Allan Wallace is one of the most eloquent interpreters of Buddha Dharma to a Western mind.

@alankuntz6494

Жыл бұрын

well thanks for your opinion.

@Buddhist_Philosopher

7 ай бұрын

Indeed.

@ezeeproproperties8352

4 ай бұрын

And so much more👌👌👌💎💎💎🌈🌈🌈🙏🙏🙏

I agree with this too... Buddhism is a radical and ruthless realism cutting through the core of everything. It is not settling on the 'explanations' but experience. That's why in Buddhist teachings, the emphasis is more on 'work and find out ' than 'this is this and that is that' like in those monotheistic religions.

@squamish4244

6 ай бұрын

The only issue is that the "work and find this out" aspect demands so much time and energy from someone that hardly anyone for all practical intents and purposes can walk this path in the modern world unless you are in the top 5% in terms of income and education. To be truly radical and ruthless, Buddhism has to drastically expand the % of society who can realistically walk this path.

Allan's voice is so soothing and calm. Many thanks for sharing this wonderful interview!

Allan Wallace has such an incredible mind! Thank you for sharing this teaching!

Thank you for suggesting to look at these words in different languages! For example in German mind is „Verstand“, which means „Understanding“… or for Consciousness it’s „Bewusstsein“ which means „Knowingbeing“.

@gymather3097

Жыл бұрын

I love that thank you for sharing

Always clear+concise 🙏

Beyond brilliant is this great being Alan Wallace 💎💎💎🌈🌈🌈🙏🙏🙏🙇🏻‍♂️🙇🏻‍♂️🙇🏻‍♂️

Es tan gran maestro Alan...no podrán traducir al español todos los videos...para aprender y disfrutar todas sus enseñanzas....Gracias..

I want to study under this man.

@ezeeproproperties8352

4 ай бұрын

You can. Most of his students have never met him in person. And making yourself the perfect disciple will only benefit you and others 🙏

Yes !

In Buddhism there is consciousness as, and consciousness of. Consciousness of is everything one can experience or imagine. Consciousness as come before. Like an image in a mirror is consciousness of. A mirror with nothing to reflect is consciousness as.

Definitions of consciousness and mind in English language already give incomplete representation of Buddha’s teachings

@MrDaithis

5 жыл бұрын

Do you speak pali?

Words are yet to be invented for defining most of the phenomena.

@ezeeproproperties8352

9 ай бұрын

In the west. The east has enough words to reach the ultimate reality and so who needs more than that?

I feel that this is just a layer of the overall unknown definition of consciousness

Maybe consciousness is the wrong question? (one thing I have learned from practiced phenomenology and noble truths path) It leaves a Koan. "Maybe consciousness is the wrong question", the answer in emptiness, which is part of seasoned practice, does not have a nomenclature per se, the buddha touched the ground. It is the meditation for me of this question, I can carry around for years and see and feel joy from this meditation, I am sitting with empathy for the human experience, which can be the same for anyone with consciousness, it is a beautiful practice of empathy with emptiness, in a free world, I do not define the dependant origination and successions of others.

Consciousness can't easily be defined by words as those words are subjects of same conscienceness

@maddoxzain920

2 жыл бұрын

you prolly dont give a shit but if you're stoned like me atm you can stream all the latest series on InstaFlixxer. I've been binge watching with my girlfriend for the last couple of weeks =)

@londonandres856

2 жыл бұрын

@Maddox Zain Yup, have been watching on instaflixxer for years myself =)

@colinbraden679

2 жыл бұрын

@Maddox Zain Yup, I've been using InstaFlixxer for since december myself :)

@rylandbriar6085

2 жыл бұрын

@Maddox Zain Yup, I've been using InstaFlixxer for since november myself =)

@gymather3097

Жыл бұрын

Words are definitely limiting

(Raises hand) Memory!

@stevemadden5961

6 жыл бұрын

Marc Pelletier Buddha's core teachings do not pin point any god or sole. He made a discovery how mind works. Ultimately found mind is created by with in out of nothiness.. and it is a cycle happening inside living beings continues as a cycle. He clearly stated no such thing call sole exist. Only the delution give born to the existence or to the cycle which drives our existence. It is a stream which arises and fall course and effect drives it as a stream. But problem is it could not be seen as such stream , instead every living being take it as continuation so result is self. Some religions pointed it as sole. Most of people think it is sole something comes externally, Buddha said it comes "with in " and it's just course and effect no such has essential quality like sole . .

阿弥陀佛🙏。 To make manifest at the same moment initiate the second knowing as a reflection ! Is a whole unity seemingly as two independent sensations , if taken on each sided. However from the grasping instantaneously of thy sensation . One never actually moved. As if lightning flashes over and over the dark skies. Buddha had always be there in every moment aisle dark skies allowing the days the nights and inter ever changing possibly flashes of lightnings . Smiling at me . Compassionately allowing me to witness the manifestation . The only truth where all sufferings turned into bliss. I would vowed to hold this line As long as till the last sentient being will witness too upon to where all Buddha is. I will follow all Buddha's path of enlightenment . Giving up my self upon all temptations seemingly realism when taken on either side of the dualism . I will only walk on the path of all Buddhas. In return of my conscience I will only born as monk to bestow the triple gems . Guatum , Dharma and Sangha . As the strength of all Buddhas . I will stood firmly on the Ground of Samadi where my vow of holding the line is , to where all Buddhas is.

I dont understand how video recordings dont fit the first definition and computer associations using machine learning doesnt fit the second definition

To say that consciousness is appearance and knowing isn't to say much unless you can say what appearance and knowing mean, which he didn't.

@stevemadden5961

6 жыл бұрын

Russ Abbott Buddha's core teachings do not pin point any god or sole. He made a discovery how mind works. Ultimately found mind is created by with in out of nothiness.. and it is a cycle happening inside living beings continues as a cycle. He clearly stated no such thing call sole exist. Only the delution give born to the existence or to the cycle which drives our existence. It is a stream which arises and fall course and effect drives it as a stream. But problem is it could not be seen as such stream , instead every living being take it as continuation so result is self. Some religions pointed it as sole. Most of people think it is sole something comes externally, Buddha said it comes "with in " and it's just course and effect no such has essential quality like sole . .

@andrewtaylor9799

6 жыл бұрын

Yes, I think Alan is merely pointing out that to say someone is conscious is to say that they 1) have perceptual experiences (for example, have the experience of seeing red), and 2) can cognate on these experiences, for example, are aware that they are seeing red and can therefore make judgements about that experience, for example, if they like it or not (is that flower pretty?). Seems he is saying nothing more than that.

@SamuraiGuitar

4 жыл бұрын

He never said consciousness is appearances.

@albundy9597

2 жыл бұрын

@@stevemadden5961 soul.....unless you are talking about a shoe

@ezeeproproperties8352

4 ай бұрын

Of course he did, many times too. Maybe not in this little 5 minute soundbite. But he's authored, translated and compiled over 45 books. He has thousands of hours of free workshops, talks, seminars, retreats and so on available online. If you do not seek, you will not find.

Luminosity and cognizance may be two useful defining characteristics, yet the reality that they describe is singular.

@hedrickology

7 жыл бұрын

I am what does that mean exactly? Can u elaborate?

@stevemadden5961

6 жыл бұрын

hedrickology Buddha's core teachings do not pin point any god or sole. He made a discovery how mind works. Ultimately found mind is created by with in out of nothiness.. and it is a cycle happening inside living beings continues as a cycle. He clearly stated no such thing call sole exist. Only the delution give born to the existence or to the cycle which drives our existence. It is a stream which arises and fall course and effect drives it as a stream. But problem is it could not be seen as such stream , instead every living being take it as continuation so result is self. Some religions pointed it as sole. Most of people think it is sole something comes externally, Buddha said it comes "with in " and it's just course and effect no such has essential quality like sole . .

@willp9226

4 жыл бұрын

@@stevemadden5961 Agreed, consciousness, as Buddha said, is dependent -it arises and passes away like all conditioned arisings. When most people try to explain consciousness, they are trying to prove that something else 'out there' exists that actually generates (or gives rise to) our consciousness, ie. god, the divine, universal consciousness, etc.. Buddha never said such a thing, he actually refuted such talk/thinking, as you say. People that think or speak the way Alan Wallace does are simply being deluded by their own mind. If a person meditates, with a pure mind, that is, with no 'taints' arising, they'll clearly see that the the Buddha was correct.

@stevemadden5961

4 жыл бұрын

@@willp9226 exactly !!

@buddhistphilosopher800

2 жыл бұрын

@@willp9226 That view belongs to pali teachings, Lama Alan's view is that Dzogchen.

Definition of Consciousness can be as many as there are Gods prayed to by humans. So a Word can have many countless meanings. Which God? What is God? Your God or my God? Likewise, what consciousness? Scientific consciousness or religious consciousness or philosophical consciousness etc? Putin defines invasion as special military operations. Mao defines love for country as civil war massacre

so if one has dementia, does that mean one has lost consciousness?

@andrzejsati3861

7 жыл бұрын

Jane Smith Really good question ! What about Altzheimer disease or other neurodegenerative diseases?

@curiosity_saved_the_cat

7 жыл бұрын

You can't lose consciousness since you ARE consciousness. You can only lose the ability to interact that is provided by brain function. In the same way a memory can't lose you, but You can lose a memory.

@jcsmith7898

7 жыл бұрын

curiosity saved the cat ...that makes sense!

@J12H

7 жыл бұрын

Maybe the consciousness will continue to use the damaged brain with the new limitations in it. It's like the body is an avatar to help consciousness express itself in this reality.

@jcsmith7898

7 жыл бұрын

Yes. Good point Ivan

Buddha's core teachings do not pin point any god or sole. He made a discovery how mind works. Ultimately found mind is created by with in out of nothiness.. and it is a cycle happening inside living beings continues as a cycle. He clearly stated no such thing call sole exist. Only the delution give born to the existence or to the cycle which drives our existence. It is a stream which arises and fall course and effect drives it as a stream. But problem is it could not be seen as such stream , instead every living being take it as continuation so result is self. Some religions pointed it as sole. Most of people think it is sole something comes externally, Buddha said it comes "with in " and it's just course and effect no such has essential quality like sole . .

@bachtuyetdang1094

6 жыл бұрын

Either typing errors or your primary language is not English: Soul not sole Cause and effect: not course😌

@Seekthetruth3000

6 жыл бұрын

Soul not sole.

@stevemadden5961

4 жыл бұрын

@@bachtuyetdang1094 haha thx for the correction 😅

Mind your definition thingy :D

Maybe by luminous what it really points to is the electro-magnetic force in synaptic signals of sense consciousnesses. Light itself is an electro force. We are bio-electric organisms. Pin and needles is an example of luminous feeling.

4:02 ...In fact you don’t. ...Everyone knows that your personal bias and even visual limitations will define both what you see and what you make of it /think it is.

A: LIGHT.

Isn't it the essence of consciousness experience?

@dannonflynn9150

4 жыл бұрын

One might say that 'consciousness' is the subject which is 'conscious of' objects of consciousness. Subject and object together as a whole is 'experience.' Really, both subject and object are intrinsically dependent on each other and there is no consciousness independent of objects nor objects independent of consciousness.

@marionow6227

4 жыл бұрын

I wouldnt say so. Animals have experiences too, but no conciousness, no awareness of them.

You cannot define consciousness using the paradigm of materialism.

Science, whether neuroscience, climate science, or any other, is the process of cognizant thought expressing itself. It is not in conflict with the many translations from the ancient languages of early Buddhism of the processes of thought describing the mind in very subjective terms that do not translate well, according to Mr. Wallace himself in another of his talks. The Middle Way does not exclude science because science is too valuable to our understanding, since it is based in direct observation and often expressed in the universal language, mathematics. Like Buddhist thought, science is constantly evolving. Mr. Wallace is an effective speaker whose speech is a very evolved version of very old Buddhist doctrine. Science is a very young dharma evolving much faster than Buddhist theory, yet neither is superior to the other.

@protofone3616

Жыл бұрын

Do you know the difference between meaningful and meaningless? Can science determine this for you? No, it can't. So perhaps it's time to recognize the limitations of science. And to say that the study of the external and objective is equally important to studying the internal and qualitative aspectshows your ignorance. Tesla said that when we begin to study the mental as opposed to the physical, we'll make more progress in a single decade than we've made in all preceding decades combined.

@ezeeproproperties8352

9 ай бұрын

Science can't tell you what's meaningful and meaningless. Buddhism will take to you to the realization of the ultimate truth - your full and true potential, which just so happens to involve the forever and irreversibly freedom from all suffering. Which do you reckon is worth more?

He is talking about Mandukya Upanishad,why he is referring to it as Buddhist way ,only he can explain its high time western world shed shyness to learn Sanskrit w/o bias against Sanatan way of life, consciousness predates Buddha by hundred if not thousands of years.May God give us wisdom.

@freetibet1000

Жыл бұрын

I believe he said he was referring to the prasangika madhyamika, the Middle Way school of thought taught by Nagarjuna around the second century AD in India. I did not hear him say that he was referring to the views found in the Upanishad. Madhyamika is the most common philosophical school of thought within the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. Both pinnacle practices of direct experience of Mahamudra (Chagya Chenpo) and Maha Ati (Dzogchen) are based on the view of Madhyamika and have their roots in India. They may be different in terms of practical techniques and terminology but both lineages are said to lead to the same result of complete enlightenment or buddhahood according to many independent realized practitioners throughout history. As for consciousness itself it is of course a timeless phenomenon that no religion or spiritual tradition can lay claim to. The Buddha never claimed to have “invented” consciousness, karma, rebirth, etc. His greatness lies in that he found a way of complete transcendence of all causes for samsara and attain complete liberation from all limitations such as ignorance, selfishness, rebirth, impure intentions, karmic stains, habitual mental formations, etc. He found a way to attain the highest of all states, Buddhahood. His greatness also extends out to us and we are able to walk the same path he did thanks to his unique ability to transfer his insights to us through his skillful teachings. By the way, as a Buddhist scholar I believe Allan Wallace is very well versed in the root language of Sanskrit. That’s an essential part of the very extensive studies he’s undertaken in his life.

Science started at about the same time as Buddhism...the Greek scientists lived 2,500 years ago...and the Egyptian and Sumerian mathematicians and astronomers lived a helluva long time before that.

I have to disagree Alan. We do have vocabulary dictators.

@justalkenglish

7 жыл бұрын

neththom999 he is refering to the Buddhist community.

@neththom999

7 жыл бұрын

He doesn't say "there's nothing like that in buddhism" he says "there's nothing like that." and then immediately goes on to demonstrate the different usages of the word "mind" in the English language. He's saying that language is a bottom up process in which no one person decrees what exactly a word means so to find the meaning you have to look at all the different ways in which it's used. I did contextualize his vocabulary dictators comment somewhat to point to something else happening in culture but hey, youtube commenting isn't an exact science.

@stevemadden5961

6 жыл бұрын

neththom999 Buddha's core teachings do not pin point any god or sole. He made a discovery how mind works. Ultimately found mind is created by with in out of nothiness.. and it is a cycle happening inside living beings continues as a cycle. He clearly stated no such thing call sole exist. Only the delution give born to the existence or to the cycle which drives our existence. It is a stream which arises and fall course and effect drives it as a stream. But problem is it could not be seen as such stream , instead every living being take it as continuation so result is self. Some religions pointed it as sole. Most of people think it is sole something comes externally, Buddha said it comes "with in " and it's just course and effect no such has essential quality like sole . .

So why is cognizance of mentally disabled person different from normal. It must be the hardware. So does this point out to what you say is the mind maybe all hardware. So who is the observer. Maybe the seer is not there. So did I say Buddhism has no merit. Maybe if you all use less flowery words I may understand because I am plain stupid.

@ezeeproproperties8352

9 ай бұрын

Watch it again and again, and rewind where necessary, look up definitions of words where necessary, and you won't be so stupid anymore.

About as scientific as Deepak Chopra.

Computers don't have consciousness.. well, isn't that just because people don't understand enough about consciousness to simulate consciousness in a computer? I don't see any reason why a computer couldn't possibly be conscious. A computer can look at pictures of cats and learn to distinguish cats from dogs. Likewise a computer could come up with concepts to recognize and categorize things it can perceive and it could come up with a conceptual framework to model its environment and if this conceptual framework is sufficiently elaborate, it would also involve a concept that refers to itself like when the computer sees itself in the mirror and it flashes a led or something and it realizes that it's looking at itself rather than some other computer that functions independently. So in principle there is no reason to assume that computers can't be conscious. We have to realize that consciousness in humans is not just a matter of individual humans that would become conscious if they were raised by apes on a deserted island. In that case their consciousness would probably be very similar to the level of consciousness of other apes on the island. People can gain a higher level of consciousness if they have access to knowledge and understanding that has been collectively accumulated over many generations of a large population of humans. So comparing an individual human to an individual computer in terms of consciousness isn't fair, because computers haven't been dominating the planet for that long and didn't have the opportunity to accumulate knowledge like humans have. So it seems to me that consciousness naturally arises in any system (like humanity as a whole) that is able to process information and abstract from the patterns it perceives towards a sufficiently elaborate conceptual framework.

@vishvara123

5 жыл бұрын

think about it like this! we program the computers ! so we are playing the role of mind if computers are conscious !! without the coding it can't do anything ?? don't u agree !! maybe my perspective can be wrong !! XD

@lovareths569

5 жыл бұрын

@@vishvara123 then think like this, what if human itself is a "type" of ancient supercomputer.. some unknown "being" was programmed our conciousness, so basically that being is playing the role of our mind.

@freetibet1000

Жыл бұрын

@@lovareths569 With all respect, where did that “unknown-being” come from? As long as we believe in duality, cause and effect, we will not understand the nature of consciousness or awareness. Computers depend on parts and components as well as input of information. Consciousness, the ability to be aware, is not dependent on anything. It has never come to be and will never cease to be either. Therefor, it cannot even be said to exist, nor can it be said to not exist. It is beyond any extreme of existence or non-existence. That is precisely the essence of the Madhyamika school of thought taught by the Buddhist sage Nagarjuna, that Allan Wallace was referring to. This is not a philosophical stance aimed at being clever or mysterious. It is described this way for the precise reason it cannot be refuted or proven to be any other way. Ever since the days of Nagarjuna, around the second century AD, no-one have ever managed to refute or disprove this stance in the Madhyamika teachings although many have tried. Any words used to describe consciousness or awareness will fail to point to its true nature. At best words and thinking can only reach an approximation of what consciousness is. The whole point with Buddhist practice is to abandon conceptual thinking and get to the direct experience of the true essence. That is far beyond what any computer, robot or any other contraption can ever hope to reach. Think about it this way; if we humans are so clearly unable to sustain our most precious bodies for very long although we are endowed with life and consciousness, how can we even think that a material composite machine that lack all signs of being alive can mimic a human life, let alone consciousness? All composite must inevitably fall apart and cannot be the seat of awareness and consciousness for very long. The essence of consciousness remains untainted forever but bodies and worlds come and go in an endless stream of illusory expressions. According to Buddhist thinking consciousness is timeless and indestructible for the precise reason it does not exist dependent on causes and conditions. Nor is it a composite of smaller parts. Nor does it have a specific place of dwelling, or a specific size or form. This is the reason people like Allan Wallace is referring to it as not being dependent on neurons or the brain, for instance. Nor can consciousness be found within neurons or the brain either. The closest we can get to an understanding is to say that our bodies (including neurons and the brain) is an expression of our consciousness. If we start to see it that way we can start to view ourselves and the whole universe in a completely different way. A more accurate and complete way. That is the beginning towards starting to realize the non-dual reality and our true nature beyond space and time. The illuminated space-like nature of awareness or consciousness is something utterly beyond a mere physical reality. Yet it is ever-present and everywhere. The very fact that we are able to even think and speculate about these things is a testament to the unique qualities of consciousness. The process of knowing itself is the process of spiritual awakening and the lifting of all temporary stains and blockages. To know the full extent of our own pristine awareness is a process of removing those stains that are making us temporarily blind. That’s why enlightenment is so often referred to as seeing the light for the first time. The darkness of ignorance and blindness have finally been lifted. Once the ignorance is lifted there’s no going back to a ignorant state ever again. That is the path and the result of Buddhas teachings. It is the essence of all past and future Buddhas as well. We are all endowed with the potential for enlightenment and becoming a Buddha because we are conscious beings. Nothing can ever remove or destroy that potential or capacity for us. It is up to us if we want to do the conscious effort to realize our true potential, or not. The path of practice and instructions are all there to be utilized, if we so choose. To use up all our precious time and effort to fruitlessly try to build human replicas is a colossal waste of time and cannot succeed. Since the lifespan of a human life is preciously short we should think very carefully before we embark upon any other endeavor than the pursuit of understanding who we really are, in this life. After all, what good results do we really think we can achieve in this life if we don’t even know who we really are and why we’re here in the first place? If you already think you know who you are you don’t need to read this. Then you already know everything there is to know. For the rest of us, Buddha is timeless because consciousness is beyond time and place. As long as we fail to realize this and stubbornly hold onto inferior believes we will wander endlessly from one miserable life-form to the next. Sufferings and miseries will seem all to real to us and our minds will harden and sink ever deeper into hopelessness. By the way, the name “Buddha and buddhism” are just temporary names belonging to our time and space. The enlightenment mind or consciousness is in reality beyond any such names and labels of course. Not even labels such as “consciousness or awareness” represents the final truth either. All language and wording is by nature untrue and represent a dualistic worldview. Only when we realize ultimate reality, beyond any conceptualizations, do we understand the full scope of our own awareness. That’s why practice that lead to direct experience rather than philosophical speculation is the only way.

@ezeeproproperties8352

9 ай бұрын

Does your pc go yum when it eats and yeehaw when it mates? If you call your pc a idiot, will it be aware of that without prior programming on our part?

At the start he says there are different versions of Buddhism in different countries, even within the same country for that matter. So how does he decide which version gives the correct definition of consciousness? This is where science shines. It gets rid of this nonsense called subjective experience and tries to look at things objectively. Geography doesn't change the principles of science. And scientists don't go around prosecuting other scientists like Buddhists did here in Sri Lanka in ancient times, simply because science is the same regardless of your race,religion, or nationality whereas Buddhism clearly doesn't. And this guy is trying to define consciousness through Buddhism, and he calls himself a scientists. What was his definition anyway? What he did was going on criticising science. He just gave two qualities he believes consciousness has. It's similar to what Biology says about life. They don't have a definition, but say that things that have life have certain qualities. But at least biology accepts that they still don't have a definition for what life is. What a joke?

@ezeeproproperties8352

9 ай бұрын

You're only revealing your ignorance.

Opening line: Buddhism is older than science :( Science is part of human nature. We innately study one another from birth. Ok, let's hear what else this guy has to say... already upset though...

@andrzejsati3861

7 жыл бұрын

Low lines Buddhism developed science of its own too. Western science isn't the only one.

@lowlines3239

7 жыл бұрын

Andrzej Sati My point was supposed to be that science is innate. Science predates Homo sapiens.

@andrzejsati3861

7 жыл бұрын

science in the sense of cognition yes but science has something other in its meaning i think it is accumulation of cognitions and some others components too. Animals have faculty of cognition also, whether they are scientists? Im inclined to say YES! Greetings!

@MrGarethr69

7 жыл бұрын

I think he is referring to western science which is relatively new endeavour

@squamish4244

7 жыл бұрын

Believe me, he upsets me too. I've paid attention to him for many years and he can be remarkably condescending in a subtle way. He constantly slips in little slights and insults to science, particularly neuroscience, which is the most direct threat to Buddhism's current domination of inner wisdom. Buddhism is a proto-science. It has many of the characteristics of science but lacks others, such as controlled studies and long-term analyses. The same spirit of continual innovation and upgrading of processes is not there to nearly the same extent either. Generally it is the practitioner who is blamed for failing at a methodology and not the teacher or teaching, and centuries would pass between cross-disciplinary communication. For these reasons, it has advanced at nowhere near the same speed as science.

Follow Theravadha buddhism , that's the real buddhas teaching !! Dont follow mahayana buddhism

@RolandANambo

4 жыл бұрын

How do you know? Why do you decide what is the real buddhism? Because you grew up hearing it?

@indrachapaabey1950

4 жыл бұрын

@@RolandANambo Roland A. Nambo i know it because I'm a Buddhist and live in a Buddhist country called Sri-Lanka. Lord Buddha said himself That theravadha Buddhism is the right path to nirvana.

@RolandANambo

4 жыл бұрын

Ai Abey Path to Nirvana? Who controls Nirvana? The universe? The Universe is made, not self- existent. The universe began, therefore having no deity. Who is buddha but flesh and bone? His teachings are the most vague thing. He stole them from Hinduism and MADE his own religion. It’s got mans fingerprints all over it. EXTINGUISH DESIRE?? That is impossible, to extinguish them, is to not be a human being. Dalai Lama DESIRES freedom of Tibet. See how Impossible and controlling it is??

@RolandANambo

4 жыл бұрын

Ai Abey is buddha a father a friend or savior? No. Merely a person with Good advice. Doesn’t sound so glorious to me. Only one GOD. JESUS. He Loves you! He Lives, if you would Like to know Him, you can.

@indrachapaabey1950

4 жыл бұрын

@@RolandANambo he stole it from Hinduism 😂😂😂 you have no idea about Buddhism

I don't like social scientists talking about buddhism as if it were science.

@josef2012

3 жыл бұрын

He's ordained by the Dalai Lama,is that legit enough?

@ezeeproproperties8352

9 ай бұрын

But it is. It's radically empirical and can be validated or repudiated by 3rd parties.

@squamish4244

4 ай бұрын

@@ezeeproproperties8352 It's not really a science. Buddhism didn't do double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, considered the gold standard in science, and it never had regular conferences to discuss what was working and what wasn't. And if you failed on the path, YOU got blamed, not the teaching. "It's your karma, come back next lifetime." I'm sorry, but if only 1 or 2% of practitioners are having enlightenment experiences, which is pretty standard, that's not your fault, that's the teaching's fault. Buddhism is more accurately described as a proto-science.

@ezeeproproperties8352

4 ай бұрын

@@squamish4244 so to be omniscient isn't enough for you? You must waste trillions of dollars developing instruments to scientifically prove that which you already know? When you realize how short and precious your life is, you'll stop wasting your time on meaningless pursuits that will never ever bring about the lasting happiness and genuine satisfaction that you seek. Who gets off on trying to find fault with a being that works solely for their benefit?

@ezeeproproperties8352

4 ай бұрын

@@squamish4244 and where's the science proving that I'm aware? It doesn't exist. Does that mean it's not true? Am I not aware because there hasn't been a double-blind blah blah blah? 😄🤦‍♂️

He talks too much and too fast. He needs to cut 75% of the words and he will communicate better. Seriously.

@buddhistphilosopher800

2 жыл бұрын

He's very clearly comunicating.

@ezeeproproperties8352

9 ай бұрын

What he says is useful and a cause for happiness. What you say is useless and a cause for suffering. Perhaps you should learn to keep up instead of gathering the causes of suffering in your pursuit of happiness 🤷‍♂️

Older than science? Who is this guy kidding? Science by its nature cannot be preceded by any thing whatsover, especially a philosophy. Buddhism is the most irrenous thing I have ever heard of.

@nik8099

3 жыл бұрын

irrenous? explain

@buddhistphilosopher800

2 жыл бұрын

For Buddhism nothing exist for itself, from its own side. You need an observer too, the scientist.

@ezeeproproperties8352

9 ай бұрын

Do you even know what science is?