Me too!!! I'm from China!!!! I wanna attend!!!!

It seems that commenters with Right View are few. I liked Batchelor when i first read it, but now I recognize the truth in what Goenka said to Kornfeld when he declined an invitation to Barre.

Every word is true. David Loy has got it.

Wow right down my street!

👍🏼

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

Thanks Gregg. As a psychology student, I’m surprised this isn’t practiced more in the west. It seems far more effective than most of the popular therapies I can think of.

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

0:37 exercise begins

These are intellectual types and more heart and spirit into there lives through helping others ...

Batchelorism = Bullshit.

Modern research on Near Death Experience by Raymond moody, reincarnation memories by Ian Stevenson/Jim trucker and past lives regression by Brian Weiss all independently but coincidentally show that our consciousness survive death, we live many lives and our thoughts and actions matter in the hereafter. So be kind and helpful to others, be virtuous, meditate and cultivate ourselves to higher spiritual levels. Cheers.❤

Why complicate Buddhism

Sigh, yet again someone that leaves out the jhanas and misunderstands what the point of renunciation is. I'm saddened by this from someone who has studied the Pali Canon. Flat out, the ethics is only to make sure that one no longer creates bad kamma /krama. It's only part of the picture. Another part is impermanence. The realization that all things that happen /come about cease. Even emotional states. Another part is to have the realization that finding joy in external things is pointless. Partly due to impermanence. But also because one can learn to generate levels of joy and happiness at will whenever one wants. (jhanas) This is partly where the ethics comes in. It's about learning to find happiness and joy by being a loving and kind person.. Ergo Metta. But, it has nothing to do with what happens externally when you are in that state. It is about the internal state of being that comes from it. Then we go back to impermanence and realize that even these states are temporary. That really, the goal is equanimity to all things that happen internally and externally. That this leads to nibbana, ergo the flame going out. The Pali Canon states all of this very clearly. Granted, it mostly calls the jhanas the absorbsitions. (sp?)

I am very happy going to amida buddha pureland hell , them i dont going to scare unhappy suffering hell......😀

Wonderful subject deftly explored in this lecture! And audio is refreshingly clear.

Czy Pan Witkowski ma polskie korzenie? 😄

Buddhism doesn't attempt to solve issues through activism or improving life in any rational manner. If it did, Buddha would give advice on how to improve farming or how to get rid of the caste system or how to study the world in a more rational way to improve the society or individual lives. Which is what Western philosophers and scientists (natural philosophers) did and accomplished again and again. The way of solving the issue of suffering from Buddhism is a mental trick: to pretend you don't exist and you are not real and the problems don't exist and aren't real (which is accomplished by what amounts to overfocusing on the Kantian idea that we cannot know things as they are and only know our internal representations of them). So once you "realize" that your itch isn't a "thing" but is just your mind, you suffer from wanting to scratch it less. In modern psychotherapy it's called de-reification. Which is a valid method and is ONE of many possible methods of softening one's own suffering but by far isn't the only one. It's not going to get rid of malaria or typhus or solve the problem of overpopulation or global warming. Knowing that you and I are not separate is not something unique to Buddhism. It's also the message of Hinduism, Taoism, Sufi Islam, Mystical Christianity, Chassidic Judaism, etc. What these religions do believe in is that reality is real and needs to be dealt with. Buddhism instead just forces you to think your problems away through logical or psychological mind-hacks on a cushion. Almost every Buddhist master will say that's what it amounts to. What is presented here is called Consensus Buddhism: taking Buddhist ideas and selectively applying them to justify some aspects of Western social activism.

Lets see how Buddhism tackles Climate Change and The Planetary Emergency.

Given there is no one singular definition nor practice to encapsulate What Is Buddhism. We also know well that Buddhism today, like any organized religion, is rotten to core, totally patriarchal, no place for women. Some Buddhists are also racist and violent (Burma for example). As for the Happiness Industry, a terminal society, a dog-eat-dog neoliberal world, does not all such hoodwink industry and products. No wonder these bogus shamans have created terms like Heretical Affirmations of a Neurobiological Icchantika".

Wonderful talk, thank you

At 35:19, “How can I be fully enlightened unless everyone is also? “Is that the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism? Is one’s enlightenment then predicated on another’s ignorance ? This is in contradiction to the teaching of Shunyata and annatta. The former postulates that all phenomena or the five aggregates are essentially empty. If that be the case, then the notion of bodhisattva or as David says that one’s enlightenment is predicated on the same for everyone else, is a contradiction of the 2 key principles.

诗者，志之所之也。《在心为志，发言为诗》，情动于中而形于言。

had to cut it off after one minute of him talking.. this has nothing to do with awakening this is mental spewage.

Where can I get a printed version of this talk “a branch of yellow leaves”? Love it! Thank you Jane!❤☺️👨‍🎨🎨🥰🎼🍯

Fascinating look at D.T. Suzuki's life and times, but if you're looking for a glimpse of this seminal figure's thoughts on Pure Land Buddhism, skip the first hour and five minutes.

Eight heavy rules were for in order to protect the dignity and security of the female nuns who lived alone in forests and lonely rooms in that time which was patriarchal

RIP Roshi 🙏

buck, buck, buck, buck....thanks Peter...

'I don't really get American Madhyamaka' - the best thing I've heard in the whole symposium so far...

Read Jane's book Ten Windows: How Great Poems Transform the World, and loved it. Her poetry a must read now.!

As khyentse norbu says " Buddhism without the cultural baggages" but Batchelor "rethinks", speculates and makes way too many assumptions. Using words like " I think, might be, I feel etc" His is not Secular Buddhism but Speculative Buddhism

Thank you for posting any Bill Porter/ Red Pine content. At this time on Earth, his translations in The Clouds Should Know Me By Now, & Cold Mountain, seem the only words big and minimal & refreshing & emptiness-evoking enough, to respond to our human craziness & the plight of planet Earth.

Thank you.

This guy obviously wasted years applying wrong effort while meditating. It is as if, since he obviously didn’t derive the value that a majority of meditators report, he has “discovered” the “proof” needed to tear the whole house down. The value of his talk is on knowing what not to look for when pursuing the path of liberation.

This so called Professor is a pervert who was fired for sexual harassment toward his students at Rollins College. The professors in the Religion Department in that institution should be ashamed of themselves for supporting this disgusting and unethical human being.

Is his video still available to purchase?

Thanks for the picture of Suzuki and Heidegger...this is great 👍the rest only reminds me of my regrets meeting Shin Buddhism.

Sound !!!9

thanks for the peek behind the curtain. JG is my hero just sayin ;)

Jay seems to consider the function of reason in Madhyamaka to be genuine even though it ends up in self-deconstruction, whereas Sandy seems to consider the function of reason to be not genuine precisely because it ends in self-deconstruction. Jay takes the self-deconstruction to be a result of reason and Sandy takes it to be the very ground of argument. What is common to both of them seems to be some kind of analytic approach. But what if we took a more dialectic approach? The result of reason as its self-deconstruction should allow us to see in retrospect that the end of reason was never any different from its beginning, so that it is groundless not just in the end but the beginning too, and it is precisely for this reason that reason realizes its groundlessness at the end of a self-deconstruction. Throughout the whole process, reason is groundless yet can still function, and it is groundless precisely because it is dependent upon something outside of itself, so that the function of reason is always as an ancillary support to some extra-rational process. So I cannot endorse Jay's view of the primacy of reason but nor can I endorse Sandy's view that there is something other than reason happening. Reasoning is happening, but it is not reason itself that brings us to its own groundlessness but rather reason is always-already groundless; it is the fulfillment of a function of reason that allows to recognize its groundlessness, not reason as such. Taken purely on its own, reason doesn't bring us anywhere outside of the space of reasons, yet "spiritual transformation" happens outside of the space of reason and is not immanent to it, otherwise we could just reason our way to the cessation of afflictive and cognitive obscurations that veil our innately awakened nature. Clearly reason fulfills a subordinate role to the greater extra-rational (but importantly, not ir-rational) process of attaining gnosis/awakening. I think the issue with both Jay and Sandy is that they give excessive focus to reason taken on its own without dialectically relating it to its constitutive other, namely, the process or project under which reason is subordinate. Sure they both will vaguely refer to "transformation" of some kind but it doesn't seem like they've really integrated it into their analysis.

The man that did this video explains pureland Buddhism really well kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h5iZlKyrqpu1iH0.html

sādhu sādhu sādhu

It seems that Western scholars are a little misguided about the meaning of Madhyamaka. This leads them to treat it as being far more impenetrable and mysterious than it actually is. Interestingly the same lack of understanding and subsequent obfuscation by Western philosophers applies to Wittgenstein, who in his later work did have some Madhyamaka-style insights. Madhyamaka is actually quite clear if you take it as meaning what it says. It does not say one must have absolutely no view, that is clearly nihilism, and Madhyamika philosophers clearly warn not to fall into nihilism: "Those who cling to non-existence go to hell" (Chandrakirtri - from 'A Dose of Emptiness' - Cabezon). If it were true that Nagarjuna wanted to abolish all views then what becomes of the first step of the eightfold path. I think Madhyamaka is a little more subtle than this. Whilst it is true that the verses by Nagarjuna can be used to go beyond views of substantially existent entities and processes, does it constitute absolutely no view at all? Madhyamaka is an ULTIMATE analysis of the nature of the process of reality, and the apparent material world, including its functioning, events within and the streams of consciousnesses involved in the apparent lives of the sentient beings within. And remarkably Madhyamaka indicates exactly the existential configuration of the ultimate nature of the process of reality, which are quantum fields. The ultimate nature is (not-existent, not non-existent, not both of these, and not neither of these). Now you may think this cannot actually relate to the actual ultimate nature of what appears to be the physical world as investigated by modern physics. But it does - a logical-mathematical analysis of the nature of a quantum superposition shows this is exactly the nature of a quantum field. I first demonstrated this in my first book Quantum Buddhism (2010) and have written 8 subsequent books on Madhyamaka / Yogacara / Dzogchen in the light of quantum physics. By the way I have a Math degree (studied with physics in first year), and studied Buddhist philosophy at MA / PhD. level at Sussex with Pratima Bowes. At that time Routledge wanted to publish my work but I got very ill and went off in other directions. I returned to (quantum) Buddhist studies after having a revelatory insight involving the quantum physicist David Bohm and Yogacara psycho-metaphysics while staying at a Dharma center much later (I have just published an in-depth exploration of Bohm and Buddhism - 'The Tibetan Book of the Undivided Universe'). This was about 25 years ago I think. I spent 8years in daily research for my first book Quantum Buddhism which I published in 2010. I put a link to a critique of Western Buddhist studies at the end. If you visit my site quantumbuddhism.org there are chapters from my books and articles to read for free. Here is the critique - www.quantumbuddhism.org/Engaging.pdf

Brilliant!

I hope you are not saying that the experience of reality is dependent on the experience of our rational-perceptual apparati. Reality dependent on what is ultimately unreal? I don't think that is going to fly too far. Sounds a little like left over warmed up Wittgenstein. Why do you coin your own terms such as "non-conceptual thought"? Everybody else just calls reality pure intuition or objectless consciousness. The experience of reality is not some abstract logical marker, it is not brain damage accompanied by the inability to conceptualize. It is a fullness of being, it is pure intuition, pure awareness unbifurcated by the interpreting activity of our rational mind. Some people, and some entities, can turn off their conceptual-perceptual apparatus at will and experience reality when they wish.

I am watching this video three months after David Slawson's passing. What a loss to the world! This video is the most precious sight and sound of David and his world-class landscape architecture.

❤️