From Argentina! 🫂 Thank you very much Bryan! Your full lectures on Philosophy are so incredibly good! So pedagogically inspiring! Much love to all!! Muchas Gracias!!

The end of the talk is a mind bender indeed. Yes all dharmas are empty, as we are told to believe. Finding your talks on Buddhism has been a treasure for me being you can read and speak the ancient languages then relate their meanings into" Western" English speaking students with great insight and ease for us to understand. I wish you continued success and look forward to your future talks. Thank you

Thank you. Informative, clear and peaceful. I love that you break the wall between Eastern and Western philosophies. Thanks for providing the links to previous and next lectures.

But seriously, great video, really helpful explaining the relationship between the 5 aggregates, self, and rebirth.

So glad to have this video to hear and also the slides to visionalize the concepts presented. I hope you will post more Buddhist talks in the future. Thank you Stay well

I'm from Singapore and I laughed when I spotted Haw Par Villa at 49:54.

@BryanVanNordenPhilosophy

Жыл бұрын

I absolutely LOVED Haw Par Villa!

Many thanks!!

thanks for another great lecture--and I appreciate the "so I got that going for me" Caddy Shack reference!

@BryanVanNordenPhilosophy

3 жыл бұрын

I'm glad someone got the reference!

@professorrshaldjianmorriso1474

3 жыл бұрын

​@@BryanVanNordenPhilosophy my favorite scene is when he lustfully watches the old ladies teeing off! kzread.info/dash/bejne/dG2MxbqnmayZerQ.html

Thanks big V

Thank you for these two fascinating introductory videos on Buddhism. I have been reading (modestly) extensively about basic Buddhist concepts, but only these two videos were able to make me really grasp ideas like non-self and transmigration without a self. I will dig deeper into the topic; it is mind-blowing, and I will also check your other videos. Finally, it's so refreshing to find true value in the virtual world. Thanks for sharing your wisdom with us.

@BryanVanNordenPhilosophy

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for your kind words!

Thank you professor for sharing your lecture 🙏🏽

The 5 Skandhas do not refer to elements that constitute the "universe", but rather, the experiences we have that create or make up our sense of "I", "ego", or "self". The skandhas relate to how we conceive/form our sense of "self", not the "world" per se. For instance, we experience rupa (things, environment, etc) and attach to it, forming a sense of ourselves as we identify with those things/situations. We have physical sensations and feelings (vedana) and identify with them, creating a sense of our ego. We have various mental perceptions (samjna) of the world and environment and attach to it, forming a sense of ourselves as we identify with it. We have our opinions, beliefs, likes and dislikes (samskara), and attach and identify with it, forming a sense of our ego. We have the underlying consciousness that is aware of all these things, and we attach to it, forming a sense of our self. These are gradations of experience from gross to subtle, that we attach to and identify with, that ultimately inform and create our "ego." But otherwise, enjoying your informative lectures.

@BryanVanNordenPhilosophy

2 ай бұрын

The Skanhas are interpreted in different ways by different sects of Buddhism. The way that I explain them is more in line with Theravadan teachings. Your explanation is more in line with some versions of Mahayana.

Hi Dr Van Norden, if I'm not wrong, Buddha did not make a positive claim that there is no self. On the question on whether there is a self, he remained silent and did not say either for or against it, because apparently it was not necessary on the path to liberation.

@BryanVanNordenPhilosophy

8 ай бұрын

Sadly, we do not know what the Buddha said. We only know what later Buddhists said that he said.

As a sort of fun philosophical project, I enjoy comparing Western and Eastern philosophical ideas to see if I can find parallels between them. In that spirit: would you say that the view "All language is Upaya" is an equivalent position to western ideas of Nominalism?

Another problem is that the Tibetan buddhists believe in subtile bodies that exist as aggregates of yourself. One of those bodies could be considered a soul (in the English sense of the word - it feels, sees, hears, ...), a jivAtman in the hindu sense of the word.

I am curious. Upana is accepted in Buddhism. But how is it accepted in Western philosophy? Is there such a thing as ethical lying in the West? Thanks

@BryanVanNordenPhilosophy

Жыл бұрын

Arguably, Platonic irony is upaya.

Big hitter, the Lama... long

Thank you for this lecture. m(^ ^)m Well, the concept of a self (ātman) is an upāya to mentally map our own agency in a world of cause and effects (karman). According to it, the action of a self (ātman) can cause either suffering to itself or others or its ending (nirvāṇa). The concept of non-self (anātman) on the other hand is an upāya to mentally map emptiness (śūnyatā) as the radical nature of reality without a meaning. By penetrating this nature of reality an agent can deteach *h**sel** (themselves, himself, herself) from *h**sel** and the related thirst (tṛṣṇā) which *h** experience due to the body to promote nirvāṇa in this world; and to understand that though we appear to live in a state of saṃsāra in reality we all have Buddha nature (buddha-dhātu) and are therefore already in nirvāṇa.

What Nagarjuna rejects is not the self or the soul in the western sense of those words. He rejected the Atman, in the ancient hindu sense of the word. However, Nagarjuna would have less of a problem with the modern, popular, hindu definition of the word Atman, consciousness. He would still argue that, but consciousness/awhereness is not eternal, it is changing.... and therefore it is NOT the Atman!

we are the dependant arising of Gaia Matrix, she is a Toroid generator of maya, she makes toroids from her central channel , all sentient dreams of Gaia are Toroids dreaming, we are born out the top and go around the wheel and go back into her toroid, central channel

@BryanVanNordenPhilosophy

6 ай бұрын

Good to know!

Pureland buddhism is a form of buddhism that turly understands anAtman. The anAtman is about the essence of who you really are - God/Brahman. But "you" are real and exist - don't you have the 3 characteristics of existence, yes! So you exist and can ....

What should I care one way or another about events that are consequences of my life after my death? Is it a cop-out, a consolation price? I would prefer the simple solution: death, nothing. Reincarnation seems as grasping for permanence. A deeply misunderstanding of Buddhist impermanence.

@BryanVanNordenPhilosophy

5 ай бұрын

The video addresses these questions if you watch it. 🙂

My problem with this analogy. It is a poor example of the issue of atman and the nature of its existence. Much less the term self. Scientists today agnoknowlege the fact that aggregations yeild emergent properties. And just because these properties are changing, temporal, aggregations, and causal -- it does not mean they don't exist. In fact, they actually show/have the "marks of existence " meaning they really do exist even in the buddhist sense of the word. So the self exists even in the buddhist sense of the word. And my other big problem is, why as a westerners, are people like you, changing the meaning of the word self, to match the hindu word atman? Yes, self-centeredness and selfishness are problems; but telling people they don't really exist will not even come close to solving those problems.