ok

Jordan Peterson – The Story of Buddha



original source: https://youtu.be/0qz1ZKR4hkE?t=8m9s Psychology professor Dr. Jordan B. Peterson tells the story of Buddha. If you want to support Dr.

source

Tags

Related Articles

49 Comments

  1. So the Buddha was such a puss, he couldn't get it up with a bevy of willing honeys? Then, according to another story, he drinks his own urine. I'm going to pass on that fucked up brand of enlightenment, but you go ahead and drink up, Peterson fans.

  2. Another know it all. Two thousand years have passed with little or no solid biographical information about the Buddha and this young guy is regurgitating the party line. Dude. Just stick to the written teachings.

  3. what a cheat, he's smearing buddhism by talking about hinduism … what buddha did was to take all the religious elements out of hinduism to keep the philosophie, while jordan is claiming that buddhism is just like christianity by referring to the religious elements of hinduism, which are not part of buddhism … just like each and every other religious person he's nothing but a pathological liar

  4. I really like Peterson's early work, before dealing with passive aggressive academics and nanny culture got to him.

    His later stuff is still often good, but since he's had to deal with character assassination and the interview circuit he's gotten less flexible. Compounded with the sheer repetition of the basics, he might have lost sight of some of the nuances of what he's worked out.

    Something is definitely wrong about his association with Rebel Media.

  5. The Seductions of 'Beautiful' Nothings

    "Turn off your mind, relax and float down stream"—John Lennon

    Perhaps it is one of those curious fearful symmetries or synchronicities that the words of John Lennon quoted above are found in the Beatles' album titled 'Revolver'…and that he was finally gunned down, shot multiple times in the back by a "fan".

    I grew up reading Kerouac (we hailed from the same city) and the Beats, intrigued in my youth by their calls for 'spiritual mindlessness,' that peculiar Western decadence and spiritual nihilism related to Eastern religions, though minus the asceticism, to be sure. In the real thing one was supposed to turn away from desire which is considered the cause of all suffering.

    There is a curious seduction in it all for many. George Harrison opted for the wilderness of gods in Hinduism. John Lennon likewise rejected Christianity. "Turn off your mind…," Lennon sang, because there is no 'answer'; nothing to find, nothing to know, thus one is "free" to either indulge or forsake. To 'answer' is to lose enlightenment, regardless of the the inherent contradiction in anyone's saying "Truth does not exist".

    The seduction hides the meaninglessness. One lives in the space between one's thoughts, and proceeds over the waterfall like foam and bubble into the vast great Nothing.

    In Buddhism and its variants, whether you are sitting lotus in the park reading Teilhard de Chardin or Matthew Fox amid falling blossoms on a beautiful Spring day, or being raped, slashed and strangled in a back alley—or shot in the back by a fan as Lennon was—it is all the same at the end of the day: 'there are no answers,' its adherents reply.

    For Jesus Christ, the Word made Flesh, it is altogether different. Evil and death are not "natural," nor illusion, but intrusions in the universe through the perversion of freedom which goes back to our First parents and which we ratify every time we sin (Rom 6:23)

    God our Creator in Christ--who came into the world to bear our judgement– calls us to repentance, because He is not indifferent to evil. In man-made religions, man aspires to the transcendent. In Christ God comes to us.

    We judge no one's soul and pray for God's mercy for all, especially for ourselves, you and me. But religious systems qua systems cannot all be true in the final analysis, or even coherent with each other. Jesus said "I am the Way the truth and the Life. No one comes unto the Father except through me" (Jn 14:6). Evil is, Christ taught, too real, not maya-illusion, and we are accountable for our deeds. But Christ bore them all, our sins, if we will only receive Him where He is to be found, in His Mystical Body, the Church, sinners and saints.

    According to sacred history, the many religions throughout the world reflect a kind of amnesia (actual Archtypes?) in degrees of that one revelation from God which was first given to the human race in its primal unity (Gen 1-3). Accordingly many religions still contain much that is very good, seeds of the Logos-Word (Jn 1:1) and transcendence which Christ came to re-gather as promised in Genesis 3:15.

    This is what evangelism and missionary endeavor is all about, not arrogance, or, God forbid, arbitrary dominance, but the faithfulness of God to restore all things in Christ, the Messiah, the Beauty and Desire of all nations. Just as there is only one God, and one universe (not a multi-verse), there is only one "Way" (John 14:6) in one Faith. It is the Good News, the greatest Love Story ever told.

    The Universe in itself does not know or hear us, much less does it care or act.

    Tarnas, like Jung, both thoughtful men, effuses anthropomorphic notions throughout the inert rocks, fire and space of the entire cosmos (e.g., "The Universe cares"… "the stars lead us…" etc) while ruling out a Personal Creator. Illogical wishful thinking. Aquinas and Eckhart make more sense.

    "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything." — G.K. Chesterton

    Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection with Berlinski, Meyer, and Gelernter. July 2019.

    https://youtu.be/noj4phMT9OE

    I Am Therefore I Think

    Is A Personal God Improbable? Or Is it We Who Are Improbable? 

    Atheism has traditionally scoffed at the thiestic belief in a God who is Personal or SupraPersonal. I've always found their position to be a counterintuitive curiosity. One of the reasons why is that I find myself, a personal being, to exist. I am here. You are here. And this existence never ceases to be a shock when I consider the statistical improbability of any of us (or any thing) existing at all. 

    I, a personal being who has no reason in myself for existing at all, can look into the eyes of other people, other personal beings who also inexplicably exist. I can deeply commune with people I love… How can that  not be seriously and forever astonishing, a shock to awakened persons, unless the routines of cultural  existence and a devil's advocate style "education" have talked us out of it, dulled us into forgetfulness of that primal metaphysical shock? 

    But if I am personal and find myself mysteriously here, why should our expectations for a statistically improbable universe not find its Origins in the profoundly Personal? 

    Of course one may simply prefer that it not be so, a priori. But such a prejudice hardly makes such a preference compelling. 

    That the universe is Personal because Our Maker is Personal is hardly as counterintuitive as atheism. It is, rather the default presupposition of those in the human race who have not been talked out of it by clever logical somersaults and strangely constructed  alternatives. 

    The Big Bang Cosmological Model for the Universe Is Logically Also A Problem for Scientists. 

    To make a long story short, theistic thinkers have long observed that an expanding universe must have a Singularity or Cause [The initial singularity being a singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and space-time of the Universe which exploded into being from— what? Nothing at all?]

    It is counterintuitive to believe that everything that is came from nothing at all. Children and very great scholars have long understood this, and for good reason. 

    Theistic thinkers note… 

    The universe must have a beginning, else it could not expand. Thus the expanding universe is a contingent effect of that inexplicable Singularity. 

    The cause of the effect, then, must transcend the effect (else it could not be the Cause). 

    Since the effect is subject to time and space and physicality, the Cause must be timeless (not subject to change) and immaterial (not contingent physicality) else it would be no cause.

    There can be no infinite regress of causes, per Occams Razor. 

    So here we are… Gen. 1:1:  "In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the earth…So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them" (vs.27)

    This has hardly been surprising to millions down through the ages and up to this very minute. This explains everything, or at least exponentially more than the alternative faith of atheism ever can. Created intellects  cannot of course understand this "everything". Our heads are only a little larger than coconuts. But we now understand enough. 

    And if Our Maker is Personal why should it surprise anyone that He would …communicate… with us, his created gifts, the works of His own hands? Gen. 1:1, Exo.3:14; Jn. 8:58… And that all the moral choices He asks us to make add up to something final, for good or ill? 

    The Precondition of Doubt

    I was telling a friend recently I am somewhat amused and perplexed, with every child, by those who pose the existence of the Creator as an intellectual problem when God is the pre-'condition' of every thought, even every doubt (Exo.3:14, Jn. 8:58), though some will not believe even if they see a man raised from the dead. In such an event they would, rather, reach for their measuring devices and accuse us of circular reasoning. 

    However I (a man advancing fast towards old age, yes even towards sister death herself, and weary of debates) am unceasingly amazed at the phenomenon that any of us *are*, and are able to reason at all, a 'thing' skeptics seem to take for granted as though being and reasoning were a ho-hum datum of every day life. Which it is. And isn't …not by a long shot. That we exist and can reason should come as a shock to any normal man. 

    I remember as a very small child staring at the bluest sky, the resplendent sun and gigantic white fluffy clouds, lost in the wonder of it all. All these years and decades later it still overwhelms me when I'm out walking. It is the unceasing shock of being. And if I am wondrouly personal, if we all are, then that our Cause should be so first is hardly a shock but a marvel of communion. 

    Atheism, alas, has literally nothing to offer. Nothing. Nothingness. The nihil. — Stephen Hand

    #CultureArtsandTrends (FB)

  6. Not a angel visited buddha because the story of buddha originates from India. Angels are catholic invention. Buddha's story is not paradigm for biblical stories and other things he brings up in his speech. He talks so much bullshit and because he is eloquent and have psychology qualification people suck it in. By the way, he is so fanatically christian that it hurts. He sees everything through the veil of the bible.

  7. This is a constructed story of the Buddha. The actual story of the Buddha is different – he was probably a merchant's son. This story belonged to the Jains and was used to describe the life of Mahavira, literally the Great Man, and was later adopted by the Buddha. What's interesting is that Peterson clearly states that the story is archetypal.

Leave a Reply

Check Also

Close
Back to top button
Close