19
Nov

Buddhism as a “Science of the Mind”


The whole sort of atheist critique of religion
doesn’t really address Buddhism insofar as Buddhism is established really as a science
of the mind.  It’s based on observation of the mind.  And everything that Buddha
taught can be empirically verified through your own experience.  In other words, you
can test it.  Actually, I think it’s a very interesting science because you’re
the scientist.  You’re not just reading about what other scientists have done and,
you know, confirmed and so forth like that, but you, yourself, are the experimenter.  You
experiment with your own mind.   What Buddha basically said is that we can
understand through our own experience that happiness comes from inner peace.  And we
can explore that in our own experiences and see, well, that’s true, happiness does come
from inner peace.  And maybe even more importantly, we can also then establish, I have the capacity
for inner peace in my own mind.  In fact, we might even say that through training of
the mind, through practicing meditation, you can see that it’s actually not difficult.
 All we need to do is learn to let go of our unhappy thoughts, and our mind automatically
becomes peaceful.  So in other words, you don’t have to, like, make your mind peaceful,
you just have to let go of your unhappy thoughts, your angry thoughts or your anxious thoughts.
  And what happens through that is that you
then begin to experience a sense of peace, a deep inner peace.  And you can verify that
through your own experience.  And through that, you get in touch then with your own
potential for peace or other virtuous minds, like love or compassion or joy or kindness,
generosity.  In other words, you can verify it through your own experimentation that that
is the case.  What we then discover is that the mind has
this incredible capacity for profound peace or, we might say, for limitless love, for
limitless kindness.  That’s where I find some fault with the – you know, as you’re
calling it, the “new atheism.”  Simply because I don’t think they are paying enough
attention to the science of the mind through which we can establish, so to speak, an alternative
science, but it’s equally, empirically verifiable that there is a spiritual dimension to our
being that you can discover through your own practice, in fact, that there is this, yeah,
you might say a divine element to our nature because we discover that the mind has this
capacity for limitless love, limitless compassion, limitless joy.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

100 Comments

  • GodBeyondGods says:

    Buddhist4Life

  • Dragos Badita says:

    If I may barge in, I feel you are wrong in your distinction between knowing and belief. "Knowledge is justified true belief", one classical definition states. There is no knowlede outside beliefs; in your example with the tennis it's just a well justified belief. As an atheist, you take a stance towards the idea of God in a way that a person that never heard of it doesn't, so it's really a belief, a thought populating your mind.

  • instereovideos says:

    Sure, you can barge in… but I'm not saying that knowledge is separate from belief, you're making a leap there. Knowledge is a subset of belief, and it just means "a belief that is as close to a certainty as humans can get."

    As such, atheism/theism relate to what you accept as true, but gnosticism/agnosticism go further, and relate to what you "know"… i.e. that which you believe with an extra layer called "knowledge," which requires extremely good evidence to justify.

    (cont.nxt comment)

  • instereovideos says:

    (continued from previous comment)

    So you can't "know" unless you believe, but you can believe without knowing.

    Therefore, EVERYONE is basically agnostic (unless they have encountered some compelling evidence, which I haven't seen)… THEN after we admit that none of us have enough evidence to "know," we're all agnostics who have to assess whether we "believe" without having good evidence. I don't, so I'm an atheist. If you're convinced of God despite the lack of good evidence, you're a theist.

  • Dragos Badita says:

    Well, your view is functional as well. I see it more like a gradient of belief, agnosticism being somewhere closer to the middle. An agnostic postpones judgement, it is not decided whether the arguments are valid or not. An athiest decided they are not compelling, or the idea itself is false for some reason, so for me it's difficult to talk about an agnostic atheist or theist.

  • instereovideos says:

    "I see it more like a gradient of belief…"

    Well, it's a good thing that how it actually is doesn't depend on how "you see it," lol.

    You're incorrect about agnosticism being "in the middle." It might seem that way to you, but you misunderstand it.

    To correct another mistake you're making, atheists don't have the "position" that "God doesn't exist." They simply don't accept the claim that "God does exist." It's far simpler than you're making it out to be. I'm sorry I couldn't be more help.

  • Dragos Badita says:

    But then, there are people that really do have the position that God doesn't exist. They say either that it's impossible for God to exist (the idea contains logical contradictions), or contradicts known facts about reality, so they don't just consider the theists' arguments false. How would you call this people, gnostic atheists?

  • Dragos Badita says:

    The discussion starts to be about semantics, and semantics are not about how things are but about how we choose to categorize them, so you shouldn't be too patronizing in "correcting" me 🙂

  • instereovideos says:

    No, it's not a matter of "semantics" as much as it's a matter of confusion on your part.

    As I've explained already in this thread, "atheism" does NOT mean "the position that there is no God."

    Yes, some people "believe" that there is no god, but that's not atheism, that's atheism with a little "extra," and the extra is unjustified. That said, it's exactly as unjustified as believing that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. Considering the evidence, they're both highly unlikely.

    (continued in next)

  • instereovideos says:

    (2nd comment)

    As far as classifying people who claim to "know" God doesn't exist, I've already explained this… there is no such thing as a "gnostic athiest," because you can't prove or "know" with certainty that something doesn't exist. I strongly doubt the existence of werewolves as well, but I can't be "gnostic" with respect to their non-existence.

    You're making classic mistakes, don't be embarrassed. But if I'm patronizing, it's because you keep asking about things I've already explained.

  • instereovideos says:

    Actually, that's a fair point. But no, I'm not defining knowledge of ANY kind as "100%." I might say "99%" applies to everything, but that's just a figure you pulled out of your ass. My point is that saying you "know" something isn't real requires EVIDENCE, as all "knowledge" does. There is reasonable evidence about fish in your bathtub and about prime numbers… it's not "perfect," but it's pretty damn good. With the non-existence of something, the evidence isn't enough to justify "knowledge."

  • Gian says:

    There is positive atheism, which "is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.".

    Yeah is totally right.

  • instereovideos says:

    I think you're having a hard time with the distinction between "estimated" and "arbitrary." You have no way to put a number on the "likelihood there's no God," we just know it's very unlikely.

    I never suggested that there is "no evidence" for the lack of a God. As I've said, it's just not the same level of evidence we have for things we can "know," e.g. "there are no fish in my bathtub." You can inspect every corner of your bathtub, you can't inspect every corner of the universe for a God.

  • Gian says:

    Glad you've deleted your silly and out-of-your-anus comment, lol.
    How old are you? 12?

  • instereovideos says:

    yeah, but we aren't necessarily talking about a specific god.

    Anyways, thanks for your time, but at this point I think you're just reaching to have something to keep talking about. I think I've explained everything that's pertinent to your objection to my comment about belief and knowledge. Have fun splitting hairs over probability statistics with youtube users.

  • instereovideos says:

    no, I didn't delete it… you didn't look, it was reposted with a grammar mistake fixed.

    Don't get all excited next time.

  • instereovideos says:

    and I disagree. later.

  • Gian says:

    I received one reply only, which has been deleted.
    So you still think what you wrote: "No, that's not what "positive atheism" is. "Positive atheism" is actually a term that refers to the promoting atheism as a positive thing in our society.", right?

  • instereovideos says:

    Right, I tried to explain the reply… READ the thread below, and you'll see it.

    That's correct. There is a definition of "positive atheism" that is "the assertion of no Gods," but that's not the original definition, and it's not what it really means in the atheist community.

    And as I said… why does that matter? Atheism itself is not "positive atheism." Atheism is only a rejection of a single claim: "God exists." What does someone's additional affirmation of "no Gods" have to do with it?

  • Gian says:

    Rofl. "That's not the original definition". So what's the original one?
    1) An assertion is a positive statement, and vice-versa.
    bit.ly14fRk9x
    Positive atheism is named so because it is assertive.
    2) Did I say that atheism is always positive?
    Positive atheism is a subgroup of atheism.
    3) Your definition of atheism is too much reductive and simplistic.
    4) "God" is a deity, right? "Deities" is just a formal and general way to include the concept of "God".

  • instereovideos says:

    Ok, "Rofl."

    Stop being a douche bag. Right now. just stop it.

    Now, I'll ask again, since you seem to be avoiding the question I've asked twice.

    Who gives a fuck what the definition of "positive atheism" is, if it has nothing to do with the objection you raised?

    Atheism (I'll try to be more clear this time) has NOTHING to do with asserting there are "no Gods."

    Your point about "positive atheism" is meaningless. It's an EXTRA position that SOME atheists take.

    Do you need more help with this?

  • instereovideos says:

    Yes. I do… and I understand everything you've said… do you… understand… m question?

  • Dwarfsosi Eversmith says:

    In other words….

  • GodBeyondGods says:

    We Buddhist are NOT atheists. If anyone really wants to learn about Real Buddhism study the Real Buddhist teachers like His Holiness D. Lama. Don't just post shit on you tube channels not knowing what your talking about.

  • Adam Byrne says:

    Buddhism is not a science, it is fine to be Buddhist but please don't call it a science. Things like meditation ect have been scientifically investigated however the principle of introspection has long been rejected by the scientific method

  • GodBeyondGods says:

    All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think, we become. ~Buddha……. sounds like science of the mind to me.

  • bill_man26 says:

    Very well spoken video!

  • Clark MacPherson says:

    Buddhism isn't a science but a pragmatic practice. There's a slight difference.
    And only happens if you take a secular approach. If you take some other traditional approaches you will have it in a religious way.

  • instereovideos says:

    OK, calm down.

    I understand what you're saying… now pay attention to what you just said.

    Knowledge is "justified true belief." That "justification" is based on EVIDENCE. You're justified in DOUBTING God's existence, because of the LACK of evidence… but not justified in claiming you "know" he doesn't exist, no matter how you define knowledge. There's no "evidence" of his non-existence.

    That goes for bigfoot too.

    So think a little longer before you get all pedantic on people.

  • instereovideos says:

    I can't agree that you speak for "we buddhists." So stop pretending you do. You believe in a God… that's really neat… but don't pretend that you speak for Buddhism.

    Congratulations, you've just joined the group of people you're complaining about, who are just "posting shit on youtube."

  • GodBeyondGods says:

    Is that so?…. your lost in your own ego and ignorance. Anyway, i'll say it again – i am a Buddhist. I am speaking for my Buddhist community, my brothers and sisters: if there is anyone here or who visits this page soon that really wants to learn or take Buddhism seriously, then study the real great teachers like His Holiness Dalia Lama.

    (We/us Real Buddhist learn from real teachers, not fools posting inaccurate wisdom on youtube)

  • instereovideos says:

    Yeah, you need to stop. You're not getting any closer to convincing anyone that you have a grasp on what you're talking about.

    And in my experience, any jackass who calls himself a "real Buddhist," is about as far from a real Buddhist as one can get.

  • GodBeyondGods says:

    your right. some people need to take the traditional way to grow on there own time.

  • instereovideos says:

    Yes, we've established that knowledge does not mean "absolute certainty." Give a cookie to "LogicPersonified."

    You actually do need evidence to "know" a dragon doesn't exist. Evidence begins to be important at the moment you start claiming any degree of "knowledge."

    How well you "know" something depends on how much evidence you have. Otherwise, you just believe.

    You're right about logically inconsistent gods. But not about bigfoot, dragons, or "God" in general.

  • instereovideos says:

    Yeah, I don't think you're understanding me…

    "My evidence comes from the fact that every claim from the beginning of time has turned out to be insufficient and unsatisfactory…"

    Like I tried to explain, that's not "evidence" for the claim "God does not exist." That's reason to doubt the claim "God does exist."

    Once you get this part down, everything else will make sense, all the way back to my original comment about agnostics/gnostics.

    Come on, you're "LogicPersonified." You can do it.

  • instereovideos says:

    Yes you could. Evidence of something's existence is possible.

    Now, I don't believe that any compelling evidence exists for claiming "knowledge" of a God. But remembering that there's no such thing as absolute certainty, I realize that there could be, just none that I've seen. Therefore, it is "possible" to be a gnostic theist, I just don't believe that anyone is.

    The likelihood is that EVERYONE is agnostic, whether theist or atheist. I'm an agnostic atheist. You're a confused agnostic atheist.

  • instereovideos says:

    Oh right… you're a "real buddhist" who calls people "homo," and gets angry when people correct you. Very common among real buddhists, lol.

    I've also never heard a buddhist refer to "this reality" as if another one exists. I think you need to rethink how you label yourself. And quit caring so much when people disagree with you. You're a buddhist, maybe you should meditate on that for a while.

  • instereovideos says:

    I think most of your confusion comes from thinking that there's such a thing as "my logic," and "your definition" of knowledge, etc.

    There's no "my logic" and "your logic." There's just logic. Logic has rules that are independent of "my way" or "your way." Everyone should know that, but what do you expect from an asshat who calls himself "LogicPersonified?"

    You can say knowledge "for you" means whatever you want it to… and I'm explaining that it requires evidence. For anyone.

  • instereovideos says:

    Oh, you're trolling… you're pretending not to understand just to get people on YouTube to argue with you. I thought you were just dumb. But really, you're just doing something that hasn't been funny since 2009. Cool, got it.

  • MAHA VISHNU says:

    HARE RAMA HARE KRISHNA OM NAMA SHIVAYA

  • GodBeyondGods says:

    Om mani peme hum

  • Origami Bulldoser says:

    This Kadampa stuff seems wrong to me. There's just something about worshipping a person, not a concept or an idea, that reminds me of cultists. What was wrong with Mahayana, and how did this … weird form of Buddhism come to be?

  • FantastyckplastycK says:

    buddhism is something i respect more than anything on earth!

  • Chris Vu says:

    Buddhas aren't gods or god……:)

  • analogueak says:

    I love what he's saying because he does not mention reincarnation. Except that reincarnation is the exact reason Buddhism is a religion and not science.
    I do not think he knows what it means for something to be empirical or how to follow the scientific method. There has yet to be a test for how exactly a person's identity goes from one body to another. I would love to see one though.

  • XouZ says:

    I think you should look up Buddhism. Buddhas were a human, not a God. The thing is that that he says is true. ofc everyone might not see them selves as atheists just because they are Buddhism, but Buddhism is a religion that do not believe in a God. Buddhas is just a well known human.

  • Hello-Cuserxd says:

    Seriously…u dare to call urself Buddhist? you are a disgrace to the Buddhist religion dude

  • GodBeyondGods says:

    stfu..

  • GodBeyondGods says:

    You should do your research lil bro. in Buddhism we believe Gods and Goddess… Dont mislead other poeple about Buddsim if YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT. Not just you, but anyone else who reads this.. Again Let the Real Buddhist Teachers like his holiness D. Lama Teach Buddhism. Or find a Buddhist temple where they speak English. most do in N.Y.C…

  • Alayen Eisenfell says:

    There's a multitude of ways to practice Buddhism, not just the Tibetan. For example, the popular Zen/Chan school from Japan/China focuses heavily on meditation and not on the deities. It is possible to follow a certain path of Buddhism and not adhering any of the gods. All path's are equally good to reach enlightenment. I studied Buddhism on university level if you doubt my knowledge.

  • thriveni saidam says:

    Good Chanel with Great Videos, Thank

    I love Buddhism, especially 8 noble path, but I am not a blind believer
    I even used an iPhone app called "BuDhamma" which helped me to practice 8 noble path.

    Buddhism is really where science meets religion.

  • MutableJohn117 says:

    Depends on what branch you follow, there are two major branches of Buddhism that are generally recognized: Theravada ("The School of the Elders") and Mahayana ("The Great Vehicle"). Theravada has a widespread following in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Myanmar etc.). Some do believe in gods/deities but some also do not believe in any of the supernatural aspects only the physiological aspect and the knowledge aspect.

  • GodBeyondGods says:

    do u even know what it takes to become a Buddhist?

  • MutableJohn117 says:

    What kind of Buddhist? There are many varieties and different types of Buddhists. Most Buddhists have talked to which have been about four or five say that they don't believe in any god or deity. I'm not basing that all Buddhists are like this but I think there are diffrent kinds who believe in gods/deities. That's up to you, I have not looked to much into Buddhism but I have heard some of the Buddhas teachings and quotes and he seems like a very wise and respectable man with intelligence.

  • ShiskoProduction says:

    Buddhism is more of a Philosophy then a Religion. But most idiots who do not even try to care think they worship the Buddha. Which is not at all true. We do not worship him or it like a God. I say it as some areas there are Buddha's made by manifestations that would represent the Buddha.

  • Tam Vien Ngo Complete Awareness of the Heart says:

    I've been following the teaching of Buddha for 20+ years. I adore what Buddha said "Don't go by revelation, tradition, sacred text, pure logic, don't go by his word, don't go by what was taught by a good teacher, don't go by what you're agreeing with." Go with your practice, with your experience, discover what is true for yourself.
    I've meditate alot but see things deeper each day. just like in kindergarten math learned 1+1=2, then x+y=2, then differential equation that has 2 involved.

  • ShiskoProduction says:

    Before you try to take me on and get put down, do your own research. I study Jōdo Shinshū Buddhism. We have a Golden (wood with paint) Buddha Statue. Is that Siddhartha? No, it is a Buddha created to be the perfect example to follow. Do your research fake ass. OR, read what I say carefully before calling someone out and making yourself look like an idiot who is blinded by their own ass.

  • ShiskoProduction says:

    I am implying that we, Buddhist, do not worship the Buddha as a God. Anyone who thinks that does not know Buddhism.

    Is it more of a philosophy then religion? Depends on your mind set. Buddhism is also the way of mind, to peace and oneness of your body and mind, to become enlightened. That is one of the major parts. There are more. Now, for my harsh words as they where wrong and I apologies, but do not call someone names when you fail to see the truth. I speak in general and Jōdo Shinshū.

  • ShiskoProduction says:

    Not just Tibetan. I suggest before calling someone out that you learn or ask what they are talking about instead of calling it that. Seeing your name as "Buddha Mind" I would hope you would have shown to be better then that and not so lack of intelligence on your own religion. Have a nice day. 😉

  • thriveni saidam says:

    Good Chanel with Great Videos, Thank

    I love Buddhism, especially 8 noble path, but I am not a blind believer
    I even used an Mobile app called "BuDhamma" which helped me to practice 8 noble path.

    Buddhism is really where science meets religion.

  • chaosblizzard123 says:

    This form of footage is the reason why I look at Youtube. They continually make me smile. HOWEVER a great number of dog owners are incrementally KILLING their dogs. The junk commercial dog food companies put in dog food provokes cancer and makes dogs die young..

    If you have a dog and you want to conserve its life and highly-priced vet costs then search for Double Life Dog Diet (Google it.) I was so happy I found it.

  • Rohit Pathak says:

    The whole problem is putting a tag of 'Religion' on 'Buddhism'. Remove that tag and one immediately observes ALL propositions are completely falsifiable. To limit science as observations made under ONLY the current sets of tools is foolishness.

    The theories proposed by the Buddha are subtler and much more refined and generalized than current theories in neuroscience (which seems to have fancy terms for every observed phenomena – a sign that it is highly underdeveloped). So to call Buddhism neuroscience is insulting Buddhism. For matters pertaining to the mind, I'd rather take the word of the Buddha than a neuroscientist/psychologist/cognitive scientist.

    And I am an atheist.

  • VY Canis Majoris says:

    @MisterNickOtine You're a fucking idiot… You clearly know nothing of Buddhism if you think Buddha is a fat fuck.

    1. That man was in china and was before Buddhism was founded. His name is Buddie, or something like this.

    2. You are also a 'Buddha', just not awake.

    3. The Jesus of Buddhism, or r rather the founder, is Siddhartha, who was skinny. Because of the trails he did.

    Please, learn what you are talking about first. Use Wiki, because that helps people who know nothing of a subject.

  • VY Canis Majoris says:

    @MisterNickOtine Because the believe that upon enlightenment, you pass to Nirvana and into Buddha hood out of the Cycle. Also Buddhism does not really believe in Reincarnation, that is the Hindu aspect taken that Siddhartha believed as he was Hindu. Take for one, Jin in Japan, does not believe in reincarnation, but Tibetans do, because of the influence.

    However, In the reincarnation aspect, he would based on belief, entered Buddha Hood and out of the cycle. If this makes sense,

  • jceja87 says:

    I've activated my kundalini (with varying degrees of success) and I can honestly say, that it is an unbelievable experience. 

  • sk8ingthemystery says:

    As an atheist this is the only "religion" that i would accept. Its more of a way of mind like he said.

  • Tatvavihara says:

    For the benefit of commentators below. There are three overall traditions in Buddhism: Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana (later Mahayana). Buddhas original teachings are preserved in Theravada. Mahayana (widespread) and Vajrayana (esoteric) are later developments. Lamas are part of Vajrayana. Kundalini is not part of Buddhas teachings. Buddha taught reincarnation. Reincarnation is an essential reason to follow the path to liberation otherwise you will be trapped for eternity. The calming of the mind (Vipassana) is only the first step and will not lead to lasting liberation in itself. Mahayana which includes Zen, and many others see Buddha as a godlike (or beyond that) being, but original teaching do not support this and the Buddha never claimed to be. Gods/their existence – are viewed as irrelevant as they cannot be verified.  

  • Chan! says:

    I really liked the video. It was simple to understand and makes me want to explore my mind even more. As I realise the 5 senses are temperamental

  • 星白 閑 says:

    I thought this video is watching by someone who think big. But down below comments seems peoples are close minded…

  • Matthew R says:

    very good, thank you

  • Alin Lor says:

    That are ways of the livings…  Atheist is also a living person.  Acutally what separtate buddhism and Atheism is that the target of practice.  Atheism do not have practice or any specific that different person can have different target of their living.  On the other hand, goal of all Buddhism should be to end suffering.   So that they just do what they want to do… no fault, no right, no wrong. Ultimately Athiest is just more like some one how came out of the forest but not yet found a way home. They not yet found their ultimate goal in life.

  • excusesbegone says:

    Spot on!!!Thanks

  • BigBuddhaFilms says:

    Wonderful. Kadam Morten Clausen hitting the nail on the head perfectly here.

  • Tashi Tsenkyap says:

    Omg is this a guy from Kadampa Meditation Center !??

  • Raymond Lai says:

    Dear Big Think, Thank you for taking the time and effort to both upload and share this video with the youtube community :)Thanks, mate

  • Moonbeam says:

    Amituofo.

  • Lohe221 says:

    1:15 my bullshit detector went crazy!

  • thinklogicly1st says:

    I'm guessing this guy has never heard of Sam F***ing Harris. One the most visible atheist and a proponent of all this mindfulness stuff. He wrote a book about it called 'Waking up' for goodness sake.

  • alhaleem says:

    Even though I'm an atheist, I really dig the way the Buddha taught us to live a happy life through kindness, empathy, love. They just don't give a shit about supernatural beings because the only one who takes control of yourself is you. Your mind is another universe you need to explore. And the amazing part is you have the ability control it. Peace.

  • Martina Mitchell says:

    Thank you 🙂

  • Sam J says:

    The Dalai Lama himself said it's okay to not follow Buddhism as a religion but more as a philosophical practice.

  • Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi says:

    This guy is from the New Kadampa Tradition, they're on the cult watchlist in the UK. No joke, they really are. Stephen Fry is on the Big Think also and he's a paedophile, I think they may be promoting an agenda rather than helping people, do your homework on these people and take care of yourselves please.

  • Zlatan Ibrahimovic is better than you says:

    Love Love Love

  • Red Devil says:

    Just make me laugh wen I started to reads the comments… I want to ask wen did the Buddha said there is no God…. I still dun understand wen people say tht lol… I m a pure Buddhist nd kinda little c the Karma too in ma life hehehe which is pretty bad… So back to que, Wen nd where nd which scripture did the Buddha said tht there is no God nd plz dun tell me it's in the book or Wikipedia.. Based on ma all teacher, nd wat I learnt in scripture is tht Buddha said God doesn't control our life, happiness or sorrow.. We dun need God but the God need us to b live a longer year in Heaven… the second thing is There are 2 types of monks, one will say there is God I respect them but I dun pray to them, nd there is another monk who will say there is no god at all, nd it's nt becoz There is nt really a God, but instead what he mean is tagging a name so called God nd calling himself a creator wen we control our own life by our own karma, why to believe in God.. so ths is what the two difference is.. nd plz next time dun say tht Buddha said there is no God it just make me laugh

  • Un1ty says:

    Thank you kadam morten.

  • Nghiem Dieu says:

    Living Buddha does not say we create everything, but the Buddha knows everything, God says all, but God knows nothing at all. This is the reason, and many more, that Buddhism was chosen by the UN for top religions. Tg modern Western countries, have studied Buddhism and the application of the place to practice then you nhé. Link that see https://www.prisonmindfulness.org/projects/path-of-freedom/

  • 1000delight says:

    Buddha dharma is a science of life. Not a religion nor a philosophy. Buddhism is a religion created based on Buddha dharma which the Buddha taught . Disregard of what it is not a science of mind but much more then that. Unless these are clear, it is going to create misunderstandings

  • Lumini Senaviratne says:

    as a Buddhist I just want to say, come observe, see and only if you understand the teaching is right, then believe .Buddhism is the rarest jem in the whole universe and it is more than science. You will understand once you learn .

  • superkbEasyBreezeTV says:

    Observation of the awareness ie thought

  • superkbEasyBreezeTV says:

    Surrender

  • Tae Tae Ate My Potato says:

    Fun facts!. Gautama Buddha is already discovered the whole universe before scientists discover He can go past and present only in mind. Because his brain% is 100%

  • thisisbob1001 says:

    Notice the hand movements ?

  • Unprincipled CHNOPS says:

    Wow, they're even on Big Think. The followers of this dogmatic buddhist sectarian cult claiming exclusivity on "true Dharma" have come really far.

  • Hero Silva says:

    sadhu sadhu sadhu

  • Nuthai Nguyen says:

    I been read vietnamese buhdism book. It is really work with scientists. Buhda already mentioned in the Holy book he said scientists know only one wrap of hand but Buhda known as the whole forests.🙏

  • Panthera sapiens says:

    Buddhism is Psychology, Physics, Metaphysics, Sociology, Political Science, Economics, Ethics…

  • Marsun Alvarez says:

    Buddhism is the way of life.

  • Tommy Iron says:

    Dont trust the buddha, satan is behind all the lies

  • Spirit Miracle says:

    🙏🌈🙏

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *