouldn't be able help Earthly peeps in subsequent lives (at least from the physical plane). So bodhisattva's might be motivated to hold off on "full" enlightenment to prioritize helping others. I just read up on king-like, boatman-like and shepherd like ways of helping others. Interesting.

@@hyperfluous4751 Buddha probably did not reincarnate. There is Maitreya Buddha, however, the Buddha of the future, who will reincarnate as a Boddhisattva and go on to become a Buddha. That's what I heard when I was in Ladakh and saw his statue.

@@ophelia.7Maitreya is final Tenth level Boddhisattva he will take Shakyamuni Place who Rediscover the wheel of Buddha’s Dharma. He will do exact what Buddha shakyamuni done from birth, englighment and nirvana.

@@hyperfluous4751 In the vehicle of self liberation ( which is what is now commonly called "Theravada" , nirvana is the final release and there is no more returning to the human realm. But the Mahayana view is that of "bodhisattvas" "bhumis" "kayas". Look into these things and you will get the answer according to the Mahayana view.

@@ophelia.7 Look up the term "emanation" it will better describe Maitreyas descent from Tushita Heaven. Bodhisattvas on certain bhumis, and Buddhas do not reincarnate, as this implies taking rebirth. And since they are beyond being birth or death.

Bro that guy seriously quoted in one interview with one Australian guy or something why he could believe christ was resurrected and he said I think he took from jung, that there is something about in the yogic tradition about the transformation of body like that in its final stages. He practices yoga with his wife as well he talked about some yoga in Joe Rogan. Somehow he thinks if u kind make the body in line with the spirit and make it capable of withstanding the power of the spirit through discipline and sadhana , something transforms

This is a very popular theory actually, I will recommend "Autobiography of yogi" if you want to know more.

Exactly what I was gonna comment

It's exactly the same guy talking about the exact same things the exact same way, don't start bullshitting just because you happen to disagree with him

​@@arnaldonrs7612When Jordan Peterson was solely a professor, focused on his academic work, he was exceptional. His religious lectures were among the best, and his insights were unparalleled. However, after the University of Toronto controversy, he climbed onto a soapbox and transformed into a pseudo-intellectual, sartorial dandy more concerned with selling self-help books to his bewildered, immature audience than contributing anything meaningful to the academic field. Don't like my opinion? Unfortunate for you but that is what happened.

@@mbogucki1 the only thing i see in your comment tells me more about you than him, you literally just threw adjectives at me. What you expect? Me to bend down and say youre right? Im willingly to bet your view of him just changed due to political and ideological views and youre just trying to mascarade it Unafortunaly to you, i do not buy or trust your senses not as nearly as enough to investigate any of your assumptions and you just came of as part of the ideological mob whos been trying to destroy peterson by the most petty reasons i had the displeasure of hear about

Hasn't he always been this way? Life is dark. Without the darkness, there can be no light. The ego is quite fascinating, isn't it?

Why is that?

There are 3 different schhols of buddhism, hinayana, mahayana and bajrayana......an small boat, a big boat and the last one is kind of tantric reituals and mantras....among all hinayana is the old way, the one which buddha formerly taught to their followers.​@MrSub132

@@NirajPoudyal isnt that called theravada?

Jordan described Nirvana as death which is pretty wrong and misleading to anyone who doesn’t have any prior knowledge of Buddhism.

@MrSub132 yes, hinayana and theravada is almost similar, I think.

@@waykee3 Jesus Christ was not treated as a royalty. He was born poor, to show us that the poors are also blessed, and they were not born poor, because they were wrong in past lives. Much more intelligent, than Buddha.

@@monikasolymos2396 There is some sense there.

Some would say too much of a good life is also bad.

I think the general sense of the story for Buddha's father is that he overdoes the protection. In this specific talk Jordan Peterson does not enfasize this enough, but in the usual story it's communicated that the father is doing an innatural thing and that Buddha is feeling disconfort and feels like he is living far from what true reality is. At some point the parental protection/society protection/any protection becomes a cage that keep the person from experiencing true life

There are many Buddhist monks, and people to them that are like saints, many of whom seem like Christianity’s. Murderers, the sexually immoral, the greedy, selfish and hateful. All individuals who stood back from themselves and what they were doing, not just to others, but themselves. It’s the understanding that somewhere there is a misstep, a misperception, a lie taught. Once you realise ‘oh, there in me is this part that does not agree with me’ you realise that you are indeed many aspects. But here you need to not think of them as ‘not you’. That is you now, you have been made the sum of body. Breaking out of it is becoming the sum of your consciousness, infinite! Analyse that thing, why is it not unified with the self, where did it come from, how do I feel towards it and most importantly, and heart must come in, you must decide whether it is something fit to the you, or if it’s fit to the time when it arose. If it no longer has value, disregard it. These are foundational things, things that are the arbiters for your interaction with reality. Things like judgements, emotional feelings towards certain topics, preconceptions on things which are in a limbo of the mind (it is correct and not correct). Destroy all incongruence.

You cannot represent that which you do not practice.

@@oddindian1 not just that, he is confidently spewing garbage, his fantasies. The biggest problem with America is its people. They dont reach much and yet show themselves as know it all. The miniscule talent they have are sidelined as geeks or nerds and the liars and bullshitters are taken for a big shot. Most people are stupid and then they chose a leader amongst stupid bunch.

muhammad was actually said to suffer a lot during his "revelations"

I think Plato's cave is also a metaphor for spiritual enlightenment. Being in the cave is analgous to the unenlightened normal human state ... and to describe what is outside that state is impossible - it must be experienced.

Provide an example of interchangeability

Technically speaking that's.something that can not yet be answered with current human knowledge (despite what some gurus will tell u).

The quality of spirit is natural.

Yes, that is all religion. Parables of the psychological, transcendental aspects that we are not able to point to. In the mind still lurks a serpent and wolf with fire in its eyes, and these things will arise and lay all man to waste.

That’s an interesting take. I think the Buddha saw a bug in the matrix and he couldn’t un-see it.

@@MillionaireInCR-VI agree. Not only just the social matrix. But the matrix grid all life is built on itself.

@@ohwell2163 Buddhism is not a religion. It is a philosophy validated by practice and direct experiences of realities beyond ego mind.

Buddha was a real person. His spiritual (not psychological) attainment was real as he provided specific measures for others to do so also which many have done. Many of his observations on the nature of reality and the human condition are peerless. Buddhism is one of the great achievements in human history. To insist we only look at his life and teachings as myth or archetype seems nonsensical. Clearly the philosophy he articulated goes against conventional thinking.

I don't think this is entirely true. He does have some understanding of general theology and that all religions are based on same or similar things, so they can be more-less compared.

@@milenkovacevickelvinmedrano His uderstanding, as I have tried to point out (I have seen his word salad replies in many other situations) is sporadic and erratic. This was a specific example of trying to conflate (show similarity) of two myths that do not share the theme (rebellion against authority-reaching for the forbidden) he claims they do. It's a very surface and shallow interpretation. Genesis is the fall from unity consciousness. Eve was tricked into eating the fruit. There was no real inner drive to rebel against God, to find knowledge or to upset the established order, as Loki does in norse mythology They are deeply confused by their actions and do not understand God'a anger. There unfortunately is a consequence for falling into the duality of the mind. (knowledge of good and evil) The authors saw something had gone awry in the human condition and were representing it. A loss of primal connection. I think it was the movement from Nomadic life to the rise of agriculture which brought division, the concept of wealth and war. The story of Cain and Abel which immediately follows the Garden is a direct representation of that and in the author's eyes is the further natural consequence of the loss of unity connection. Buddha's story is the opposite. Out of a womb like protection, he is startled to see suffering and out of his own defiant will seeks to find the answer to overcome it. Buddha's resistance and search leads to the Garden (Nirvana-unity consciousness) while Adam and Eve are forced to leave because of a disastrous mistake, leaving humanity in suffering with no resolution. The true companion myth of Buddha is Jesus, who rebelled against authority and ultimately triumphed, already established in unity consciousness, or Prometheus who stole fire from the Gods and gave it as a gift to humanity, even as he sacrificed for it. In Jungian terms Buddha's life is the hero's journey toward reclaimng the Self (cosmic wholeness). The Garden is the opposite of the hero's journey, ending in sorrow. Anyone with half an intellect can have a basic, shallow understanding of these things and repeat them a bit ike a parrot. But there is no coherence to Peterson's thought. It's just word salad. Throw a lot of fine sounding words at the wall to an audience divorced from mythopoetic thinking for a 1000 years and see what sticks. In trying to see God as an archetype, Peterson misses the reality behind it. Jung was a true mystic. Peterson is anything but. If he says he refers to himself as a “pragmatic Christian”, because he strives to keep his behavior (pragmaticly) consciously in line with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, he is worfully out of alignment as Jesus was anything but a misogynist and did not promote a conservative philosophy of life. Jesus actually was "woke", which Peterson despises and does not live. The idea of true intellectual consrrvatives in the modern age is an oxymoron. Peterson is like Thomas Sowell, feeble thinkers of little depth who have found platforms and audiences in a deeply anti intellectual environment.

@@kenkaplan3654 The Genesis isn't some metaphor, it is much more, although it lacks in information regarding angels, demons and Lucifer as well as details of the pre flood civilizations. As for Peterson, the similarity and connection between Eden and Buddha is the moment of awakening (but at the price of degradation - sin, in the Old Testament) about reality, and realization that monism and dualism intervine.

@@milenkovacevickelvinmedrano We are on different pages. Genesis is a myth. Peterson is right that it represents something important but that is obvious. There is no Lucifer, no Satan as God's adversary and the creator of evil in the OT. It is a Christian invention so it would not have been in the minds of the authors of the Garden story Read the story of Balaam (Numbers 22:22-35 to se what "Satan' meant to the Jews. he devil is never mentioned or attributed as the tempter in Adam and Eve. "The angel describes (who is sent by God and speaks through the donkey) himself as an “adversary” (satan in Hebrew). Here, “satan” is not a personified divine being; the term is simply used in its original sense as an obstacle or opponent. An important theological theme of the story is the assertion that God is protecting the people even from threats they don’t know exist."

@@milenkovacevickelvinmedrano Buddha did not awaken by price of sin. He became awakened by the price of sacrifice. Siddhartha sacrificed his internal darkness to become awakened. He sacrificed his Ego.

Probably, but he doesn't appprove of MBTI that much, he is more in "big 5" team.

@@milenkovacevickelvinmedranoyeah I do think MBTI helps very little analyze people

so am i. it is the smallest club.

“The psychotic drowns in the same waters in which the mystic swims with delight.”

@@benallen002Can you elaborate with your own words what message do you want to convey with this quote?

@@waykee3 I think it refers to the fact that you see seeing things beyond the physical world as suffering, while mystics see it as the greatest delight (although because of your schizophrenia, you probably haven't seen anything beyond mental hallucinations).

@@waykee3 Your question was "is there actually no objective truth?" The quote is meant to juxtapose the two different responses to the realization that there is no way out of subjectivity; same realization, two different responses. It also highlights the vapid aspect of language; because, one person's psychotic is another person's mystic. You're right back in the subjective realm.

@@benallen002If you say that it’s subjective deep down (based on what I interpret from your comment), that means it proves my question that there is no objective truth. or what you mean by subjective here is that there is an objective truth but different individuals would perceive it differently?

😂

Buddha would disagree with you

That sounds pretty judgemental. Check your ego son

If you truely loved Buddhism “with all your heart” you wouldn’t “hate” anyone.

You love, but don't understand.

Peterson is pretty high up there on the scale of wisdom and wanting to help others. He's missing pieces of the puzzle to be sure (ie basic peace), as a western intellectual, which can/does cause harm, But he is still relatively sincere in striving to help others and remain as truthful as he can. Hatred comes w a lot of karma and the need to transform it. Be careful and good luck.

@@hyperfluous4751 He is a conservative water carrier, a narcissist, and a misogynist, among other thing. He is an archetype of the pseudo intellectualism of conservatism,.like Bill Buckley, another empty suit.

Being Buddhist doesn't mean you are incapable of hate. It just means you have a system to change it. If you do not use it fully then you don't get it's benefit. You don't love Buddhism that is infantile. You don't submit to it as if it were a religion. You follow a way of life to create the best possible life for yourself. Hating people is animalistic and weak. Buddhism teaches that you are not flawed or weak. So don't act like you are.

If you ever attended you would find the preconceptions you have about others is reflective more of something about yourself

@@ohwell2163 I have attended, smart guy. Early May, in charlotte. I’m not claiming that his whole audience is conservative, just that he doesn’t speak about things like this anymore, because a conservative audience does not approve of the topic. Christians don’t like to think that their heroes believe there is wisdom in other religions. I’m a huge fan of JBP, I’m a Christian (of sorts) and I also believe there is wisdom to learn in most ancient stories, religions, and traditions. But ya just don’t see him talking about it because it would hurt his business. He’s not an idiot, or a saint for that matter. He’s a businessman, and his books and content sells very well with the Christian conservative crowd.

@@JFox4587 he does the same thing he does with Buddhism with Christianity. The psychological deconstruction of the symbology is far more interesting in Christianity (as it leaves much to be interpreted) with Buddhism, it doesn’t let you do guess work. Of course conservative audiences are going attend it, it’s because they’re the only ones not afraid of Jesus.

@@ohwell2163 I agree with all you’ve said. But you have to wonder why he doesn’t discuss certain things anymore that he used to be very interested in. He used to speak with exceeding curiousity about DMT/ayahuasca too, but no longer. Nor other psychedelics, despite promising results with PTSD patients. Nor the Buddha. Really any conversation that doesn’t fit the current Christian conservative agenda is out of bounds for the last 6+ years

@@JFox4587 that’s a valid point, especially when make any evaluation on the whole, but he has done some recent ones with Ian Mcgilchrist, in which they discuss more the neurophysiological reality of the mind and how it constructs the world (though Jordan does repeatedly mention the bible, and other generally culturally Jewish ideas; kabala). It might interest you.

You're bragging and being proud about how what you believe in will mean you will suffer less when you're dying than your father because of what he believed in. That's totally fucked up. You shouldn't think like that. There is no hard evidence for anything supernatural but whatever your father believed in was personal to him like anyone. When it comes to religion, the only parts of it that really are consistent with science are always related to rebirth. The buddah was spot on about sooo much shit it's insane lol. anyone who has had deep enough experiences understands the truth of shunyata. I very much hope rebirth is true and that your father had good enough karma to be born into a life that is 3x as good as what he had before.

I believe in reincarnation, but I also agree that you only have this life. The thing is that the current you (your body, thoughts, emotions) is going to die forever, but your soul (which refers to the eternally silent part of your being, that part that even if you change remains the same) if it changed body multiple times. And this is not bad, it is a gift, since you are not going to experience life just once, but a large number of times and each time it will be like the first time. You will love, you will hate, you will feel pleasure and you will feel suffering. But why do you focus so much on suffering? It is a part equal to the rest of the parts of life. When you realize this fact, you begin to live in bliss, which means that regardless of whether you are sad or happy, you will be at peace since you understand that both are part of life.

@@holazas The word reincarnation means to be born into the physical bodies of babies on planet earth ... as many times as it takes for a person to pay off karmic debts ... to the creator OF the human soul and the many physical bodies. Why do I focus on so much suffering "you ask?" In return I will ask you this question. If YOU could create a universe where so much suffering exists ... would you believe that you would deserve to be worshiped? "Given a choice between creating humans who will suffer for eternity and not creating the human race … I would simply not create them." Author … Mike Siler I would rather believe that a god never existed ... than to believe that such a monster COULD exist. I relate to the words of Mark Twain … GOD … a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell--mouths mercy, and invented hell--mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him! -No. 44, The Mysterious Stranger Mark Twain

@@junevandermark952 See, here's the interesting thing, that you still put yourself in a position to focus on suffering, so what you say (which is also a very popular opinion among groups of intellectuals) is that God does not deserve to be praised because he created suffering. Now, what we must understand is that for the opposite of suffering to exist, suffering must exist. It is something quite simple to understand, it is like that for cold to exist in a universe, heat must exist. After accepting that fact comes the question: Would you sacrifice happiness (which we will assume is the opposite of suffering) so that suffering does not exist? suffering? Or even worse. Would you sacrifice the entire universe just to prevent suffering from existing? Suffering is part of life, without it we would not know happiness.

@@holazas It's bad enough to place "spiritual" value on your own suffering ... but when you watch a child dying from cancer and relish in the child's suffering as serving a divine purpose ... that is indeed a nasty mentality. Don't you agree?

so silly..Pride is not really something that accurately describes the buddha

@@joshboston2323 This is the point. The pride hidden is the most dangerous.

In fact, we could use the same argument for any religion, and we would assume that all religions have been founded on the lies of the devil, and then you would say "but in [my religion], god presented himself to [your religion's messiah]" and He would answer "it was the devil who deceived him and caused all the wars related to your religion" and we would never get anywhere. Regarding beliefs, it is also not correct to assume something wrong without proof (we have no proof of reincarnation or life after death as explained by your religion), again, for example, I could assume that your religion was just the devil deceiving you with bad beliefs, and then you will hate me for having said that, now think, how do you think the Buddhists feel to whom you just said the same thing?, well, we cannot assume that our religion is better than the others, we can only have faith that ours is closest enough to the truth.

As a Christian myself, I have to say that pride (part of attachment in Buddhism) is a cardinal sin and obscurity to enlightenment in Buddhism. Buddhists must sacrifice their subjectivity and personality (anata) to achieve enlightenment. Buddha's Cetana doctrine is essentially the Biblical Sermon on the Mound, but in a scientific layout. Secondly, Buddha NEVER invented reincarnation. It already existed. Buddha NEVER denied God. It's a western misinterpretation.

@@maciejrzepczyk6562 Reincarnation is a false teaching. As a christian you must know. It was teached to the poor to accept their state and never want to attack against the rich. "Maybe next time Body"- they were told. Who is rich, is born to be rich, there is nothing to do. "Be happy, that you are not a worm." I don't interpret this teaching further, it talks for itself.