Zizek got it all wrong, it seems: 1. Buddhists don't want to get rid of suffering as such. Suffering is a part of living and cannot be avoided. However, the reaction to suffering can be controlled and mastered through detachment from suffering. 2. Meditation is mindfulness, which is being present in the moment. It's the awareness of being aware, and paying attention to what you are paying attention to, and attached to in fact. The realization that all phenomena are without inherent essence, also called Sunyata, is a transforming factor. Therefore, meditation is not only an exercise but it becomes a way of everyday living eventually. 3. The enlightened bodhisattva knows that Nirvana and Samsara are fundamentally one and the same reality. Driven by compassion, bodhisattvas tend to help others naturally and joyfully, so there is no going back and forth between Nirvana and Samsara, i.e. the illusory world. Obviously, Zizek doesn't understand this point. 4. There is no such thing as a compassionate war in Buddhism. 5. No, you can't reach Nirvana through drugs. This is heresy, so to say. 6. Nirvana is NOT a state of permanent happiness as Zizek pretends. Nirvana is the ultimate realization that all phenomena, including the self, are empty, lacking inherent essence, being transient and interdependent. The enlightened person lives an ordinary life in an extraordinary way due to their ability to remain detached effortlessly. They know that everything is empty, including the idea of emptiness itself. It's psychological rather than intellectual. 7. Morality in Buddhism is natural kindness and compassion. However, they do not suppress spontaneity and the instinct of self-preservation or self-defense. The enlightened person doesn't have the intention to kill or harm anyone, including oneself. 8. The middle way in Buddhism is the relinquishing of all views and all extremes, including the ideas of fall and retreat. The enlightened, cultivating a mushin mind, is fully involved in the ordinary world and life in an extraordinary way, that is completely detached and yet completely caring and kind. The only problem in Buddhism, in my opinion at least, is that you cannot possibly understand, let alone criticize Buddhism fairly enough unless you have actually practiced Buddhism for years and even decades. It's because mostly all the essence of Buddhism is psychological and experiential rather than philosophical or intellectual.
Maybe because we are not familiar with that way of explaining things. I think meditation brings culture to the world intsead of pretending to destroy it, like nazis with books. In speding time doing nothing "except paying attention to one's toughts and feelings one has the opportunity to familiarize with them. With time they become values, values can be compared with others values (though reading, listening to someone's words, arts etc). This knowing of similarities between my values and others brings a sense of belonging (peace), which brings "compassionate" actions and behaviours. So there's no an end (nirvana) to this process. It is a lifetime enrichment.
maybe these are 'his problems based on his understanding' should be the title, i agree tho i didnt get far in the video because the first point in your reply was my exact thought, appreciate the breakdown i enjoyed your comment to help me learn more
Well it is possible to "get it" at a very young age even while you have absolutely no idea of buddhism or anything. Later in life one might piece everything together but if you have no interest in teaching, no one will know. You just live a peaceful and maybe a little more creative life than average.
I'd suggest that a key point here is perhaps that western translations of Buddhist concepts are clumsy, or at least take them to a too general, too broad level, and mislead; perhaps based on a tendency in western culture to push all responsiblity onto the individual for themself in order to avoid the incovenient reality that we are actually interdependent and therefore also responsible for each other, and even to some extent for each other's behaviour. 'Compassion', as we know, is also a key concept in Buddhism. I think there are different types of 'suffering'. The point to start is maybe the concept of 'attachment'. Westerners use that word, but maybe a better translation would be 'ego attachment', though maybe also clumsy in itself (but not nearly as overgeneralised as 'attachment'), from this the word 'desire', that which we also supposedly need to be rid of, could maybe be translated as 'ego-based desire' or 'non-fluid desire', and then, going further from that, 'suffering' is also not really a thing that Buddhism claims we should or can free ourselves of, but it is a kind of 'self-created suffering', 'ego-based suffering', 'solipsistic suffering' or something that we can and should liberate ourselves from, while all the same in a broader sense we always inevitably will suffer. Even, in fact, the 'ego-based suffering' is a kind of suffering that we do to avoid real suffering, the more fluid, direct, authentic kind of suffering. That means, in fact, that Buddhism is challenging us to face up to and accept the real suffering, and therefore to 'suffer' more, but 'ego suffer' less. The story of Christ's murder, in fact, is maybe another example of an expression of this idea in world traditions; staying true to a deeper self, and suffering because of it, but actually not suffering in a maybe worse, or 'more eternal' way, as a result of accepting authentic suffering. In short there should be better, more precise, narrower meanings used than conveyed by the words we use for suffering and its causes; i.e. 'suffering', 'attachment' and 'desire'. Maybe even 'compassion' is not the best translation. it's about false desire, false attachment, and a certain type of avoidable and ego-generated suffering. This all makes our squabbles with these concepts as we understand them broadly with these poorly matching words irrelevant, because the words we use are too broad, and we're missing the narrower meanings originally conceived. People kind of end up trying to be unfeeling via this misunderstanding, when I think what is being asked is the exact opposite.
this is a keen observation but as with most things buddhism isnt a monolithic tradition so any characterisation of buddhism as one thing will inevitably be an overgeneralisation too
Mediation and specifically CBT and Mindfulness has changed my life. I suffered from anger management and eating disorder (bulimia). CBT and Mindfulness Mediation has helped me and now recognize my anger coming and mange and I no longer suffer my eating disorder.
Almost none of the actual Asian Buddhists have read any of this philosophical stuff. For them, Buddhism consists of temples, rituals and shamanic practices. Buddhism for them, is simply native folk religion (paganism).
I could barely make it past that point. It is complicated for me to understand that someone intelligent thinks they can understand buddhism by only reading three books. And then starting off the wrong premise
Yes that's what I thought too. It's very difficult for us westerners to really get a grasp on eastern religions/philosophies. I try to be very humble and admit I don't really know what I'm talking about, but I try to be as accurate as I can.
1) Suffering is just one of the entry gates to Buddhism. 2) Nirvana is not an exotic experience. So you don't have to go somewhere higher it is the pure state of mind corrupted by society over generations. 3) Every human is capable of compassion and the more we meditate the more empathy we have. With enough compassion we can dissolve situations that lead to war. 4) There is no ethics in meditation. Buddha believes in nothing. Nothingness cannot lead to delusion. 5) Animity is a state of mutual victimhood. 6) Morals are for those who want the status quo of society. Buddhism is the status quo of pure consciousness. That may or may not be congruent with social construct of morals. 7) Inner peace is an answer to a person's life. Collective life can or cannot be derived from those answers depending upon the practitioner's accepted role in society. It's very hardly known and even less after one is done with living inside the society. 8) Plato can be called an equivalent of Buddha but in his own way. His ideas demand as much of self-dissolution as Buddhism. Buddhism is vigorious self-discovery. Plato is grounded on excellence of the actions which lead to a better world. However, he provides much less psychological methods worth execution.
Towards the end of the video, Zizek makes an important point, calling this phenomena a kind of "false Buddhism" thats being adopted... that an authentic practitioner he knows made a similar point to one he's making now. There's no great fight here. Traditional Theravadn (Vipassana) Buddhism is rich in ethical teaching. As does Zen, and Vajrayana (Tibetans). There are explicit ethical guidelines called precepts, and, and all sorts of explicit ethical instruction (called sutras or suttas). In many schools these are chanted regularly or you take public vows, or have regular discussion on ethics. It's a HUGE part of these schools and traditions. I mean, anyone who has attended a Zen retreat knows how there are "forms" for everything you do, from washing dishes, to serving food, to walking in and out of the temple - these forms are, in part, to help align you with proper ethical behavior (Right relationship with water, with food, with one another, with teacher, and so on). It's so intense it turns off many casual dabblers. The insight that Zizek is bringing forward here (maybe a little unnecessarily framed in the context of debate or intellectualizing), I have heard many many serious practioners, from many traditions echo. The way these Great schools and technologies have been stripped down and made into something like "mindfulness" or "Buddhism for dummies" has been a real consequence of the transplantation to the west. However, Zizek (and readers) should not be too dismayed - there are also so many sincere, all-in, practitioners and Buddhist paths out there that rise to a level of excellence on the points Zizek is bringing forward.
The more stripped down forms of Buddhism however can act as doorways into more serious practice. And even if they don't, wouldn't you say they can be beneficial to know even at that basic level?
@@kisukehatake210 Hmm you seem sus. what serious practice? pls elaborate. All striped down version of religion, are prone to misinterpretation, therefore misguiding it's practicioner. Take the SWASTIKA symbol for example...you know where I'm going with this. Without PROPER discernment, a stripped down religious concept can be used by cult leader to disastrous effect.
@@faithhopecharity2843 I’m not sure what you mean. Sure they can be misused but concepts like mindfulness are often incorporated or applied in mental health models to generally positive affect. And they could be a doorway into more serious forms of meditation practice is what I mean i.e. the user may research Buddhism and decide they like it. Also there are meditative practices stripped of the religious element because meditation isn’t a purely religious act. Js
@@kisukehatake210 Yes. I see what you mean. I agree meditative practice is not purely religious, because in modern world meditation has entered the domain of science also (neuroscience, psychology, etc). But if you trace it's roots, meditative practice reserved only for certain group of people committing their life to certain principles like gods, kings, etc. Therefore they used it often as a form of worship. For example original Indian yoga has certain gods attributed to each movements, which means the movement reflect something about the Indian gods (form of worship). But in modern world, those gods are now stripped from the movement, people only doing it mainly for breath practice & body flexibility. So back to your statement about "serious practice", I think the original form of Yoga is more serious than the modern form, because not only you gain physical & mental exercise, but also a spiritual advantages (worship of gods, for the Hindus). So it is a more complete package than the modern version (which only for the physical, mental & the $$$$$ benefits for the studio owner). So modern version of Yoga has lost their original intention. And as I said above, stripped down religious concept can be used by cult leader (or businessman) to disastrous effects. In this case, the effects may not be disastrous, but it has the potential to be misused by irresponsible people for their own benefits.
@@kisukehatake210 yes, and yes. But the benefit of mindfulness is incomparable to a true path of liberation. We are here now and there's no going back. Thus it's appropriate to emphasize the true path, and be clear that mindfulness can be a gateway, or a mere cherry on top of delusional activity. It's not a pathway of liberation and transformation inherently, theres no lineage and force of transmission, just cultural mish mash. There's no doubt though, that it can be helpful in big ways for people, and serve as a stepping stone.
Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Speech. These and other parts of the Noble Path both propel you to engage ethically with the world and also prevent you from harming others, if you truly follow it.
I have a problem with "When you are in Nirvana"... what does Zizek mean by "you"? I don't think he understands the architecture of Buddhist consciousness. No mention of 'ego;... there's is NO 'you' in Nirvana.
I think you are right, but i myself find it really difficult to understand how one has to "dilute" oneself, leaving the self behind but on the other hand is reborn? Maybe you could help me with that, if you have an idea of what i am struggling with.
@@morrisw4284 on one hand, 'you' cannot kill your ego... on the other hand, your ego only relatively exists in relationship to everything else - it has no essential essence... what a bind! The ego and 'other' is one irreducible aspect of reality (dualism)... the other, is non-dual... the basic ground of consciousness - w/out quality, w/out beginning or end - this is the base experience of mind... the eternal REAL.. the basic idea is that actions stemming from your ego's self-centred impulses (desire, hatred, indifference) amplify suffering in your future egos. The good news is the simple, boring act of meditating (on ones out breadth) allows a gently 'letting go' of ego's attachment to thought and action... I kind of intervention on ego that uncover the basic non-dual aspect of reality and consciousness. I'm not smart enough (patient enough?) to fully grasp Zizek's own framework of metaphysics - it's very difficult for me to follow on my own... perhaps you can explain? :)
@@juliangosper You described it quite nicely for me to understand (at least superficially it makes sense to me i guess, although i dont think i have grasped it for myself as well as you did). Sadly i only watch youtube videos and have never read any primary literatur from zizek himself, so i can not help you with his fundamental truths or metaphysics. But i know he basis a lot of his ideas on Hegel´s philosophy so maybe looking into that will help you?
@@morrisw4284 great advice - I'm inspired by Zizek to dig into Hegel. I really like Z's style but I do wish he had more material like "A Pervert's Guide to Cinema" which really helps explain his ideas through easily grasped analogies!
Zizek should talk to a buddhist scholar, because his knowing in this subject is superfitial. Buddha never said that life is suffering, he said life is Dukkha, wich is has much more complex meaning. Pol Pot was not a buddha, he was a psychopath. Bodhisattva is a concept of Mahayana Buddhism, not all traditions in buddhism accept this concept.
Yes, absolutely. There is no real understanding there, the whole lecture is pointless imo, in a category "I wan't to talk, I'm clever". Very typical, when western scholars talk about non-dual related stuff. Jung and few others being the exceptions. Also, one should have the courtesy of blowing one's nose _before_ giving a lecture.
@@tudorscutariu1012 expecting someone to explain such thing in a YT comment is a bit too much! Do your own investigation, do not trust stragers' comments. Anyway, maybe I should have chosen my words more carefully, as the word non-dualism is typically associated with hindu tradition Advaita vedanta. It is not perhaps the 1st word that comes to mind for describing buddhism. But in a way the term is related to both religions, which share many principles and have common roots.
@@pete_k But in your opinion, from your experience, what does this term mean? I have my doubts around this term, like how knowing that I exist would make me feel at peace? I've been meditating for a few years and till now I felt lonely many times, also when I was meditating. But in recent times I view meditation as a way to familiarize with my toughts and feelings. So my loneliness is now reduced because it seems to me that my meditation, brings me to familiarize with my toughts and feelings, and they then become values, which can be compared with other people's values and finally a sense of belonging may appear. But I don't know if this understanding is the enscripted in the word "englightment" or "non-duality".
@@tudorscutariu1012 you cannot expect me to become your online teacher. I am not a teacher. There are plenty of good teachers available, and this term is explained in countless web pages. (Also, who knows, maybe you are in a point of life, where you should just deal with some psychological issues, and forget about meditation etc for a while? Random 'spiritual' advice may harm you as likely as help, if there is no real teacher-pupil interaction.)
I'm wondering if you watched the presentation to the end. He looks at different perceptions of nirvana, as a place of ascencion, distancing oneself from the world completely, opposed to loosing oneself completely by removing any distance between "self" and the "world".
I observe that most westerners, including Zizek, it seems, approach Buddhism from a shallow place. I encourage anyone who really wants to deepen their own life to check out Buddhism on its own terms. I personally love Thich Naht Hanh. Buddhism is an ocean.
I agree with you altough I don't know so much about the ethics behind budhism. I am more familiar with meditation, and I think that the people who don't have this familiarity, they don't really understand that their entire life is in accordance with their predominant toughts and feelings (or also called stories, gods, values). If we recognize that, we can then make better choices.
He looks at different perceptions of nirvana, as a place of ascencion, distancing oneself from the world completely, opposed to loosing oneself completely by removing any distance between "self" and the "world". Why is that a shallow place?
@@tudorscutariu1012 , Lack of knowledge of ETHICS in Buddhism? Yikes, Tudor S. Just study in depth the meaning of KARMA is a bitch. That is where Ethics stays hidden.
Zizek hardly understands anything (except from several languages, apparently); so it's hardly a surprise that he doesn't get Buddhism. What a Marxist doesn't understand, he just ridicules or condemns.
Most people getting peeved in the comment section consider themselves at peace with the Universe. Need it be reminded that Slavoj Zizek is part of the Universe?
Those that are peeved are also part of the Universe. You've simply wasted words on observing where we all are, when it was plain to anybody with eyes. Foolish.
Identifying as Buddhist doesn't mean you've made attainments. Also 'being at peace with the universe', whatever that means, was not mentioned by the Buddha to the best of my knowledge. You may have your Eastern philosophies mixed up. If you simply meant cultivating equanimity, it is encouraged but isn't the final goal (which in itself differs depending on the school or tradition). Even someone possessing this quality would still defend their faith from misinformation if they thought it was necessary. You're confusing equanimity with apathy.
Mahayana Buddhism which introduced this concept of Bodhisattva was probably done to make it more popular among the masses,so that people wouldn't be left alone in their path to salvation, which i believe is a necessity to achieve emancipation.
Being alone is scary right? But at the same time being alone is a necessity for me as a human to familiarize with my own stories. In this way I know what I value and then I can see this similarities also in other humans. This comprehension (of similarities of values between people) changes my perception around others.
@@tudorscutariu1012 In Hinduism there is a concept of handholding or awakening, particularly by a Guru. People might not be able to enlighten themselves by treading the path alone. So even great and venerated Indian Saints have had a guru. Mahayana Buddhism shares a lot with Hinduism. Mahayana Buddhism started using Sanskrit, the language of upper class, and particularly ' Brahmans'. More so, emancipation must not be seen as separated from religion that's why requires a guide. We have Moksha in Hinduism, Kaivalya in Jainism and similarly Nirvana in Buddhism
@@anik.09 oh, thank you, I have like some online models which I admire and they practice meditation. Should I consider them a guru or they must be constant in my real life.
@@tudorscutariu1012 You can obviously. But in general Guru is supposed to be a one to one thing. Like a teacher in your school. But as the world changes so does the definitions.
@@anik.09 Do you think having a guru is necessary also to feel less lonely during the "path"? Because it seems to me that there are many moments in which we feel lost and lonely and at the same time we keep deciding to focus on the presence in us (like we know that life starts from us and then expands from us to the world around).
Describe a telephone to someone who's never encountered one without becoming bogged down in minutea....this is where Zizek appears to be longwinded but in reality is giving us a thorough explanation so we can fully understand the subject, he cannot be faulted for his explanations & sharing of views as he sees it. But in the end it's only his analysis of the subject. As with all questions involving religious beliefs there inevitably comes a point when we now know that we ( at least in this life) that we will never know.
The criticism on the concept of bodhisattvas, and the idea of upaya, where one attain enlightenment via ways other than meditation, are generally Mahayana Buddhist traditions.
@@tudorscutariu1012 i think enlightenment is about the relationship you have with the contents of your life...the people, places, things and adversities. So is it really beyond our grasp, or is it available to all, at any moment?
@@5hydroxyT I think it is not so easy and it takes time to recognize the beauty of life in every moment and with every object of attention. But in my experience with meditation everything sounds somewhat more beautiful. I think sometimes it seems not so easy to grasp entirely the beauty of the present moment. But it can be done with practice. I have to be kind and gentle with people because if I say that it is easy to grasp the beauty then in some way it seems falsified if it doesn't happen to me first. So I believe that sincerity is what truly matters, especially when someone comes to us for advice and just to listen. In our modern times it is very easy to find motivating discourses but in my experience they are not the solution if we don't find the beauty in ourselves first and then check also with others experiences. I don't think that enlightenment is beyond grasp. What would that mean? 🤔 Maybe enlightenment could be believed to be some magical experience but I don't think so. Life is more simple than mystical experiences that I cannot say some people haven't experienced but we should believe in our experience first. Because in the other case we are depending too much on the words of someone we consider more than us. And that is not true.
He is absolutly right here. Buddhism can be understood as neurological and psychological change acquired by the practice of meditation. That's why it's so hard to get. But that shift says nothing about ethics. You could get enlightned and want to share that to others. But you could also not. You could be highly greatfull for your new life without pyschological suffering. But you could also use that to egotistically live without caring for the world crumbling aroung you. It really depends on the person. The ethics of buddhism come almost out of nowhere.
I'd argue it not only deppends on the person, but on the environment at large. Part of why buddhist teachings have become so populars in the west is because they adapt very well to an individualistic point of view; since they are largely void of ideology that contains an analisis of reality or 5the circumstances that condition human existance under the premise that those simply do not really exist. It is no wonder then that buddhism tends to be very appealing to power-hungry people that live somehow in willingful denial of how nurture and culture shapes them and the world around them.
The foundation of all spiritual life is morality and ethics. Without it spiritual life becomes impossible. Buddhism starts with the five precepts and the eight fold noble path. If we don't adhere to the five precepts, and fail to grasp right view, right speech etc, we will be confronted with our actions and thoughts during the meditation, but if we follow the precepts and the eight fold noble path, our toxic ego desires begin to dissolve, and we become more helpful, kind and generous. This is a natural consequence of following the precepts and the path
@@Purwapadayea, he did, and we should call that Nagarjunaism. The Buddha spent 45 years teaching the path to nibbana, for some heretical scholar to intellectualise his teachings and say: "no, no, no, the Buddha ACTUALLY means that samsara and nirvana are the same...." Sure buddy. Mahayana is Maras worse trick of all to keep all beings bounded to samsara. Foolish undiscerning "buddhists", that have all these worldly attachments and want to be buddhist but don't want to renounce the world, follow this sort of philosophy. Because if samsara and nirvana are the same, what's the point! The pleasure of sex is empty, the peace of detachment is also empty, I take sex! The failure to accept that the first true buddhists were renunciants does not give you the right to warp and distort the teachings to your perverted desires.
@@rohlay00 Ok Theravadika you can velieve that but you dont not demonstrate a good understanding. Emptiness has nothing to do with being attached to carnality.
Does anyone know how the name of the japanese scholar (zizek friend that he mentions at the end of the video) is written ? Or does anyone know the buddhist school which holds that nirvana is about "falling into the world" rather than keeping distance from the world (as zizek put it)?
The leftist scholar Zizek refers to all the way at the end is Kojin Karatani, who claims Nirvana is not about maintaining an inner distance, but falling fully into the world. In Mahayana Buddhism, a bodhisattva is a person who is able to reach nirvana but delays doing so out of compassion in order to save suffering beings. The other name drop here is D. T. Suzuki.
"The ethics we need" by "falling fully into the world"? In Nirwana we would "have" nothing, then. So what we "need" would be open. What would it be? How would we get a codification of our ethics, knowing that the question of right and wrong can't be the case any more, at least can't be an objectively judgable case any more. I can imagine that, but can you organize it? How?
His (Dr. Z) is a very common western misunderstanding of Buddhism. Suffering is a problem for many people, but the first of the four noble truths is that suffering exists, and that it therefor has an end, just as it must therefore have a beginning. Acceptance of these is how we move from somewhere else other than the suffering we experience, which can feel suffocating. Where is that somewhere else? The experience (feeling) that there not only suffering. This is to say that there are the five aggregates, and that these arise together to make up the human being, yet the human being is not these in totality, but that which also guides these. Therefore to choose to accept what is taking place is to guide the five aggregates in freedom of movment which is not present when we are stuck in the act of suffering.
I think he's critiquing western Buddhism, or "mindfulness Buddhism," that suggests that mere existence in the present leads to inner peace and the lessening of suffering. The belief system's centering around "peace" can translate into mere hedonism. As such, this creates the paradox of a "mindful murderer," a person who is at peace and acting in the present while doing horrible things (he discusses this). As a westerner, I obviously haven't experienced Buddhism in the east, but I do know that the acceptance of pain and lessening the suffering of other feature more prominently.
This is a paradox when you see presence (as western culture intends it) with just knowing something about your life in a certain moment. But, enlightment is something more I would argue. I think we misunderstand the ethics behind the term "presence". Why would someone decide that knowing your life is something good to do? Maybe because only if I pay attention to my own "stories", I have the opportunity to acknowledge my values (which are dominant feelings/sensations), then comparing them with "external" ones (when I listen to someone, when I read a book), then seeing similarities between mines and others values and from that deriving some "compassionate" behaviour. Peace is not an hedonic term, is more like knowing that our values count, and they are what makes us humans, I think it is a sense of belonging, which is the contrary of loneliness but at the same one has to be alone to gain familiarity with one's toughts and feelings. In short, knowing our toughts and sensations --> giving values --> ackowledge others similar values --> compassion.
Bhuddism is like a bagage that you carry within, when you have filled it with karma or materialism it becomes heavy, when your body eventually tells you to empty your bagage, it is because it became too heavy for the body and the spirit to carry. The moment you have no choice but to listen to your inner voice, you must empty it, then you are enlightening yourself of it's heavyness. Heavyness creates suffering for body, mind and spirit
His hero hegel was secretly inspired by ancient Indian vendanta. Nirvana isn't reached by meditating. If you meditate to get something from it you're already considering the future and thus missing the point. Point is a fine word too incidentally.
According to the suttas, reaching Nibbana can only happen through practicing Dhamma. "Bhavana" or "cultivation" (unfortunately translated as "meditation) is essential. Understanding the stillness of the mind happens through experiencing that stillness and knowing what lead to it. We can't learn how to swim unless we get in the water.
Nirvana is annihilation of ego self ...In advaita vedanta atma is the end reality which can be achieved by annihilation of jivatma or ego centred identity....
Meditation is not a state, is not a moment of bliss. It is very different. A state of bliss is temporary, but knowing our own most dominant toughts and feelings, this leads to values, the values can be then comparable with other people's values, then a sense of belonging can derive from knowing the similarities of our values and others ones. But we have to familiarize with our owns toughts and feelings first. Which is another way to call meditation.
the boddhisatva by rejecting nirvana is able to mantain it... the form is the void, the void is the form. boddhisatva is an innovation of mahayana buddhist ideas (i am completely iliterato on buddhist lit)but in the end achieves the same result.
Based on the Early Buddhist Texts, one cannot opt-out once one has reached Nibbana. The fuel that led to rebirth has been ended. In the same way that a flame cannot continue to burn when it has no fuel, the cause of rebirth has been ended and an "arahant" a fully enlightened one, cannot be reborn. It's over.
i loved this guy when i first discovered him because of his delivery (i guess i never had a deep reason to enjoy his talks) but more and more the nose thing... what is the problems of his nose touching? i will look up that video
I don't understand how he come to this conclusion. Bhuddhism is trying to solve the suffering. Answer is No. Bhuddhism teaches that the cycle of birth and death is suffering. For to believe that you need to believe the theory called punarjanma, ,Karma, and the eternity of Atman. Atman always exists.
THank u for uploadiing with better audio ! bveen looking for ZIzek takes on Buddhism, specially the west version that emphasises detachment and inpotence
I see that the comment section is much more prepared than Zizek, mostly experts😊... Buddhism leaves too much room for the free interpretations of which we Westerners make the following use; a little meditation mostly to be physically fit, or if we've been to india, as soon as we get back we open a meditation center to pass on our incredible experience to others. I believe that if we did swimming as consistently as we do yoga and meditation classes it would be much more beneficial. Having an orderly life, a routine, discipline, good physical health, clinging to the certainties that a regular life offers, an order to submit the chaos we carry within. All this has nothing to do with spirituality.
there were multiple major Buddhism reform in history, just like there are many versions of Bible for Jesus. you just quoted japanese one for reference. that's really authentic work there
Meditation doesn't have a defined outcome. It isn't like a regulated course of action, such as a ritual or recommended behaviour. It may change how you see things, but not in a pre-ordained way. We unfortunately have concepts about 'enlightenment', that get in the way of our actual experience.
Most of Zizek's critique is conflating 'Buddhism' with its late distortions. In the true Dharma, a fully enlightened being (an Arahant) has no desire to kill. Those Chinese who considered Pol Pot enlightened did not understand the Dharma though they may have called themselves Buddhists. A serious Buddhist abides by the five precepts (the first of which is abstention from all killing). D.T. Suzuki was a talented essayist, but his remarks about the 'sword' doing the killing were largely due to his entanglement with 20th century Imperial Japan; he (and a sizeable portion of Zen sects) made irresponsible remarks that he later apologized for.
The first words of this talk shows the problem with analyzing something outside your understanding. The Buddha was concerned with transcendence of suffering, to not want it is to grasp it and lose sight of the core of all Buddha’s teachings.
Buddhism doesn’t start with the problem of suffering, but with the problem of appearance and reality. Happiness, however you can conceive of it, is very much within a fictionality.
On the first point, I agree but for a different reason. The lack of morals and ethics in Buddhism, IMO, comes from the Buddhist meditation practice out of the Mahayana tradition. This teaching appeals to Westerners in particular because of its elite snobbery entitlement. Mahayana Buddhism calls itself the higher vehicle and Hinayana Buddhism the lower vehicle. Hinayana Buddhism, btw, does not recognize Mahayana Buddhism. Westerners secretly like practicing something that is considered "higher" by persons in positions of authority but they also want a payout for their efforts. They put in 10,000 hours of Buddhist meditation so they deserve [fill in the blank]. On his second point, I get what he's saying about falling into society as a Bodhisattva. However, the Bodhisattva is slave work. The notion is that as an enlightened Bodhisattva, after you die you must come back here to preach the Dharma to maintain your Bodhisattva status. If you decide to retreat you relinquish that status. Whether or not he is aware of it, Zizek is promoting slavery. Getting everyone to be a Bodhisattva is not going to change the world to make it a better place because from the start the tradition looks down on a segment of Buddhists as inferior, which extends out to other identity politics. It solidifies the first point that Mahayana Buddhism lacks morals and ethics. If taken from a historical perspective, Buddhism was a reaction to the caste system of Hinduism.
Detachment, Nirvana, Meditation, escaping suffering, transcending karma (??what?)? Zen Buddhism isn’t all buddhism. There are so many types of buddhism that I would argue it doesn’t really do anything to critique just buddhism. This comes across as so naive.
He's off already from the very beginning. People definitely do NOT want to suffer. Any glance at a young child or old person will easily tell you this. People suffer because they have no choice, not because they want to. Also, I'm not sure he knows the Buddhist definition of suffering. Suffering for a Buddhist is yes death and disease, but it's also feeling too hot, you're tired, there's not enough money in your account, your knees hurt, they run out of your favorite coffee at the grocery store, you're not as attractive as you want to be, your boyfriend hurt your feelings, your feet hurt, you're hungry, you're waiting in line and you're annoyed, you have to poop, you don't want to do your homework, you have to work at a job you hate, your alarm clock jerks you out of bed, you wish you were taller, you have an obscene pimple, the traffic is horrible, etc. Suffering is a tiny thousand things constantly eating away at you every day until you die, interspersed with finite moments of joy and happiness. Suffering is the psychological running away from pain or annoyance or clinging to something that you think will give you some temporary releif from pain or annoyance. Buddhists are just being matter of fact. And for a Buddhist, the way to release that psychological suffering is to disattach the psychological story from that pain and just live in and accept the pain on its own merit without any additional psychological story that causes that extra suffering.
""What I find attractive in Western tradition - it's terribly politically incorrect what I'm saying now - in contrast to this [Buddhist[ idea: don't get involved, maintain an inner distance.... isn't the entire western ethics - starting with Plato - entirely an ethics of falling into? Opening yourself to an encounter. Our western love is not this peaceful Buddhist smile - it's out there. It's something, and you fall fully into it." I want to put this quote over a picture of Jordan Peterson, and see if anyone will notice that something is amiss.
To me the problem of Buddhism is that it takes too much to understand and shift your vision in a practical manner. I feel like it can be achieved and explained in much simpler ways.
Im curious, ive never thought of it like that. Can you give me an example of a buddhist idea that and its simpler counterpart? context i grew up buddhist but was never really a practitioner or anything and i feel its pretty simple in its explanations.
@@RaiderNation126 1.(go with the flow) let go , everytime something bad or good happens, dont attach to it , enjoy it or cry about it , feel the emotions coming in and then turn a new leaf when times passes and the natural process is to keep going. 2.(respect all nature)dont harm any creature, either animals or human , this means to respect everysingle life because every life is important, this can mean for some buddhist to eat meat is okey because somepeople cannot live without meat, their bodies are not capable of eating just veggies. But never hurt an animal more than it should. Hunting for survival is okey, but hunting for fun its extremely not okey. 3.(people who hurt other, they hurt themselves) never lie , manipulate, hurt , use , deceive, insult anyone not even your worst enemies. People who hurt others are recentful and they are only creating more evil , they are inviting evil into their bodies. You should always follow a sensation of inner peace or seek that peace that allows you to let everyone do what they want without you getting attach to the evil deeds or too involved into it. Instead teach them the correct way if you can , teach them how to be a better person, a moral person, a peaceful and happier person. 4. (You are your temple)seek greater knowledge, a powerful body, a peaceful mind, a more empathic heart, an spontaneous life , intense feelings and emotion , all for the good of the universe. And enjoy the process because only by wanting all those and seeking it you are already in a correct path. I created this manual based on my upbringing (a loving family), the buddhist theory and the christian religion among other things, there is more but this is enough for a start
We had a horrible experience with a "Buddhist" neighbour. The worst thing I ever did was talk to the woman..... I honestly thought she was a nice person. Couldn't have been more wrong. FIRST RED FLAG: She said I got cancer because I was evil in a past life or was being punished for something. Honestly what kind of rubbish is that ?? I suppose the children in hospital are being punished too...??? 🤨 SECOND RED FLAG: Soon after learning I was going through treatment she began to do strange things like every time we were in our yard or had people over she would get out the sage and gong her bowl whilst walking around chanting some buddhist nonsense (very loudly) THIRD RED FLAG: She set off our smoke alarms when we weren't home (actually out getting treatment) With sage over our fence...... lots of it. Massive amounts. It was all caught on our security cameras & our home absolutely stunk like crap, yet she denied it 😂 FOURTH RED FLAG: She salted our front yard on the property line to the point nothing would grow. This went on every day & night for just over a year then...... The hilarious outcome of all of this.......😂😂...... she got divorced & moved away because her husband cheated on her 😂 😂😂😂 I know I shouldn't laugh but I guess I wasn't the evil one after all
It feels like Žižek is discussing avatars and partial descriptions/understandings that are typically used to describe aspects of 'awakening'. I'm not saying he's fighting 'strawmen' , but perhaps pointing at them? And if the 'lesson' is that humans can justify harmful actions within any system, I'm not sure why this is pointed at Buddhism specifically. FYI - (as I understand it) Nirvana is not 'distance' . In specific there are discussions of the 'near enemy' of Equanimity being Indifference. What is called for is a Porous Heart, not a Teflon Heart.
1. The idea that one can attain Nibanna and then after the death of their body they can continue to be reborn is not what the early teachings of The Buddha taught. It was something that developed centuries later. And is not in line with what The Buddha taught. 2. The suttas make it clear, that after the fuel that keeps rebirth happening is ended, there is no choice of being reborn. In the same way, when the fuel of a flame ends, there can be no flame. 3. The suttas also make it clear that one who has reached Nibbana cannot intentionally kill. The causes that lead to one intentional killing are gone. - The desire to kill is weakened even earlier on because as one starts to see the effect doing harm has on the mind, the desire to kill, even insects starts to fade. 4. The Buddha made it clear that it is only through understanding that one becomes free of suffering. This cannot be done by taking specific chemicals. 5. It's not that happy states born of chemicals are "undeserved". It's that these states are "anicca" which can be translated as "impermanent/unreliable".
I'm happy that this man is thinking for himself, but my suggestion is that he should do more reading on the subject. And, of course, take an interest in the practice of mindfulness.
Questioning in buddhism is part of the practice. It's practiced by a school in tibet where monks argue opposite points to the learner. This is what what the buddha taught. If you look carefully at tge texts hecsays nit ti accept his teaching with any blind faith but test them with your own experiences. This is basis of buddhism you are missing. What is suffering?why do we suffer?- What is nirvana? Does it exist? hese are questions you have to answer yourself through your own experience.
Infact Meditation is the concept of sanatan AKA Hinduism buddha born in hindu family and Buddhist people claiming that meditation is their concept its sound funny fr 😂
Very dangerous advice I was listening from buddhist monk when girl was talking about violence from father and he advice that show him love and compassion that was very dangerous advice.Buddhism too need some changes if we want to implement in society
Never heard of the chemical way he mentions, after 30 years of texts in Sanskrit and Pali.... Goodness, confused mind, all over the place,how is Pol Pot thrown into the picture... Gosh...Basically, WTF
I am very surprised that a philosopher does not point out the flaws in Buddhism in the very notion of good or even what does right even mean? such as Right Understanding, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration... In religion, ethics, philosophy, and psychology "good and evil" is a very common dichotomy. In cultures with Manichaean and Abrahamic religious influence, evil is perceived as the dualistic antagonistic opposite of good, in which good should prevail and evil should be defeated. In cultures with Buddhist spiritual influence, both good and evil are perceived as part of an antagonistic duality that itself must be overcome through achieving Śūnyatā meaning emptiness in the sense of recognition of good and evil being two opposing principles but not a reality, emptying the duality of them, and achieving a oneness. In true rabbinic Judaism following strict monotheism there is no place for an opposing evil entity or force... that is dualism, a heresy that inflicted some of Judaism since the fall of the temple when some were banished to Babylon. After the Babylonian exile, the Jews lived amongst the Persians in relative tolerance. At this time, the dominant religion of the Persians was Zoroastrianism, a monotheistic religion with a single, evil antithesis. some where were exposed to Zoroastrianism with its dualistic influence, a heresy that rabbis spend centuries trying to stamp out of Judaism. In Judaism, evil is per se not part of God's creation, but comes into existence through man's bad actions. Rabbinical scholarship on the Book of Job generally follows the Talmud and Maimonides in identifying "the satan" from the prologue as a metaphor for the yetzer hara (humankind's inclination the yetzer hara is the congenital inclination to violate the will of God, thus do "wrong") and not an actual entity. There are no references in the Hebrew Testament to Satan as an independent agent. In Reform Judaism, Satan is generally seen in his Talmudic role as a metaphor for the yetzer hara and the symbolic representation of innate human qualities such as selfishness. However the famous legend in Buddhism Who tempted the Buddha? In the course of his meditations, the Buddha was tempted by the demon Mara. Mara sent his armies, various temptations, and finally (as depicted here) a challenge that the Buddha must defend his claim of enlightenment. The Buddha touched the earth, and called the earth to witness his achievement. But referring to the binary nature argument for the existence of evil (ie. evil must exist for good to exist) or that God, as omnipotent, has no reason to require this restriction. He could create good and evil as he desires, including making them both fundamentally the same thing - as in the mobius strip there is no fundamental basis for good or bad other than Karma saying that there is consequences but what magic force keep that balance going or keep it in check? In Western philosophy particularly in Pyrrhonism which holds that good and evil do not exist by nature, meaning that good and evil do not exist within the things themselves. All judgments of good and evil are relative to the one doing the judging or Benedict de Spinoza By good, we understand that which we certainly know is useful to us, by evil, on the contrary I understand that which we certainly know hinders us from possessing anything that is good. Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil and On the Genealogy of Morals he states that the natural, functional, "non-good" has been socially transformed into the religious concept of evil by the "slave mentality" of the masses, who resent their "masters", the strong. He also critiques morality by saying that many who consider themselves to be moral are simply acting out of cowardice - wanting to do evil but afraid of the repercussions.
If you want to criticize "Buddhism," you should try to criticize what is common to the different schools of Buddhism, the central teaching. The schools of Buddhism don't have a monolithic body of doctrine, except for the Four Noble Truths. Zizek's critique creates a "Buddhism" that doesn't exist and is directed at the doctrines of sub-schools that often conflict with the teachings of other schools.
Buddha's teachings are full of paradoxes. Ethics, mediation and the rest are simply means to attaining the view. If one analyses the Buddha's teachings without a good understanding of the view, then it becomes really difficult to move forward. The view in Buddhism is stated in the Heart Sutra. The view is that of Sunyata. Even now as I try to point out the view I'm enacting a paradox. The middle way isn't something one can just pick up and understand, nor is it something that can just be explained to others. Genuine dedication and hardwork is required, but even then such is this self's habit, we might not see anything.
To be a moral agent you need to get an equal stance with other agents in the world. You need neither disassociate, neither fall fully. You need to be adequate human with proper perception. The sin that consults philosophy is from the elites to the ruled and from the ruled to the elites. Ones disassociate, the other fall and crash hard. But right, an excess creates counter-excess.
I hear this argument but I have to say that Buddhism provides for ethics in teachings of Sìla. The eightfold path is morality directive. I may not sit for meditation for the prescribed 2 hours a day but my whole life is oriented to observe Sìla. Buddhism in its essence is a philosophy and members of the sangha know this. Of course, the mcmindfullness practioners negate the ethics of Buddhism while clinging and profiting from 'inner peace' rhetoric. Not surprising that this westernised, orientalism perspective of Buddhism is the basis of such arguments
The experiential basis of enlightenment must, I think, be twofold: there is the transformative perspectival shift in which one crashes through the self-illusion into the world, and also the cognitive toolkit that allows one to remain there, beyond the self-illusion, while engaging mindfully with the all. It may be that this toolkit can only be developed through mindful practice, and it is certainly the case that no toolkit is ever complete. Awakening is not the end of knowledge; it is a new beginning. A substance-awakening (as opposed to a practised-awakening) consists of (primarily) the first of the twofold attributes. One may find the perspective, but what is kept is only a dream, a faded imprint. Without the training alongside, one still lacks the internal toolkit necessary to mindfully engage in the world beyond the self-illusion. This is why, despite the stories you hear, more often the substance-based recontextualisation of a life only goes so far. Either it only informs a life for some months, and soon one is either more or less back to their old ways, or one finds a new way riddled with unresolved knowledge (at least from my perspective of those who have taken DMT/Ayahuasca). What do we say to this? That it is possible for one to become awakened for just a half hour, a week, a season? Or that one attains true awakening only insofar as they are tested by life and maintain their radiant composure? Of those cases where a sustained toolkit is indeed generated alongside the perspectival shift, I am sceptical. P.S. The Buddha believed that all life has inherent value because all life has the potential for awakening and exists both in and as oneness. Victor Frankl celebrated man's final freedom, that which cannot be taken: one's ability to choose their perspective, regardless of circumstance. Whatever your faith or lack thereof, please remember: life comes from you, not at you. Peace to all!
I think understanting spirituality is very simple. We have to acknowledge our toughts and feelings, which then become values which can be comparable with others values, so a sense of belonging, maybe a purpose comes. This knowing is opposite to loneliness, but we have to spend time alone to gain familiarity with our own internal states of mind. So enlightment is not just a state of bliss. And who promotes that, maybe that is because is simple to exert power over who is depending on what we say intead of knowing firstly what He/She values and then comparing what we (businessman) say with what He/She values.
Dukkha ~ Suffering is just a very superficial translation of the Sanskrit term. Best described as frustration or underlying sense of frustration. And yes - man doesn't escape suffering, more is it part and parcel of the collective identity, justifying the narrative of "fight for survival". We suffer, so we have to fight for our share of happiness (self-improvement disciplines). Not seeing that precisely this strife for the better is increasing Dukkha to the max. Is perpetuating the very thing which is supposed to be overcome (some day !). Sorry I don't chave time now to develop this further ~
We have to distinguish Hinayana from Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism. Also the Western abominations of Buddhism are something totally different. Zen or Chan Buddhism are again something different. We cannot generalize these strands without becoming more vulgar and superficial. Also, in Chinese communism there is the notion of (economic) liberation and the notion of (political) "turning around" or fanshen or awakening. But the CPC lacks the Buddhist notion of spiritual liberation or awakening. But there is the attempt to integrate Buddhism into communism. A highly liberating endeavour.
I find it interesting, that Zizek calls buddhism too "optimistic". In my humble understanding, concept like emptiness can be confused with nihilism. And then there is the world view that life is suffering, because nothing is permanent and there is no "essence" of things. EDIT: does anyone know of which substance zizek is talking about, that can help you reach nirvana?
@@Patrusfarr But the problem with these states is that they are "impermanent/unreliable". Nibbana comes through understanding. It is a gradual process. If the unskillful tendencies in the mind have not been uprooted, then one will not be free from suffering. I don't think chemical reactions in the brain can completely uproot mental tendencies that we've had since birth (or since previous lives, if rebirth does exist.)
Who has problems with Buddhism? :) Problems in Buddhism as perceived by who? From what angle... The narative falls apart, if it is there at all. Buddhism is about massive intellectual clarity which is definitely lacking here.
Zizek got it all wrong, it seems:
1. Buddhists don't want to get rid of suffering as such. Suffering is a part of living and cannot be avoided. However, the reaction to suffering can be controlled and mastered through detachment from suffering.
2. Meditation is mindfulness, which is being present in the moment. It's the awareness of being aware, and paying attention to what you are paying attention to, and attached to in fact. The realization that all phenomena are without inherent essence, also called Sunyata, is a transforming factor. Therefore, meditation is not only an exercise but it becomes a way of everyday living eventually.
3. The enlightened bodhisattva knows that Nirvana and Samsara are fundamentally one and the same reality. Driven by compassion, bodhisattvas tend to help others naturally and joyfully, so there is no going back and forth between Nirvana and Samsara, i.e. the illusory world. Obviously, Zizek doesn't understand this point.
4. There is no such thing as a compassionate war in Buddhism.
5. No, you can't reach Nirvana through drugs. This is heresy, so to say.
6. Nirvana is NOT a state of permanent happiness as Zizek pretends. Nirvana is the ultimate realization that all phenomena, including the self, are empty, lacking inherent essence, being transient and interdependent. The enlightened person lives an ordinary life in an extraordinary way due to their ability to remain detached effortlessly. They know that everything is empty, including the idea of emptiness itself. It's psychological rather than intellectual.
7. Morality in Buddhism is natural kindness and compassion. However, they do not suppress spontaneity and the instinct of self-preservation or self-defense. The enlightened person doesn't have the intention to kill or harm anyone, including oneself.
8. The middle way in Buddhism is the relinquishing of all views and all extremes, including the ideas of fall and retreat. The enlightened, cultivating a mushin mind, is fully involved in the ordinary world and life in an extraordinary way, that is completely detached and yet completely caring and kind.
The only problem in Buddhism, in my opinion at least, is that you cannot possibly understand, let alone criticize Buddhism fairly enough unless you have actually practiced Buddhism for years and even decades. It's because mostly all the essence of Buddhism is psychological and experiential rather than philosophical or intellectual.
Maybe because we are not familiar with that way of explaining things. I think meditation brings culture to the world intsead of pretending to destroy it, like nazis with books. In speding time doing nothing "except paying attention to one's toughts and feelings one has the opportunity to familiarize with them. With time they become values, values can be compared with others values (though reading, listening to someone's words, arts etc). This knowing of similarities between my values and others brings a sense of belonging (peace), which brings "compassionate" actions and behaviours. So there's no an end (nirvana) to this process. It is a lifetime enrichment.
maybe these are 'his problems based on his understanding' should be the title, i agree tho i didnt get far in the video because the first point in your reply was my exact thought, appreciate the breakdown i enjoyed your comment to help me learn more
Well it is possible to "get it" at a very young age even while you have absolutely no idea of buddhism or anything. Later in life one might piece everything together but if you have no interest in teaching, no one will know. You just live a peaceful and maybe a little more creative life than average.
thanks for the essay Chat GPT!
@@Nostalgiator we will never know😂 fuck AI
Misrepresentation. ZIZEK sets up 'strawman' version of buddhism then attempts to knock down this false version.
agreed
I'd suggest that a key point here is perhaps that western translations of Buddhist concepts are clumsy, or at least take them to a too general, too broad level, and mislead; perhaps based on a tendency in western culture to push all responsiblity onto the individual for themself in order to avoid the incovenient reality that we are actually interdependent and therefore also responsible for each other, and even to some extent for each other's behaviour. 'Compassion', as we know, is also a key concept in Buddhism. I think there are different types of 'suffering'. The point to start is maybe the concept of 'attachment'. Westerners use that word, but maybe a better translation would be 'ego attachment', though maybe also clumsy in itself (but not nearly as overgeneralised as 'attachment'), from this the word 'desire', that which we also supposedly need to be rid of, could maybe be translated as 'ego-based desire' or 'non-fluid desire', and then, going further from that, 'suffering' is also not really a thing that Buddhism claims we should or can free ourselves of, but it is a kind of 'self-created suffering', 'ego-based suffering', 'solipsistic suffering' or something that we can and should liberate ourselves from, while all the same in a broader sense we always inevitably will suffer. Even, in fact, the 'ego-based suffering' is a kind of suffering that we do to avoid real suffering, the more fluid, direct, authentic kind of suffering. That means, in fact, that Buddhism is challenging us to face up to and accept the real suffering, and therefore to 'suffer' more, but 'ego suffer' less. The story of Christ's murder, in fact, is maybe another example of an expression of this idea in world traditions; staying true to a deeper self, and suffering because of it, but actually not suffering in a maybe worse, or 'more eternal' way, as a result of accepting authentic suffering. In short there should be better, more precise, narrower meanings used than conveyed by the words we use for suffering and its causes; i.e. 'suffering', 'attachment' and 'desire'. Maybe even 'compassion' is not the best translation. it's about false desire, false attachment, and a certain type of avoidable and ego-generated suffering. This all makes our squabbles with these concepts as we understand them broadly with these poorly matching words irrelevant, because the words we use are too broad, and we're missing the narrower meanings originally conceived. People kind of end up trying to be unfeeling via this misunderstanding, when I think what is being asked is the exact opposite.
Great analysis. Jesus is a perfect example.
Excellent analysis. I'd like to add that I've always thought a better word than "suffering", is "dissatisfaction".
Good try !!!
this is a keen observation but as with most things buddhism isnt a monolithic tradition so any characterisation of buddhism as one thing will inevitably be an overgeneralisation too
From my experience, dukkha is more like discomfort or something which just isn't pleasurable in any form.
This man is badly in need of meditation.. . He seems so anxious 😅
Mediation and specifically CBT and Mindfulness has changed my life. I suffered from anger management and eating disorder (bulimia). CBT and Mindfulness Mediation has helped me and now recognize my anger coming and mange and I no longer suffer my eating disorder.
Almost none of the actual Asian Buddhists have read any of this philosophical stuff. For them, Buddhism consists of temples, rituals and shamanic practices. Buddhism for them, is simply native folk religion (paganism).
Literally gets the first point of Buddhism wrong.
I could barely make it past that point.
It is complicated for me to understand that someone intelligent thinks they can understand buddhism by only reading three books. And then starting off the wrong premise
@@marryinchains Yeah...DT Suzuki? He might as well have quoted Alan Watts or Madame Blavatsky.
Yes that's what I thought too. It's very difficult for us westerners to really get a grasp on eastern religions/philosophies. I try to be very humble and admit I don't really know what I'm talking about, but I try to be as accurate as I can.
This dude should read more about Dzogchen. A book by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu might inform him more about the things he is talking about.
1) Suffering is just one of the entry gates to Buddhism.
2) Nirvana is not an exotic experience. So you don't have to go somewhere higher it is the pure state of mind corrupted by society over generations.
3) Every human is capable of compassion and the more we meditate the more empathy we have. With enough compassion we can dissolve situations that lead to war.
4) There is no ethics in meditation. Buddha believes in nothing. Nothingness cannot lead to delusion.
5) Animity is a state of mutual victimhood.
6) Morals are for those who want the status quo of society. Buddhism is the status quo of pure consciousness. That may or may not be congruent with social construct of morals.
7) Inner peace is an answer to a person's life. Collective life can or cannot be derived from those answers depending upon the practitioner's accepted role in society. It's very hardly known and even less after one is done with living inside the society.
8) Plato can be called an equivalent of Buddha but in his own way. His ideas demand as much of self-dissolution as Buddhism. Buddhism is vigorious self-discovery. Plato is grounded on excellence of the actions which lead to a better world. However, he provides much less psychological methods worth execution.
Towards the end of the video, Zizek makes an important point, calling this phenomena a kind of "false Buddhism" thats being adopted... that an authentic practitioner he knows made a similar point to one he's making now.
There's no great fight here.
Traditional Theravadn (Vipassana) Buddhism is rich in ethical teaching. As does Zen, and Vajrayana (Tibetans). There are explicit ethical guidelines called precepts, and, and all sorts of explicit ethical instruction (called sutras or suttas). In many schools these are chanted regularly or you take public vows, or have regular discussion on ethics. It's a HUGE part of these schools and traditions. I mean, anyone who has attended a Zen retreat knows how there are "forms" for everything you do, from washing dishes, to serving food, to walking in and out of the temple - these forms are, in part, to help align you with proper ethical behavior (Right relationship with water, with food, with one another, with teacher, and so on). It's so intense it turns off many casual dabblers.
The insight that Zizek is bringing forward here (maybe a little unnecessarily framed in the context of debate or intellectualizing), I have heard many many serious practioners, from many traditions echo. The way these Great schools and technologies have been stripped down and made into something like "mindfulness" or "Buddhism for dummies" has been a real consequence of the transplantation to the west. However, Zizek (and readers) should not be too dismayed - there are also so many sincere, all-in, practitioners and Buddhist paths out there that rise to a level of excellence on the points Zizek is bringing forward.
The more stripped down forms of Buddhism however can act as doorways into more serious practice. And even if they don't, wouldn't you say they can be beneficial to know even at that basic level?
@@kisukehatake210 Hmm you seem sus. what serious practice? pls elaborate. All striped down version of religion, are prone to misinterpretation, therefore misguiding it's practicioner. Take the SWASTIKA symbol for example...you know where I'm going with this. Without PROPER discernment, a stripped down religious concept can be used by cult leader to disastrous effect.
@@faithhopecharity2843 I’m not sure what you mean. Sure they can be misused but concepts like mindfulness are often incorporated or applied in mental health models to generally positive affect. And they could be a doorway into more serious forms of meditation practice is what I mean i.e. the user may research Buddhism and decide they like it. Also there are meditative practices stripped of the religious element because meditation isn’t a purely religious act. Js
@@kisukehatake210 Yes. I see what you mean. I agree meditative practice is not purely religious, because in modern world meditation has entered the domain of science also (neuroscience, psychology, etc). But if you trace it's roots, meditative practice reserved only for certain group of people committing their life to certain principles like gods, kings, etc. Therefore they used it often as a form of worship.
For example original Indian yoga has certain gods attributed to each movements, which means the movement reflect something about the Indian gods (form of worship). But in modern world, those gods are now stripped from the movement, people only doing it mainly for breath practice & body flexibility. So back to your statement about "serious practice", I think the original form of Yoga is more serious than the modern form, because not only you gain physical & mental exercise, but also a spiritual advantages (worship of gods, for the Hindus). So it is a more complete package than the modern version (which only for the physical, mental & the $$$$$ benefits for the studio owner).
So modern version of Yoga has lost their original intention. And as I said above, stripped down religious concept can be used by cult leader (or businessman) to disastrous effects. In this case, the effects may not be disastrous, but it has the potential to be misused by irresponsible people for their own benefits.
@@kisukehatake210 yes, and yes. But the benefit of mindfulness is incomparable to a true path of liberation. We are here now and there's no going back. Thus it's appropriate to emphasize the true path, and be clear that mindfulness can be a gateway, or a mere cherry on top of delusional activity. It's not a pathway of liberation and transformation inherently, theres no lineage and force of transmission, just cultural mish mash. There's no doubt though, that it can be helpful in big ways for people, and serve as a stepping stone.
Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Speech. These and other parts of the Noble Path both propel you to engage ethically with the world and also prevent you from harming others, if you truly follow it.
I have a problem with "When you are in Nirvana"... what does Zizek mean by "you"?
I don't think he understands the architecture of Buddhist consciousness. No mention of 'ego;... there's is NO 'you' in Nirvana.
I think you are right, but i myself find it really difficult to understand how one has to "dilute" oneself, leaving the self behind but on the other hand is reborn? Maybe you could help me with that, if you have an idea of what i am struggling with.
@@morrisw4284 on one hand, 'you' cannot kill your ego... on the other hand, your ego only relatively exists in relationship to everything else - it has no essential essence... what a bind! The ego and 'other' is one irreducible aspect of reality (dualism)... the other, is non-dual... the basic ground of consciousness - w/out quality, w/out beginning or end - this is the base experience of mind... the eternal REAL.. the basic idea is that actions stemming from your ego's self-centred impulses (desire, hatred, indifference) amplify suffering in your future egos. The good news is the simple, boring act of meditating (on ones out breadth) allows a gently 'letting go' of ego's attachment to thought and action... I kind of intervention on ego that uncover the basic non-dual aspect of reality and consciousness.
I'm not smart enough (patient enough?) to fully grasp Zizek's own framework of metaphysics - it's very difficult for me to follow on my own... perhaps you can explain? :)
@@juliangosper You described it quite nicely for me to understand (at least superficially it makes sense to me i guess, although i dont think i have grasped it for myself as well as you did). Sadly i only watch youtube videos and have never read any primary literatur from zizek himself, so i can not help you with his fundamental truths or metaphysics. But i know he basis a lot of his ideas on Hegel´s philosophy so maybe looking into that will help you?
@@morrisw4284 great advice - I'm inspired by Zizek to dig into Hegel.
I really like Z's style but I do wish he had more material like "A Pervert's Guide to Cinema" which really helps explain his ideas through easily grasped analogies!
@@juliangosper here’s a pretty good video on Zizek’s metaphysics: czcams.com/video/CpaKKKEkn8g/video.html
Zizek should talk to a buddhist scholar, because his knowing in this subject is superfitial. Buddha never said that life is suffering, he said life is Dukkha, wich is has much more complex meaning. Pol Pot was not a buddha, he was a psychopath. Bodhisattva is a concept of Mahayana Buddhism, not all traditions in buddhism accept this concept.
Yes, absolutely. There is no real understanding there, the whole lecture is pointless imo, in a category "I wan't to talk, I'm clever". Very typical, when western scholars talk about non-dual related stuff. Jung and few others being the exceptions.
Also, one should have the courtesy of blowing one's nose _before_ giving a lecture.
@@pete_k I agree with your point. I want to ask you, what you mean by non-duality?
@@tudorscutariu1012 expecting someone to explain such thing in a YT comment is a bit too much! Do your own investigation, do not trust stragers' comments.
Anyway, maybe I should have chosen my words more carefully, as the word non-dualism is typically associated with hindu tradition Advaita vedanta. It is not perhaps the 1st word that comes to mind for describing buddhism. But in a way the term is related to both religions, which share many principles and have common roots.
@@pete_k But in your opinion, from your experience, what does this term mean? I have my doubts around this term, like how knowing that I exist would make me feel at peace? I've been meditating for a few years and till now I felt lonely many times, also when I was meditating. But in recent times I view meditation as a way to familiarize with my toughts and feelings. So my loneliness is now reduced because it seems to me that my meditation, brings me to familiarize with my toughts and feelings, and they then become values, which can be compared with other people's values and finally a sense of belonging may appear. But I don't know if this understanding is the enscripted in the word "englightment" or "non-duality".
@@tudorscutariu1012 you cannot expect me to become your online teacher. I am not a teacher. There are plenty of good teachers available, and this term is explained in countless web pages.
(Also, who knows, maybe you are in a point of life, where you should just deal with some psychological issues, and forget about meditation etc for a while? Random 'spiritual' advice may harm you as likely as help, if there is no real teacher-pupil interaction.)
I've never seen someone misunderstand something as much as this man misunderstands Buddhism.
Why do you think he is misunderstanding it, if may I ask?
Tell me your a theravadin without telling me your one.
I'm wondering if you watched the presentation to the end. He looks at different perceptions of nirvana, as a place of ascencion, distancing oneself from the world completely, opposed to loosing oneself completely by removing any distance between "self" and the "world".
@@minimal3734 I agree with you on that. But how is "knowing I'm living" affecting my wellbeing? How is this translating in removing loneliness?
@@tudorscutariu1012 Right off the bat the word "dukkha"... it's a bit more nuanced than "suffering".
3 mins in and I already found so much I disagree with Zizek's argument.
you made it 3 min, i did not, but i appreciate this being available for others
I observe that most westerners, including Zizek, it seems, approach Buddhism from a shallow place. I encourage anyone who really wants to deepen their own life to check out Buddhism on its own terms. I personally love Thich Naht Hanh. Buddhism is an ocean.
Why don't you personally love the fucking actual scriptures?
...
I agree with you altough I don't know so much about the ethics behind budhism. I am more familiar with meditation, and I think that the people who don't have this familiarity, they don't really understand that their entire life is in accordance with their predominant toughts and feelings (or also called stories, gods, values). If we recognize that, we can then make better choices.
He looks at different perceptions of nirvana, as a place of ascencion, distancing oneself from the world completely, opposed to loosing oneself completely by removing any distance between "self" and the "world". Why is that a shallow place?
Buddhism is shallow though.
@@tudorscutariu1012 ,
Lack of knowledge of ETHICS in Buddhism? Yikes, Tudor S.
Just study in depth the meaning of KARMA is a bitch. That is where Ethics stays hidden.
Wonderful in a terrifying sense.... 😆 l love Žižek
it is when I fall deeply into samsara that I found there is no one there,
and that the gate of nirvana is wide open and no one is in the way
I think Zizek is too in love with the complex process of intellectualizing the world to truly understand what Buddhism is in practice.
I think Buddhism and western philosophy are at the opposite. Western philosophy is COMPLETELY built upon ego.
czcams.com/video/lP4pMU7frQU/video.html
Zizek hardly understands anything (except from several languages, apparently); so it's hardly a surprise that he doesn't get Buddhism. What a Marxist doesn't understand, he just ridicules or condemns.
He shows at the end that he gets it.
Pure cope, please never write again.
Does anyone know whats the book that talks about the reality of Buddhism? 0:57
I'd love to someday visit the south Asian nation of Blabla.
Nobody invited
Most people getting peeved in the comment section consider themselves at peace with the Universe. Need it be reminded that Slavoj Zizek is part of the Universe?
Those that are peeved are also part of the Universe. You've simply wasted words on observing where we all are, when it was plain to anybody with eyes. Foolish.
Identifying as Buddhist doesn't mean you've made attainments. Also 'being at peace with the universe', whatever that means, was not mentioned by the Buddha to the best of my knowledge. You may have your Eastern philosophies mixed up. If you simply meant cultivating equanimity, it is encouraged but isn't the final goal (which in itself differs depending on the school or tradition). Even someone possessing this quality would still defend their faith from misinformation if they thought it was necessary. You're confusing equanimity with apathy.
@@desapole is being at peace really apathetic or is it acceptance? One can accept the world as dark while still working to improve it
@@johndough6225 That's the point I'm making. An accomplished Buddhist has cultivated equanimity, not apathy.
@@desapole i thought you were saying making peace with the world was apathetic as opposed to equanimous, sorry if i misunderstood
The problem with Buddhism is we are trying to understand it with the mind.
Spot on
Alan Watts:
The problem with Buddhism is .....
Clangggggggg
So dumb
This is too simple to say. What do you mean by that?
It focuses on the mind though.
Mahayana Buddhism which introduced this concept of Bodhisattva was probably done to make it more popular among the masses,so that people wouldn't be left alone in their path to salvation, which i believe is a necessity to achieve emancipation.
Being alone is scary right? But at the same time being alone is a necessity for me as a human to familiarize with my own stories. In this way I know what I value and then I can see this similarities also in other humans. This comprehension (of similarities of values between people) changes my perception around others.
@@tudorscutariu1012 In Hinduism there is a concept of handholding or awakening, particularly by a Guru. People might not be able to enlighten themselves by treading the path alone. So even great and venerated Indian Saints have had a guru. Mahayana Buddhism shares a lot with Hinduism. Mahayana Buddhism started using Sanskrit, the language of upper class, and particularly ' Brahmans'. More so, emancipation must not be seen as separated from religion that's why requires a guide. We have Moksha in Hinduism, Kaivalya in Jainism and similarly Nirvana in Buddhism
@@anik.09 oh, thank you, I have like some online models which I admire and they practice meditation. Should I consider them a guru or they must be constant in my real life.
@@tudorscutariu1012 You can obviously. But in general Guru is supposed to be a one to one thing. Like a teacher in your school. But as the world changes so does the definitions.
@@anik.09 Do you think having a guru is necessary also to feel less lonely during the "path"? Because it seems to me that there are many moments in which we feel lost and lonely and at the same time we keep deciding to focus on the presence in us (like we know that life starts from us and then expands from us to the world around).
When ego takes too much hold of you, Good stuff.
Zizek is been influenced by new age when he talk about buddhism
Describe a telephone to someone who's never encountered one without becoming bogged down in minutea....this is where Zizek appears to be longwinded but in reality is giving us a thorough explanation so we can fully understand the subject, he cannot be faulted for his explanations & sharing of views as he sees it. But in the end it's only his analysis of the subject. As with all questions involving religious beliefs there inevitably comes a point when we now know that we ( at least in this life) that we will never know.
The criticism on the concept of bodhisattvas, and the idea of upaya, where one attain enlightenment via ways other than meditation, are generally Mahayana Buddhist traditions.
“enlightenment is intimacy with all things” - Dogen
Where do you think this "knowing" comes from?
there is no knowing!
@@5hydroxyT so what this phrase represent?
@@tudorscutariu1012 i think enlightenment is about the relationship you have with the contents of your life...the people, places, things and adversities. So is it really beyond our grasp, or is it available to all, at any moment?
@@5hydroxyT I think it is not so easy and it takes time to recognize the beauty of life in every moment and with every object of attention. But in my experience with meditation everything sounds somewhat more beautiful. I think sometimes it seems not so easy to grasp entirely the beauty of the present moment. But it can be done with practice. I have to be kind and gentle with people because if I say that it is easy to grasp the beauty then in some way it seems falsified if it doesn't happen to me first. So I believe that sincerity is what truly matters, especially when someone comes to us for advice and just to listen. In our modern times it is very easy to find motivating discourses but in my experience they are not the solution if we don't find the beauty in ourselves first and then check also with others experiences. I don't think that enlightenment is beyond grasp. What would that mean? 🤔 Maybe enlightenment could be believed to be some magical experience but I don't think so. Life is more simple than mystical experiences that I cannot say some people haven't experienced but we should believe in our experience first. Because in the other case we are depending too much on the words of someone we consider more than us. And that is not true.
He is absolutly right here. Buddhism can be understood as neurological and psychological change acquired by the practice of meditation. That's why it's so hard to get. But that shift says nothing about ethics. You could get enlightned and want to share that to others. But you could also not. You could be highly greatfull for your new life without pyschological suffering. But you could also use that to egotistically live without caring for the world crumbling aroung you. It really depends on the person. The ethics of buddhism come almost out of nowhere.
I'd argue it not only deppends on the person, but on the environment at large. Part of why buddhist teachings have become so populars in the west is because they adapt very well to an individualistic point of view; since they are largely void of ideology that contains an analisis of reality or 5the circumstances that condition human existance under the premise that those simply do not really exist. It is no wonder then that buddhism tends to be very appealing to power-hungry people that live somehow in willingful denial of how nurture and culture shapes them and the world around them.
You, as many other people, are confusing ethics with politics. I suggest you working on that. Good luck.
The foundation of all spiritual life is morality and ethics. Without it spiritual life becomes impossible. Buddhism starts with the five precepts and the eight fold noble path. If we don't adhere to the five precepts, and fail to grasp right view, right speech etc, we will be confronted with our actions and thoughts during the meditation, but if we follow the precepts and the eight fold noble path, our toxic ego desires begin to dissolve, and we become more helpful, kind and generous. This is a natural consequence of following the precepts and the path
What is he saying that we need to do this for? I don’t understand what his goal is when he speaks about what we need
The ending proposal from Zizek is precisely what I find valuable in Zen and in Nagarajuna
Thanks for the share!
yes as nagarjuna said: 'nirvana is samsara'
@@Purwapadayea, he did, and we should call that Nagarjunaism.
The Buddha spent 45 years teaching the path to nibbana, for some heretical scholar to intellectualise his teachings and say: "no, no, no, the Buddha ACTUALLY means that samsara and nirvana are the same...." Sure buddy. Mahayana is Maras worse trick of all to keep all beings bounded to samsara. Foolish undiscerning "buddhists", that have all these worldly attachments and want to be buddhist but don't want to renounce the world, follow this sort of philosophy. Because if samsara and nirvana are the same, what's the point! The pleasure of sex is empty, the peace of detachment is also empty, I take sex!
The failure to accept that the first true buddhists were renunciants does not give you the right to warp and distort the teachings to your perverted desires.
@@rohlay00 Ok Theravadika you can velieve that but you dont not demonstrate a good understanding.
Emptiness has nothing to do with being attached to carnality.
Does anyone know how the name of the japanese scholar (zizek friend that he mentions at the end of the video) is written ?
Or does anyone know the buddhist school which holds that nirvana is about "falling into the world" rather than keeping distance from the world (as zizek put it)?
Kojin Karatani
The leftist scholar Zizek refers to all the way at the end is Kojin Karatani, who claims Nirvana is not about maintaining an inner distance, but falling fully into the world.
In Mahayana Buddhism, a bodhisattva is a person who is able to reach nirvana but delays doing so out of compassion in order to save suffering beings. The other name drop here is D. T. Suzuki.
Zizek is talking rubbish and quoting Rubbish.
What is the name of the talk? This appears to be a response to a question or an intervention that was supposed to be brief haha
He got the first premise wrong. Buddism doesnt claim the we want to rid us of suffering. Rather they claim suffering IS. It just is.
"The ethics we need" by "falling fully into the world"? In Nirwana we would "have" nothing, then. So what we "need" would be open. What would it be? How would we get a codification of our ethics, knowing that the question of right and wrong can't be the case any more, at least can't be an objectively judgable case any more. I can imagine that, but can you organize it? How?
His (Dr. Z) is a very common western misunderstanding of Buddhism.
Suffering is a problem for many people, but the first of the four noble truths is that suffering exists, and that it therefor has an end, just as it must therefore have a beginning.
Acceptance of these is how we move from somewhere else other than the suffering we experience, which can feel suffocating. Where is that somewhere else? The experience (feeling) that there not only suffering.
This is to say that there are the five aggregates, and that these arise together to make up the human being, yet the human being is not these in totality, but that which also guides these. Therefore to choose to accept what is taking place is to guide the five aggregates in freedom of movment which is not present when we are stuck in the act of suffering.
I think he's critiquing western Buddhism, or "mindfulness Buddhism," that suggests that mere existence in the present leads to inner peace and the lessening of suffering. The belief system's centering around "peace" can translate into mere hedonism. As such, this creates the paradox of a "mindful murderer," a person who is at peace and acting in the present while doing horrible things (he discusses this). As a westerner, I obviously haven't experienced Buddhism in the east, but I do know that the acceptance of pain and lessening the suffering of other feature more prominently.
This is a paradox when you see presence (as western culture intends it) with just knowing something about your life in a certain moment. But, enlightment is something more I would argue. I think we misunderstand the ethics behind the term "presence". Why would someone decide that knowing your life is something good to do? Maybe because only if I pay attention to my own "stories", I have the opportunity to acknowledge my values (which are dominant feelings/sensations), then comparing them with "external" ones (when I listen to someone, when I read a book), then seeing similarities between mines and others values and from that deriving some "compassionate" behaviour. Peace is not an hedonic term, is more like knowing that our values count, and they are what makes us humans, I think it is a sense of belonging, which is the contrary of loneliness but at the same one has to be alone to gain familiarity with one's toughts and feelings. In short, knowing our toughts and sensations --> giving values --> ackowledge others similar values --> compassion.
Bhuddism is like a bagage that you carry within, when you have filled it with karma or materialism it becomes heavy, when your body eventually tells you to empty your bagage, it is because it became too heavy for the body and the spirit to carry. The moment you have no choice but to listen to your inner voice, you must empty it, then you are enlightening yourself of it's heavyness. Heavyness creates suffering for body, mind and spirit
both this video and the comments section are fantastic. i want to save this whole page for reference, lol
His hero hegel was secretly inspired by ancient Indian vendanta.
Nirvana isn't reached by meditating. If you meditate to get something from it you're already considering the future and thus missing the point. Point is a fine word too incidentally.
According to the suttas, reaching Nibbana can only happen through practicing Dhamma. "Bhavana" or "cultivation" (unfortunately translated as "meditation) is essential. Understanding the stillness of the mind happens through experiencing that stillness and knowing what lead to it.
We can't learn how to swim unless we get in the water.
Nirvana is annihilation of ego self ...In advaita vedanta atma is the end reality which can be achieved by annihilation of jivatma or ego centred identity....
Meditation is not a state, is not a moment of bliss. It is very different. A state of bliss is temporary, but knowing our own most dominant toughts and feelings, this leads to values, the values can be then comparable with other people's values, then a sense of belonging can derive from knowing the similarities of our values and others ones. But we have to familiarize with our owns toughts and feelings first. Which is another way to call meditation.
What lecture is this one?
the boddhisatva by rejecting nirvana is able to mantain it... the form is the void, the void is the form. boddhisatva is an innovation of mahayana buddhist ideas (i am completely iliterato on buddhist lit)but in the end achieves the same result.
Based on the Early Buddhist Texts, one cannot opt-out once one has reached Nibbana. The fuel that led to rebirth has been ended. In the same way that a flame cannot continue to burn when it has no fuel, the cause of rebirth has been ended and an "arahant" a fully enlightened one, cannot be reborn. It's over.
This is a known thing among various Buddhist schools, it termed as, 'Zen Devilry'
you can not avoid suffering. Buddhism helps you tolerate suffering
More like accept it
A bit of meditation wouldn't harm your tics and involuntary moves
i loved this guy when i first discovered him because of his delivery (i guess i never had a deep reason to enjoy his talks) but more and more the nose thing... what is the problems of his nose touching? i will look up that video
its a nervous tic
I don't understand how he come to this conclusion.
Bhuddhism is trying to solve the suffering.
Answer is No.
Bhuddhism teaches that the cycle of birth and death is suffering.
For to believe that you need to believe the theory called punarjanma, ,Karma, and the eternity of Atman.
Atman always exists.
THank u for uploadiing with better audio ! bveen looking for ZIzek takes on Buddhism, specially the west version that emphasises detachment and inpotence
I see that the comment section is much more prepared than Zizek, mostly experts😊... Buddhism leaves too much room for the free interpretations of which we Westerners make the following use; a little meditation mostly to be physically fit, or if we've been to india, as soon as we get back we open a meditation center to pass on our incredible experience to others. I believe that if we did swimming as consistently as we do yoga and meditation classes it would be much more beneficial. Having an orderly life, a routine, discipline, good physical health, clinging to the certainties that a regular life offers, an order to submit the chaos we carry within. All this has nothing to do with spirituality.
there were multiple major Buddhism reform in history, just like there are many versions of Bible for Jesus. you just quoted japanese one for reference. that's really authentic work there
Meditation doesn't have a defined outcome. It isn't like a regulated course of action, such as a ritual or recommended behaviour. It may change how you see things, but not in a pre-ordained way.
We unfortunately have concepts about 'enlightenment', that get in the way of our actual experience.
Zizek is a far less careful viewer of star wars than he is a reader of hegel
Most of Zizek's critique is conflating 'Buddhism' with its late distortions. In the true Dharma, a fully enlightened being (an Arahant) has no desire to kill. Those Chinese who considered Pol Pot enlightened did not understand the Dharma though they may have called themselves Buddhists. A serious Buddhist abides by the five precepts (the first of which is abstention from all killing). D.T. Suzuki was a talented essayist, but his remarks about the 'sword' doing the killing were largely due to his entanglement with 20th century Imperial Japan; he (and a sizeable portion of Zen sects) made irresponsible remarks that he later apologized for.
He spittin
buzz on the line. content very worthy. keep on trucking.
Buzz is from crossed phases or earth loop problems.
The first words of this talk shows the problem with analyzing something outside your understanding. The Buddha was concerned with transcendence of suffering, to not want it is to grasp it and lose sight of the core of all Buddha’s teachings.
sorry, I meant "compounding"
Buddhism doesn’t start with the problem of suffering, but with the problem of appearance and reality. Happiness, however you can conceive of it, is very much within a fictionality.
On the first point, I agree but for a different reason. The lack of morals and ethics in Buddhism, IMO, comes from the Buddhist meditation practice out of the Mahayana tradition. This teaching appeals to Westerners in particular because of its elite snobbery entitlement. Mahayana Buddhism calls itself the higher vehicle and Hinayana Buddhism the lower vehicle. Hinayana Buddhism, btw, does not recognize Mahayana Buddhism. Westerners secretly like practicing something that is considered "higher" by persons in positions of authority but they also want a payout for their efforts. They put in 10,000 hours of Buddhist meditation so they deserve [fill in the blank].
On his second point, I get what he's saying about falling into society as a Bodhisattva. However, the Bodhisattva is slave work. The notion is that as an enlightened Bodhisattva, after you die you must come back here to preach the Dharma to maintain your Bodhisattva status. If you decide to retreat you relinquish that status. Whether or not he is aware of it, Zizek is promoting slavery. Getting everyone to be a Bodhisattva is not going to change the world to make it a better place because from the start the tradition looks down on a segment of Buddhists as inferior, which extends out to other identity politics. It solidifies the first point that Mahayana Buddhism lacks morals and ethics.
If taken from a historical perspective, Buddhism was a reaction to the caste system of Hinduism.
Detachment, Nirvana, Meditation, escaping suffering, transcending karma (??what?)? Zen Buddhism isn’t all buddhism. There are so many types of buddhism that I would argue it doesn’t really do anything to critique just buddhism. This comes across as so naive.
Zizek's nose is suffering terribly.
“Don’t let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy.” Buddhism in a nutshell, out of the mouths of Eagles. Also good advice to philosophers.
He's off already from the very beginning. People definitely do NOT want to suffer. Any glance at a young child or old person will easily tell you this. People suffer because they have no choice, not because they want to. Also, I'm not sure he knows the Buddhist definition of suffering. Suffering for a Buddhist is yes death and disease, but it's also feeling too hot, you're tired, there's not enough money in your account, your knees hurt, they run out of your favorite coffee at the grocery store, you're not as attractive as you want to be, your boyfriend hurt your feelings, your feet hurt, you're hungry, you're waiting in line and you're annoyed, you have to poop, you don't want to do your homework, you have to work at a job you hate, your alarm clock jerks you out of bed, you wish you were taller, you have an obscene pimple, the traffic is horrible, etc. Suffering is a tiny thousand things constantly eating away at you every day until you die, interspersed with finite moments of joy and happiness. Suffering is the psychological running away from pain or annoyance or clinging to something that you think will give you some temporary releif from pain or annoyance. Buddhists are just being matter of fact. And for a Buddhist, the way to release that psychological suffering is to disattach the psychological story from that pain and just live in and accept the pain on its own merit without any additional psychological story that causes that extra suffering.
His referrence to Bodhisattva is a concept developed in Mahayana Buddhism not the original Theravada
What is said in Theravada that is different from Mahayana? Pray tell.
Thera means failed in Tamil
Hi ayana Eena means silly , lowly in Tamil
Half knowledge does more harm than good.
""What I find attractive in Western tradition - it's terribly politically incorrect what I'm saying now - in contrast to this [Buddhist[ idea: don't get involved, maintain an inner distance.... isn't the entire western ethics - starting with Plato - entirely an ethics of falling into? Opening yourself to an encounter. Our western love is not this peaceful Buddhist smile - it's out there. It's something, and you fall fully into it."
I want to put this quote over a picture of Jordan Peterson, and see if anyone will notice that something is amiss.
Buddhist teachings (in the West, at least) rarely open with a reflection upon transcendental life in the society before the Buddha lived.
To me the problem of Buddhism is that it takes too much to understand and shift your vision in a practical manner. I feel like it can be achieved and explained in much simpler ways.
thats why buddhism is like life, its a journey, in life there isnt any magical button you can press and fix your problems in a instant.
Im curious, ive never thought of it like that. Can you give me an example of a buddhist idea that and its simpler counterpart? context i grew up buddhist but was never really a practitioner or anything and i feel its pretty simple in its explanations.
@@RaiderNation126 1.(go with the flow) let go , everytime something bad or good happens, dont attach to it , enjoy it or cry about it , feel the emotions coming in and then turn a new leaf when times passes and the natural process is to keep going.
2.(respect all nature)dont harm any creature, either animals or human , this means to respect everysingle life because every life is important, this can mean for some buddhist to eat meat is okey because somepeople cannot live without meat, their bodies are not capable of eating just veggies. But never hurt an animal more than it should. Hunting for survival is okey, but hunting for fun its extremely not okey.
3.(people who hurt other, they hurt themselves) never lie , manipulate, hurt , use , deceive, insult anyone not even your worst enemies. People who hurt others are recentful and they are only creating more evil , they are inviting evil into their bodies. You should always follow a sensation of inner peace or seek that peace that allows you to let everyone do what they want without you getting attach to the evil deeds or too involved into it. Instead teach them the correct way if you can , teach them how to be a better person, a moral person, a peaceful and happier person.
4. (You are your temple)seek greater knowledge, a powerful body, a peaceful mind, a more empathic heart, an spontaneous life , intense feelings and emotion , all for the good of the universe. And enjoy the process because only by wanting all those and seeking it you are already in a correct path.
I created this manual based on my upbringing (a loving family), the buddhist theory and the christian religion among other things, there is more but this is enough for a start
We had a horrible experience with a "Buddhist" neighbour.
The worst thing I ever did was talk to the woman..... I honestly thought she was a nice person. Couldn't have been more wrong.
FIRST RED FLAG:
She said I got cancer because I was evil in a past life or was being punished for something. Honestly what kind of rubbish is that ??
I suppose the children in hospital are being punished too...??? 🤨
SECOND RED FLAG:
Soon after learning I was going through treatment she began to do strange things like every time we were in our yard or had people over she would get out the sage and gong her bowl whilst walking around chanting some buddhist nonsense (very loudly)
THIRD RED FLAG:
She set off our smoke alarms when we weren't home (actually out getting treatment)
With sage over our fence...... lots of it. Massive amounts.
It was all caught on our security cameras & our home absolutely stunk like crap, yet she denied it 😂
FOURTH RED FLAG: She salted our front yard on the property line to the point nothing would grow.
This went on every day & night for just over a year then......
The hilarious outcome of all of this.......😂😂...... she got divorced & moved away because her husband cheated on her 😂
😂😂😂
I know I shouldn't laugh but I guess I wasn't the evil one after all
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds *
It feels like Žižek is discussing avatars and partial descriptions/understandings that are typically used to describe aspects of 'awakening'. I'm not saying he's fighting 'strawmen' , but perhaps pointing at them? And if the 'lesson' is that humans can justify harmful actions within any system, I'm not sure why this is pointed at Buddhism specifically. FYI - (as I understand it) Nirvana is not 'distance' . In specific there are discussions of the 'near enemy' of Equanimity being Indifference. What is called for is a Porous Heart, not a Teflon Heart.
1. The idea that one can attain Nibanna and then after the death of their body they can continue to be reborn is not what the early teachings of The Buddha taught. It was something that developed centuries later. And is not in line with what The Buddha taught.
2. The suttas make it clear, that after the fuel that keeps rebirth happening is ended, there is no choice of being reborn. In the same way, when the fuel of a flame ends, there can be no flame.
3. The suttas also make it clear that one who has reached Nibbana cannot intentionally kill. The causes that lead to one intentional killing are gone.
- The desire to kill is weakened even earlier on because as one starts to see the effect doing harm has on the mind, the desire to kill, even insects starts to fade.
4. The Buddha made it clear that it is only through understanding that one becomes free of suffering. This cannot be done by taking specific chemicals.
5. It's not that happy states born of chemicals are "undeserved". It's that these states are "anicca" which can be translated as "impermanent/unreliable".
I'm happy that this man is thinking for himself, but my suggestion is that he should do more reading on the subject. And, of course, take an interest in the practice of mindfulness.
Mindfulness is just Heroin for those afraid of needles.
Questioning in buddhism is part of the practice. It's practiced by a school in tibet where monks argue opposite points to the learner. This is what what the buddha taught. If you look carefully at tge texts hecsays nit ti accept his teaching with any blind faith but test them with your own experiences. This is basis of buddhism you are missing. What is suffering?why do we suffer?- What is nirvana? Does it exist? hese are questions you have to answer yourself through your own experience.
Infact Meditation is the concept of sanatan AKA Hinduism buddha born in hindu family and Buddhist people claiming that meditation is their concept its sound funny fr 😂
Very dangerous advice I was listening from buddhist monk when girl was talking about violence from father and he advice that show him love and compassion that was very dangerous advice.Buddhism too need some changes if we want to implement in society
Never heard of the chemical way he mentions, after 30 years of texts in Sanskrit and Pali.... Goodness, confused mind, all over the place,how is Pol Pot thrown into the picture... Gosh...Basically, WTF
Hem. Speaking too much by thinking rather than doing. Like reading about how to train to run a marathon without even bothering to run 1 mile a day.
what??? philosophy IS thinking
I am very surprised that a philosopher does not point out the flaws in Buddhism in the very notion of good or even what does right even mean? such as Right Understanding, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration... In religion, ethics, philosophy, and psychology "good and evil" is a very common dichotomy. In cultures with Manichaean and Abrahamic religious influence, evil is perceived as the dualistic antagonistic opposite of good, in which good should prevail and evil should be defeated. In cultures with Buddhist spiritual influence, both good and evil are perceived as part of an antagonistic duality that itself must be overcome through achieving Śūnyatā meaning emptiness in the sense of recognition of good and evil being two opposing principles but not a reality, emptying the duality of them, and achieving a oneness. In true rabbinic Judaism following strict monotheism there is no place for an opposing evil entity or force... that is dualism, a heresy that inflicted some of Judaism since the fall of the temple when some were banished to Babylon. After the Babylonian exile, the Jews lived amongst the Persians in relative tolerance. At this time, the dominant religion of the Persians was Zoroastrianism, a monotheistic religion with a single, evil antithesis. some where were exposed to Zoroastrianism with its dualistic influence, a heresy that rabbis spend centuries trying to stamp out of Judaism. In Judaism, evil is per se not part of God's creation, but comes into existence through man's bad actions. Rabbinical scholarship on the Book of Job generally follows the Talmud and Maimonides in identifying "the satan" from the prologue as a metaphor for the yetzer hara (humankind's inclination the yetzer hara is the congenital inclination to violate the will of God, thus do "wrong") and not an actual entity. There are no references in the Hebrew Testament to Satan as an independent agent. In Reform Judaism, Satan is generally seen in his Talmudic role as a metaphor for the yetzer hara and the symbolic representation of innate human qualities such as selfishness. However the famous legend in Buddhism Who tempted the Buddha? In the course of his meditations, the Buddha was tempted by the demon Mara. Mara sent his armies, various temptations, and finally (as depicted here) a challenge that the Buddha must defend his claim of enlightenment. The Buddha touched the earth, and called the earth to witness his achievement. But referring to the binary nature argument for the existence of evil (ie. evil must exist for good to exist) or that God, as omnipotent, has no reason to require this restriction. He could create good and evil as he desires, including making them both fundamentally the same thing - as in the mobius strip there is no fundamental basis for good or bad other than Karma saying that there is consequences but what magic force keep that balance going or keep it in check? In Western philosophy particularly in Pyrrhonism which holds that good and evil do not exist by nature, meaning that good and evil do not exist within the things themselves. All judgments of good and evil are relative to the one doing the judging or Benedict de Spinoza By good, we understand that which we certainly know is useful to us, by evil, on the contrary I understand that which we certainly know hinders us from possessing anything that is good. Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil and On the Genealogy of Morals he states that the natural, functional, "non-good" has been socially transformed into the religious concept of evil by the "slave mentality" of the masses, who resent their "masters", the strong. He also critiques morality by saying that many who consider themselves to be moral are simply acting out of cowardice - wanting to do evil but afraid of the repercussions.
So the only way out is through a madman with a lost love on the wall?
👍
If you want to criticize "Buddhism," you should try to criticize what is common to the different schools of Buddhism, the central teaching.
The schools of Buddhism don't have a monolithic body of doctrine, except for the Four Noble Truths. Zizek's critique creates a "Buddhism" that doesn't exist and is directed at the doctrines of sub-schools that often conflict with the teachings of other schools.
I didn't know Buddhism didn't want to suffer. It's rather not to care too much which is why stress and suffering come thru life
Buddha's teachings are full of paradoxes. Ethics, mediation and the rest are simply means to attaining the view. If one analyses the Buddha's teachings without a good understanding of the view, then it becomes really difficult to move forward. The view in Buddhism is stated in the Heart Sutra. The view is that of Sunyata. Even now as I try to point out the view I'm enacting a paradox. The middle way isn't something one can just pick up and understand, nor is it something that can just be explained to others. Genuine dedication and hardwork is required, but even then such is this self's habit, we might not see anything.
Nice interpretation
To be a moral agent you need to get an equal stance with other agents in the world. You need neither disassociate, neither fall fully. You need to be adequate human with proper perception. The sin that consults philosophy is from the elites to the ruled and from the ruled to the elites. Ones disassociate, the other fall and crash hard. But right, an excess creates counter-excess.
I hear this argument but I have to say that Buddhism provides for ethics in teachings of Sìla. The eightfold path is morality directive. I may not sit for meditation for the prescribed 2 hours a day but my whole life is oriented to observe Sìla. Buddhism in its essence is a philosophy and members of the sangha know this. Of course, the mcmindfullness practioners negate the ethics of Buddhism while clinging and profiting from 'inner peace' rhetoric. Not surprising that this westernised, orientalism perspective of Buddhism is the basis of such arguments
The experiential basis of enlightenment must, I think, be twofold: there is the transformative perspectival shift in which one crashes through the self-illusion into the world, and also the cognitive toolkit that allows one to remain there, beyond the self-illusion, while engaging mindfully with the all. It may be that this toolkit can only be developed through mindful practice, and it is certainly the case that no toolkit is ever complete. Awakening is not the end of knowledge; it is a new beginning.
A substance-awakening (as opposed to a practised-awakening) consists of (primarily) the first of the twofold attributes. One may find the perspective, but what is kept is only a dream, a faded imprint. Without the training alongside, one still lacks the internal toolkit necessary to mindfully engage in the world beyond the self-illusion. This is why, despite the stories you hear, more often the substance-based recontextualisation of a life only goes so far. Either it only informs a life for some months, and soon one is either more or less back to their old ways, or one finds a new way riddled with unresolved knowledge (at least from my perspective of those who have taken DMT/Ayahuasca).
What do we say to this? That it is possible for one to become awakened for just a half hour, a week, a season? Or that one attains true awakening only insofar as they are tested by life and maintain their radiant composure? Of those cases where a sustained toolkit is indeed generated alongside the perspectival shift, I am sceptical.
P.S. The Buddha believed that all life has inherent value because all life has the potential for awakening and exists both in and as oneness. Victor Frankl celebrated man's final freedom, that which cannot be taken: one's ability to choose their perspective, regardless of circumstance. Whatever your faith or lack thereof, please remember: life comes from you, not at you. Peace to all!
I think understanting spirituality is very simple. We have to acknowledge our toughts and feelings, which then become values which can be comparable with others values, so a sense of belonging, maybe a purpose comes. This knowing is opposite to loneliness, but we have to spend time alone to gain familiarity with our own internal states of mind. So enlightment is not just a state of bliss. And who promotes that, maybe that is because is simple to exert power over who is depending on what we say intead of knowing firstly what He/She values and then comparing what we (businessman) say with what He/She values.
Great insight. Thanks for uploading
The real question is who achieves????
It is not that suffering is the beginning of Buddhism per se, suffering is the beginning of any life it has consciousness.
Nobody “wants” to suffer.
Dukkha ~ Suffering is just a very superficial translation of the Sanskrit term.
Best described as frustration or underlying sense of frustration.
And yes - man doesn't escape suffering, more is it part and parcel of the collective identity, justifying the narrative of "fight for survival".
We suffer, so we have to fight for our share of happiness (self-improvement disciplines).
Not seeing that precisely this strife for the better is increasing Dukkha to the max. Is perpetuating the very thing which is supposed to be overcome (some day !).
Sorry I don't chave time now to develop this further ~
Well, who are you going to believe and/or study with, Buddha and people like Thich Nat Hahn, or Zizek?
you may be more accurate if you rather formulate your argument on looking at Theravada Buddhist thought as it is written in Thripitaka suththas.
What do you mean by Tripitaka Sutras
They are contradictory
We have to distinguish Hinayana from Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism. Also the Western abominations of Buddhism are something totally different. Zen or Chan Buddhism are again something different. We cannot generalize these strands without becoming more vulgar and superficial.
Also, in Chinese communism there is the notion of (economic) liberation and the notion of (political) "turning around" or fanshen or awakening. But the CPC lacks the Buddhist notion of spiritual liberation or awakening. But there is the attempt to integrate Buddhism into communism. A highly liberating endeavour.
I find it interesting, that Zizek calls buddhism too "optimistic". In my humble understanding, concept like emptiness can be confused with nihilism. And then there is the world view that life is suffering, because nothing is permanent and there is no "essence" of things.
EDIT: does anyone know of which substance zizek is talking about, that can help you reach nirvana?
@@darkagedrengr6159 Thank you for correction.
Psychedelics such as LSD, Psilocybin, and DMT are believed to be a shortcut to the same mental states arrived at by deep meditation.
@@Patrusfarr But the problem with these states is that they are "impermanent/unreliable". Nibbana comes through understanding. It is a gradual process. If the unskillful tendencies in the mind have not been uprooted, then one will not be free from suffering. I don't think chemical reactions in the brain can completely uproot mental tendencies that we've had since birth (or since previous lives, if rebirth does exist.)
I dont think Buddhism is optimistic, is very pesimist cause samsara is only crap
Not Zizek's finest moment.
Who has problems with Buddhism? :) Problems in Buddhism as perceived by who? From what angle... The narative falls apart, if it is there at all. Buddhism is about massive intellectual clarity which is definitely lacking here.