Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
This is another video
about death and the nature of self -
an issue that immediately gets right to the core reality
and philosophy. In particular this is another video in a series of videos on
this channel
which is highly critical of mainstream buddhism.
My last video on this subject was in response to the teachings
of a mainstream Theravadin Buddhist monk and
some commenters have remarked that this monk didn't represent
all Buddhists. So today I'll be responding to the teachings of a
mainstream
Tibetan monk, to demonstrate that
extreme nonsense is almost ubiquitous
throughout all forms of modern Buddhism. The following clip is
from a teaching by a monk by the name
George Churinoff. "Mind
is of a different nature than the body,
It is not synonymous with the physical. It is not even emergent from the physical, or.dependent upon
the physical to exist -
but of a different nature." In the beginning of that clip
he said that mind is of a different nature
than the body. Now that's not too
offensive in itself, because we do have a word
"mind" and we also have a word "body",
and if you look those words up in the dictionary you find that those words
have
different definitions. So therefore mind and body
aren't synonyms, and we could say that mind and body have
different natures. Then, critically,
he said that "mind is not emergent
from the physical. It is not dependent
on the physical to exist, but it is of a different nature."
So he thinks that because mind and body have different natures
then the body can't possibly be a cause of the mind.
To him, mind and body
must be causally separate and completely
independent entities. But if the mind is independent
of the physical then how can mind-altering drugs
alter the mind? Does the mind
alter itself just to fool us into believing that drugs were
somehow responsible? And if the mind was independent
of the physical, then how could it even know about the existence of the physical
world?
How could we be aware that a bus is about to run us over,
or that we are thirsty and need to drink? Clearly
the mind is not independent of the physical world,
otherwise it couldn't be aware of these things. The mind
is only aware of the physical world because of the effect
that the physical world has on the mind.
For example, your mind is aware of the words I'm speaking right now
because of the sounds coming out of your speakers.
So this is absolute proof that the mind is not
independent of the physical. And it's proof
that the monk has no idea what he's talking about.
Now let's further explore his statement
that the mind is of a different nature
to the body. And I'll use the example of water
and ice, since ice is of a different nature to water -
having different properties - and that's the reason it has a different name.
And yet ice is nothing other
than frozen water - which is to say that
one of the causes a ice, is water.
Likewise with the difference between mind and body.
Mind and body have different properties and we distinguish them
with different names - like water and ice -
and yet mind is a product of the body,
and is a function of the body. If you take away the water from
ice then you no longer have any of ice,
and in the same way if you take away the body from the mind
then there is no longer any mind.
In this next clip the monk reaffirms that,
in his opinion - which he arrogantly calls "the Buddhist opinion" -
mind cannot a rise in the body,
but can only come from previous mind -
so the two are eternally separate.
"The consciousness at the time of birth
has to have come not from the union of a fertilized
egg - the union of the father's *** and mother's egg,
or any chemicals that were added at the time, but
if it was of a different nature than the material it had to have
had a previous continuity of a similar kind before.
Consciousness - conscious continuity."
So he says that consciousness can only come from consciousness.
Following that reasoning, then ice can't
possibly come from water, since ice is of a different nature to water -
having different properties. Ice can only come from
ice . . . ice continuity . . .
he would call it. If it were true that ice
could only ever come from ice then ice would be permanent,
without beginning or end. But ice isn't like that.
Ice is a conditioned phenomenon, made up of various components
and dependent on many factors. A little bit of heat
and the ice is gone - much like this monk's
arguments. Our death
is very much like the melting ice.
Or it's like a cloud dissolving in the clear sky.
Next, the monk argues that just because there's no
evidence for reincarnation, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
"Scientists, physicists, chemists, biologists,
in the laboratory, with their instruments, they don't perceive
past lives . . . this is the doubt that comes in our mind . . .
I don't, scientists don't. None of them
"hard scientists" . . . the people I consider my gurus . . .
not these
wafty religious people . . .
none of them perceive past and future lives. So therefore they don't exist
But ask yourself, is it
sufficient to say that something is not perceived -
does that necessitate that it doesn't exist?"
From a purely scientific perspective - yes.
If there's no evidence for the existence or something, then science says,
tentatively, that it doesn't exist.
For example, if there's no shred of evidence for the existence of
the invisible pink unicorn,
then we don't believe in the existence of such a thing.
That's how science works. But it's not just scientists who don't perceive
past lives. I'm a philosopher, and
some would say a mystic of sorts, and yet I've never perceived any past lives.
I've certainly perceived some of the causes of what makes me what I am,
such as my genetics, or
the teachings and experiences I've learned from throughout life,
but I've never perceived a past life as a particular fish or a particular
person.
In fact I've never met any thinking person -
scientist or not - who has ever perceived
past lives. Even the Dalai Lama -
one of the leading figures in Tibetan Buddhism - say that he can't remember
any past lives.
And he goes on to say that he can't remember ever having remembered
past lives any time in his life.
In any case, even if a person does believe they can remember
past lives, it doesn't mean that it's true.
So why is this monk speaking such nonsense?
My very closing remarks are going to be on the subject
of decency in teaching.
If a person doesn't know what they're talking about -
if they don't know that what they're teaching is in fact
true - then they shouldn't be teaching it.
This is just basic human decency,
but it obviously hasn't found its way into the halls
and traditions of Buddhism.
If you know a little bit then by all means you should teach that little bit
This is called "creating a small warm fire".
If you teach only what you personally know to be true,
then you can't go wrong, and the world will be a much better place.
Don't follow the example of these Buddhist teachers.
If you need my warning, then be warned.