🧡 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 recently heard Sam Harris give a series of Buddhist doctrines on a podcast as if they were his own original ideas. I think it is great when philosophers acknowledge the Buddha’s influence in their thinking.
I've never gotten that impression from Sam Harris that he was claiming his ideas were original to him. I've been listening to him for years. He certainly acknowledged the influence of Buddhism in his book "Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion." Maybe he neglected to mention it on that one particular podcast you listened to? That's possible.
empathetically, Buddha was of view that all life forms fear and avoid pain and death. Hence his whole emphasis was to diminish suffering. When asked about enlightenment, he said that it is nothing supernatural but all he can say was that enlightenment is state of peace. He strives to bring peace and avoid suffering through teaching right living and right actions (tangible and intangible) and right effect of action. Ethics of Buddha is founded upon empathy and compassion which are natural human attributes. The thicket of views and dilemas of philosophy arise due to wrong artificial ideas and assumptions like eternal immortality of inner self independent of constituent cause and conditions or idea of Supreme creator and Controller of life. Buddhist philosophy is simple and natural.
I think there's three other components here: 1. There's as much push to justify scientific materialism as the answer to all our problems as there is a creator God in today's discourse. The idea here is that technology has been very successful in giving us more power over the universe, so if we can perfect it, we can permanently close the gap between our desires and reality. The novel The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect is a great exploration of the folly of such a path. 2. There's still need for intelligent discussion and debate of the Buddha's ideas. The Buddha is dead and gone. He can't exactly answer our questions anymore. He also could not anticipate the specifics of each culture and age different than his own. It's just my opinion, but expecting Canadian monks to run around barefoot with only their three robes is an unrealistic expectation. As it is, Theravada cannot get a good foothold in the US because donating to monks just isn't a thing here. In fact, homelessness is all but criminalized (and may literally be after the Supreme Court's upcoming decision on Johnson v Grant's Pass). And that's just monk's rules...there's all sorts of problems with culturally importing Buddhism into a modern Western culture. It's best to get the core idea (The Four Noble Truths) and figure out the specifics ourselves. 3. The idea you need a master or guru or even tradition to follow is a mistaken transplant from Asian cultures, and it tends to mystify and esotericize Buddhism (the master has secret knowledge that I lack). Buddhism is not difficult or esoteric in any way whatsoever. The basic idea is that suffering is caused by craving, by the will, and the way out of all suffering is to deny the will...to starve that fire of its fuel. Intellectual as he may be, Schopenhauer had a better understanding of the Buddha than almost any Rinpoche; he just didn't have a practice.
Hi Doug, Just bought your new book. Please wish me " Good Fortune ". Also my wife has Ovarian cancer and due to have major surgery. Please direct me to the Buddha's wisdom and teaching on illness, death and loss. If you can. Love your channel. You appear to be a very nice guy.
So sorry to hear about your wife, all the best to you both. I did an earlier video on illness and death that might be useful in some small way: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-L2jTFPzKtK8.html 🙏🙏
Thank you for this video. I never heard of Derek Parfit before but will go on to order 'Reasons and Persons' tomorrow in my nearest bookshop. I also find the lifestyle of his later years to be inspirational, because I always hope to get to such a commitment one day (for the dhamma). Yet it's of course far more important to actually practice. Greetings from Munich.
Everything we perceive as being real is nothing but the perceptions of our own mind. Realizing this, we are liberated from the delusion of self and from all suffering. Hearing the cries of the world, we remember how real the suffering used to feel before this realization, we dedicate our lives to alleviating the suffering of beings still lost in the thicket of views and we acquire 'right view'. And what is right view? Knowing about suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering. This is called right view.
@@saralamuni the word self doesnt even refer to persons. self refers to the atman which appears as an unchanging etc essential nature to persons. the latter exists, the former does not. get an education.
@u-dont-existdotcom4394 no, the view that sounds colors etc exist outside the skull is called naive realism which even any scientific physicalist over the age of 40 can easily negate.
Buddhism can easily be justified through utilitarianism. Since craving is the cause of suffering, and we feel suffering much more saliently than we do pleasure, then whatever action is most expected to reduce craving in one's self and others is the best to take.
i think we need to take a closer look at how "suffering" is defined from both points of view... parfit's view of suffering and the buddhist's view of suffering are very different... parfit's view (or more broadly, the utilitarian's view) aims to reduce suffering by directing our focus on on external factors... for example, the desire to improve the healthcare system and increase the well-being of all... while the buddhist's view aims to reduce suffering by directing our focus internally to eliminate desire itself. this is a very important difference... it's not that improving the healthcare system would be morally bad. obviously, that would be great! but it is not addressing the root cause of suffering... consistently having to use some sort of utilitarian arithmetic to determine if an action reduces overall suffering is fundamentally opposite of the buddhist's view of reducing suffering. food for thought.
Well I think they shared the same pretheoretic motivation (to reduce suffering), but had different understandings of the theory behind suffering and therefore the proper practices and techniques. I doubt that Parfit thought suffering could ever completely be eradicated, for example. Differences for sure, but in this case I prefer to highlight the similarities.
@DougsDharma I see. It is interesting. What about deontological ethics? Fundamentally different from utilitarian ethics, yet I think one can also find similarities to the buddhist's worldview. Both of these western world approaches to ethics seem to intertwine in the eastern world. How is this possible? Potential topic for another video? In any case, keep making vids. They are well done!
“We ought not to do to our future selves what it would be wrong to do to other people.” - Derek Parfit “As from a large heap of flowers many garlands and wreaths are made, so by a mortal in this life there is much good work to be done.” - Gautama Buddha "What matters is not the dates on your tombstone, but how others will remember how you spent the dash in-between that matters." - Linda Ellis "Gods are immortal men, men are mortal Gods." - Hermes Trismegistus
Doug my friend, How are you ? In the samadhi sutta ( angurata nikaya IV.41) the Buda says that the five agreggates meditation is the one that leads tô enlightment. Iam confused, does that mean that the agreggates meditation is samma SAMADHI? Or something that comes right before samma samadhi? Do you know any sutta or interpretation that explain that? Thankss already :-)
rebirth is empirically discriminated with even relatively low levels of perfect samadhi eg. progressed shamatha there is no room for faith doubt or conceptual superimposition as far as rigorous observation of the phenomenon we seek to understand ie. mind is concerned.
Thank you. Derek Parfit is certainly one of the most important thinkers who can help us understand what is really going on. But his writings are very difficult to understand and not at the reach of everyone.
It’s so fascinating to me that a view of morality as an objective thing can be paired with a view that the goal of one’s life is to end suffering. For something to be objective, it would need to be the product of nature outside of the human mind. That means morality would have to originate from the fabric of reality itself as something discovered by the human mind, not a construct of the human mind. What’s really fascinating about that to me is, that would make suffering a moral good, to a certain extent maybe not as a singular goal. Suffering is how this world moves forward, by that I mean the process that seems to be occurring. For one life to sustain another must die. For a body to maintain cells must die and be replaced by others. For evolution to continue that which is here now must disappear for that which is about to come. All life is change and chance occurs by suffering. Without suffering, there is no change. It’s a tough thing to grapple with, but it’s not nihilism. It’s just one part of the experience, a necessary one nonetheless. I think a part of living life is coming to terms with the fact that your existence causes harm to others for as long as continue to exist, and not hating yourself for it. To be a cat that doesn’t feel shame for killing the bird. To be a snake that does not feel guilt for consuming the mouse. To be a human that does not resent what you are and the system that produced you.
I tend to agree, however I do think there is a degree to which the social and political systems we find ourselves in cause more harm than necessary, and therefore they should be changed in order to reduce suffering. I suppose I'm a bit more of a pragmatist that way. There is no way to bring suffering to zero, but I think you should look at who suffers, how, and how much, and ask yourself if there is any way to reduce the suffering if you lived your life differently as an individual or pushed for collective action to change the social and political systems underpinning the suffering. I think that's the hard part of being a human. We DO have some control over the amount of suffering we experience ourselves and which we make others to suffer. Not complete control, but not nothing. And as such, we should take stock and try to implement changes wherever and whenever possible, rather than just let things happen as they are- also keeping in mind that most big changes don't happen quickly- just because you don't see the result you're hoping for, it doesn't necessarily mean it's not worth working toward.
Self and non-self are both perceptions that are real. But An unawakened mind has not truly seen the perception of non self and is therefor stuck in the perception of self. Seeing non self stops the identification and its necessary tendencies to clinging. The simile of the cart shows how objects (including the "I") are basically perceptions that are produced by bundling things "into one thing". In the case of the cart it is the wheels, axes, etc. In the case of the "i" the five aggregates give the crafting material to create a self to identify with.
no, the buddha explicitly refutes the collection of the parts of mind and body as the person. and he refuted that the person is independent of them. likewise you will find it said all over the place that chariot, cups, etcetc are not identical to the assembled collection nor independent to it.
At least from what I know about both, the philosophy of Idealism and Buddhism seem to share a bit in common as well. Very broadly speaking that everything is mind or mind dependant.
As a matter of fact, when the brain is split, it results in Alient Hand Syndrome. In some extreme cases, a patient's left hand fights his right hand, and causes himself a lot of trouble. So, when brian A is split into halves and put into body 1& 2, it probably generates two new persons who are very different fm the previous owners.
I personally feel that the subjectivity of morality is the reason why logic has an important role in the human experience. To give an extreme example, it’s easy for most people to naturally interpret having sex with a child as evil. But if the majority of people had an attraction to children, that may not be longer be the moral viewpoint of the world. Morality derived through logic would then be required for those people to come to that conclusion. They would have to consider the morality of harming another human, lack of consent, etc.
This is an excellent video however it is a bit confusing at 8:45 you are talking about the use of soul or self as a convention rather than a reality, and then introduce the term 'reductionist view.' For those unfamiliar it is difficult to parse whether or not the reductionist view is that of Parfit, or that of the 'soul' or 'self.' Again, a wonderful video, but perhaps you can see the ambiguity.
Does Buddhism ultimately consider ethics objective ? I feel like there is fine line there. while ethical teaching is a huge part of it, I do not think it said in objective way? It’s more like “if I don’t want to suffer, why would others”
all samadhi lineages rigorously discriminate empirically the function of mental cause and effect aka karm, to coarse and subtler degrees, therefore they all hold objective morality as a structure of reality.
Yes, the Buddha had various competitors who did not consider ethics real, and the Buddha was at great pains to say they had wrong view. Now, to be clear, when the Buddha spoke of ethics, he spoke of suffering and its causes, in our actions, intentions, and karma.
@@backwardthoughts1022 thank you guys both. I think what Doug said ethics was still grounded in suffering (wether through karma or internally), i think it actually still doesn't make it a truly objective morality argument. Its more like "what I think is bad for everyone is the thing that will cause the worse suffering" i.e good merit is opposite of that. I actually am not aware of the arguments buddha made against that line of thinking but I have a lot to learn.
My limited understanding is that Buddhadhasa believed in rebirth but did not feel it was central to the Buddha's message. If so, this is a bit different from Parfit's view.
"foundational ethics & it may lead to suffering much worse" does not go quite well with Buddha's authentic teaching, especially when one agrees with the idea of samsaric 'suffering' + its antithesis of Nirvana because the other side of the coin of suffering obviously is the ultimate liberation (Nirvana). This means letting go of cravings, greed, anger, and ignorance. We can't achieve this without getting rid of & breaking down of 'weaknesses' that we have gathered over billions and trillions of births in the past (samsara). Therefore, ethics, discipline, and virtuous values (Dharma or Wisdom) to be persistently practiced. When we do it, suffering issues we see as suffering from our external understanding will be found to be not correct. Thank you.
In trying to foundationalise ethics, do you not always come up against Hume's is/ought distinction? I'm not familiar with Parfit's thought so I wonder how and if he addressed it. I come from a Sri Lankan buddhist family and still try to practice. The understanding I've come to is that the Buddha's ethical framework is real to the extent that suffering is real. And I personally dislike suffering and I have lots of empirical evidence that this is true for most others as well. I feel like this is all I need to know to engage with the dhamma. Trying to show how this ethical framework has an objective basis, which is more "correct" than that of say a psychopath who takes pleasure in hurting others, seems like a distraction.
I don't think Parfit's intention is to naturalize ethics in the sense of surmounting the is/ought distinction. Instead he is trying to find the foundational principles of ethics: which "ought" claim supports all the others.
Very interesting. Thank you Doug. Not sure if you’ve already explored this, but I seem to recall in “After Buddhism” Batchelor discusses the contemporary ideas (particularly from Greek thinkers) that may have influenced Gotama in the development of his ideas. How reasonable is this account for the genesis of Buddhist thought?
Hellenistic influence on Buddhism, such as it was, postdated Alexander's invasion of North India in 327 BCE. So it wouldn't have had any effect on the Buddha himself, who passed away decades earlier. And even after Alexander it's not at all clear if Hellenism had any particular influence on later Buddhist ideas. We often overlook how far apart these ideas were back in the day.
Thank you for clarifying. Is there any evidence of external intellectual influence on very early Buddhism, or is it’s philosophical origin wholly endemic to the cultural region from which it grew as far as we know? After all, international ‘Old World’ trade of goods (and ideas?), predates the historical Buddha at least to some extent.
The point you made at the end how Parfit has no practice. I agree this is the problem with much of western philosophy, bunch of do nothing beard scratchers pontificating, and mentally masturbating about their speculations. I have major bones to pick with a lot of so called philosophers of modern time in this regard, they do not even try to appeal to the masses, they are focusing on puffing up each others ego's with big words and confusing thought experiments. Musicians have it right in this regard at least, they are making catchy philosophical phrases that are easily memorized and upon learning them, steers one towards the good path.
All these philosophers highlight their views within avidya mulika patticchasamuppadya in English dependence origination. Lord Buddha has gone beyond above avidya ie enlightened has eradicated Loba dwesha moha so no comparison
Regarding reincarnation, consider the following example: There is a non-zero probability that I exist in the world because I exist now, assuming that time goes on forever, and there is a non-zero probability for my existence in the future, so in the infinitely distant future I will exist again. This body and this mind will come into being without the need for a permanent soul. Therefore, Reincarnation - per se - does not need a permanent soul to be transfered. What do you think doug?
If time in the universe is infinite, and if all the material necessary for making "you" is randomly distributed in the universe, then indeed "you" will exist an infinite number of times, and live the same exact life (and all other permutations of that life) an infinite number of times. But that isn't the same thing as Buddhist rebirth, there would be no causal or karmic link between those existences.
But Doug, one of the possible possibilities that should be considered is the infinity of time. In that case, as you said, we will experience every life infinitely. This view highlights the importance of reaching Nibbana (as cessasion of suffering) in this life. Regarding the absence of causal link between these two existences, it should be said that causal link exists between these two lives because they are connected to each other through time. Therefore, although the emergence of these worlds seems random, this does not mean negating the causal relationship between these two worlds. Although, my intention of using this example was to show that there is no need to a permanent self to go from one life to another. Thank you Dear for your time.
