🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂 📙 You can find my book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
I came to the Nikayas after being exposed to Tibetan Buddhist teachings and was completely blown away by how the Satipatthana Sutta, the Anapanasati Sutta, and so many others spoke to me. I now am open to Early Buddhism as well as Mahayana teachings, particularly those rooted in the Nalanda tradition. What an incredible era in which to live- when we have access to so many precious teachings that have been preserved, cultivated and passed down over thousands of years. Buddhism is indeed a living tradition. Thank you for your efforts with this channel.
I appreciate you delving into potentially "controversial" topics that might draw flak from traditionalists. That's the mark of a dispassionate (or non-attached) scholar!
Pay attention all, this video is what happens when a Buddhist eats his Wheaties one morning, decides to take on a 2000 year old uphill battle and does pretty darn well with it. Pretty gratifying to see as a Lotus Sutra Buddhist who happened upon this channel last week. And I'm with you, Lotus Sutra Buddhists get this wrong an awful lot. There were 500 arhats who left the assembly in the Lotus Sutra at the very beginning before Buddha began to preach. It's a literary callback to the disciples who left Siddhartha at his enlightenment because of his Middle Path. They represent the so called lesser vehicle views but do we forget about the eleventy hundred million bajillion arhats who stayed for the whole thing? 21st century Theravadans aren't those guys. What a case of mistaken identity. Fortunately, I believe Western Buddhists can easily make this correction for ourselves if not for all Buddhism in the long run because our modern Buddhist landscape is so different. We don't have to compete before Emperors to decide which Buddhism will be heard. Thich Nhat Hanh ran a forest monestery that to this day I can't tell if it's Elder Buddhism or Zen. We're all on the same internet listening to each other now, which is kinda the Lotus Sutra's dream come true. The best ways to address Lotus Sutra Buddhists misguided on this topic is to show them all the ways Theravada has evolved since the Sutra's writing. And that lesson about conceit being the biggest block to higher attainment really does belong to all of us. In case of emergency break glass and use the Peaceful Practices chapter to slap us around with our own doctrine. Great treatment of this topic. However, I'm still unclear as to Doug's views on surprise parties 🤔🪷
“ Thus I have heard The World Honored One approached the group of FIVE “ He is loose , we are triggered with micro aggressions, we will not give him a seat “ “ It is not for your benefit to call me Friend .. give an ear PATERNALISM is impermanence , Or Impaternslism Arising and falling out of dependent origination from FEMINISM!” And with THAT , just as a Paternal Father might flex his strong arm - He circled to the Right and … disappeared right there . Happy Fathers Dad ❤
I read the Lotus Sutra on a whim a couple of years back, and while I'm not on board with the doctrine, it was a great read and pretty amazing on literary terms. It's such a wild ride, and it gets increasingly pyrotechnic (in one instance literally) page after page.
I am of the Vajrayana Background but I consider the other Schools of Buddhism to be authentic as well. As some say the paths are diverse but the destination is the same
Yes it can be seen that way. Though the descriptions of the destination are quite different among the different schools, I think this is one aspect of the reorientation involved in the concept of "skillful means".
@@DougsDharma Yes, the description for the end goal among all schools are different. Personally I take all of them to mean as liberation from suffering
All the Varjayana teachers (Tibetans) I’ve listened to always emphasised the importance of ALL THREE YANAS. They even warned about the dangers of jumping right into Varjayana practices before having a solid understanding of the principle teachings by the Buddha. Especially the sunyata (Tongpa nji) teachings of the Prajnaparamita circle of teachings. Absolutely essential! If you’re born in a Tibetan family (your YT name suggests that) your experience might be slightly different since so much of the Varjayana is out in the open in the Tibetan communities and mantras and other practices are floating around in the traditional Tibetan households. But to understand and utilise the immense powers of Varjayana we have no choice but to start at the beginning with the essential teachings of the Buddha. I know that for most lay Tibetans the basic teachings of the Buddha is presented alongside the parallel recitations of sadhana and mantra. It is all kind of melted into one whole already from the beginning. I’ve also heard more than once from Tibetan Lamas that the way Varjayana is presented and practiced by the Tibetan community is not how Varjayana was practiced in ancient India before it was transferred to Tibet. In ancient India it was very much a hidden practice due to the perceived need for protecting an uninitiated public from developing wrong views based on misconceptions caused by ignorance. Such wrong views can develop mental imprints effectively blocking the person from encountering and feel drawn towards such high teachings for very many lifetimes. But as you know, also Varjayana is divided into lower and higher levels of practices with different degrees of severity attached to it. On top of that we have the three direct paths of Dzogchen, Chakya Chenpo & Shije that are all completely capable of uprooting all mental factors of samsara and deliver liberation and enlightenment to the practitioner. The Tibetan people are in this sense the most fortunate group of people in the world today. Such wealth of wisdom to draw from! And combined with the unique presence of enlightened lineage-holders that tirelessly return, life after life, to uphold and teach the unbiased true Dharma. Absolutely unprecedented in the history of spirituality! Then again, Nalanda is an interesting example where it seems all three Yanas was studied and practiced independently by different groups of practitioners, all at the same time and under the same roof, sort of speak. Not mingling between the groups as we may think.
@@freetibet1000 First of all, I am Bhutanese 🇧🇹. Second, yes in India, the Vajrayana practices were secret and only meant to be taught to worthy students
Hi Doug, I'd love a video about Pure Land Buddhism, and the rebirth into pure lands as a suffer-less stop to make it easier to enter Nirvana. It's said that one should pray to Amitabha Buddha for Pure Land rebirth. Is there evidence that the Buddha himself taught this, or even that one should pray to a "deity" such as Amitabha Buddha for salvation?
@@DougsDharma I'm looking forward to that video. On that note, may I also suggest a video on the practice of chanting dharanis and sutras as a form of "enchantment"; "magic", if you will, in Mahayana Buddhism.
A very interesting and important topic. Conceit certainly is a big issue in most spiritual practices and a big hinderance to many. At the same time I feel many Buddhists may "turn a blind eye" one too many times in an effort not to criticize too much... Buddhist cultism is a growing problem and I personally feel needs a more open conversation. In fact, I would love to see a video on that topic.
Ultimately all yānas are aimed at the problem of suffering. As you have said Doug, it is pragmatic approach vs. a theoretical approach. Either way all deal with impermanence, suffering, and non-self, any buddhist school with these in mind is very much so Buddhist. But it is hard to understand how the Tathagata truly works, as the Tathagata is immeasurable, vast like the ocean, and hard to fathom, who even knows what the lost schools of Early Buddhists were teaching.
I think we have a pretty good idea of early Buddhism, triangulating from the early texts in Pāli, Chinese, and other languages, as well as descriptions of the "śrāvakayāna" in Mahāyāna texts. It gives a consistent picture.
@@DougsDharma Yes, not trying to say we don't understand Early Buddhism, just that there might be certain West Indian schools that are unknown to us. Like the ones the Greeks/Macedonians first contacted
"They(Lotus sutras etc) cannot have been spoken by the literal historical Buddha because they came centuries after his lifetime." What do you say about the claim of people like Shanti Deva and Maitreya in Bodhicaryavatara and Sutra alamkara claiming that Mahayana sutras were spoken by historical Buddha?
@@DougsDharma How about prajny'ap'aramit'a vajracchedik'a; Diamond[-cutter] Sutra? In that text there are questions and answers between Buddha Shakyamuni and Subhuti. Could they be historical Buddha and historical Subhuti?
I can't say from experience in many types of Buddhism but based on what I know from other religions, the closer you are to the source, the more authentic. Its like taco bell vs Mexican town level in some cases.
Historical authenticity perhaps, but often what comes later is authentic in a different way. For example the earliest Christianity was not a universal religion; that required Paul's reinterpretation of Jesus's message. Is essentially all of contemporary Christianity inauthentic? I would expect similar arguments can be made about all world religions.
@@DougsDharma Indeed I think so. My favorite Christian documents are some of the ones found in Nag Hammadi, including the Gospel of Thomas, which is in opposition to a lot of the positions held by the modern christian church, written as quotes from the living Jesus. Indeed I think a similar case can be made of all world religions. As the french Philosopher Voltaire's famous quote says: “Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
When a tree has grown do you just sit there staring at its base? Is the seed more “real” than the full grown plant? A religion, like other phenomena in the temporal world, develops over time, as it must. It should be clear though that everything was contained in the original “seed” or revelation. That is, the legitimate developments of a religion are not random and unanticipated but were already contained in the original cause and just awaited their due time to manifest. The last organic growth on the Buddhist tree is Pure Land Buddhism, which form of Buddhism is aptly suited to the conditions of man in these latter days, as man has never been weaker then he is now.
@michaelcarden9623 I am sorry if my comment upset you. I am sure it is due to my own personal ignorance and I ask you to please forgive me for lacking understanding you have o great 1
@@hammersaw3135 I lay claim to nothing other than having a read a fair amount of traditional texts, and also having read some critiques of the modern Western mentality. The Westerner of today approaches all things with a "horizontal" or "this-worldly" view which leads to historicism and evolutionism, and thus in the study of religion this leads to a fascination with "early Buddhism", or "early Christianity" or "early Islam" etc. and to a corresponding devaluation of later changes in the particular religions, with these changes often being seen as corruptions of the pure beginnings of a given religion rather than organic growths thereof.. It is of course true that corruption can creep in with time, but it also true that a religion can be likened to any other thing that grows over a given period of time: the branches of a tree are not corruptions but organic growths that were contained from the beginning, in the seed. There is also the fact that as concerns Buddhism, many Westerners who are interested in it would like to remake Buddhism in the image of their own desires as some type of atheistic and rationalist philosophy, almost like an Eastern Stoicism. Buddhism may not be monotheist, but it is also certainly not atheist, rather it is, as Frithjof Schuon says "non-theist". That is, in pure metaphysics there is Absolute Being (the Personal God) but beyond that there is Beyond Being, the Absolute as such, beyond all determination. The monotheisms focus their attention on Being, the Personal God, while Buddhism in a sense "skips" over the Personal God and goes straight to Beyond Being, to what Meister Eckhart called the "Godhead" (Gottheit). Back to Western Buddhists: Mahayana Buddhism, with its pantheon of Buddha's and Boddhisattvas can seem a bit too "theist" for those who want to make Buddhism into not much more than an Eastern Stoicism. Thus, the fascination with early Buddhism in which this pantheon had not yet manifested. Anyways, many have said it far better than me, so if you've made it this far may I suggest an author who truly is a great one: Frithjof Schuon: his book "Treasures of Buddhism" is a great place to start. Also, anything by Marco Pallis is good.
Thanks for the excellent video. This is a great follow up to your last video. Various questions which arose in my mind from your last vid were covered in this one which was superb. Regarding the revealing of the buddha and 'lesser means', i dont understand why the Lotus Sutra seems to be suggesting that at that point in time, people's capacities were suddenly ready for the great vehicle. Is it because buddha's practice was a new concept early on, so his disciples needed a steppingstone to the buddha goal via "lesser' means? Or is it that the buddha felt everyone's capacity had changed at that point? The lotus sutra essentially stated that the buddha goal was open to all, not just monastics, so i cannot figure out why the average lay person would require skillful means less than someone who practices dilligently during every waking hour. Although, I may very well be missing something important which explains what seems like a logical contradiction to me. About the great vehicle, I have always wondered why this was presented by some as a fourth vehicle, when it seemed to just be the third skillful mean- the boddhisattva ideal. Now i know the confusion was not just my own which is good, unless ive misunderstood.
It's a good question why this turn of the dharma occurred when it did. I don't really have an answer for you, though I imagine the difficulty of the early path for many may have had something to do with it.
Renuncation is "foundational" not "childish" but renunciation itself must also be renounced. There is no conceit or deception in the Lotus Sutra other than by those who left the assembly as it was being expounded. Xuanzang already settled all the disputes and interpretational conflicts being alluded to here back in the seventh century, he risked his life and travelled on foot accross the Himalaya to find a single book, did you even bother reading it? Historicism does not lead to liberation.
apparently Xuanzuang did not succeed at putting to rest arguments and clinging to rites and rituals and dogma... This comment is an echo of dogmatic Stalinists who insist you will agree with their specific interpretation of Marxism if you just read the right books 😂 If it isn't childish why does the parable have a father literally tricking dumb children in a burning house with treats and prizes? It's clearly condescending. Also historicism is just inconvenient to you because it happens to contradict your sect -- I doubt you would apply the same standard to Christianity or Islam.
