Two Minutes Of Wisdom With Tenzin Palmo (VIDEO)

Comments

[Glenn Wallis]

04:43 PM on 06/25/2011

How are teachers such as Tenzin Palmo similar to the Wizard of Oz? http://speculativenonbuddhism.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/buddhists-of-oz/

[Peg Eves]

09:10 PM on 06/09/2011

We attended a three day retreat with Tenzin Palmo last week end. Her teachings were crystal clear , tangible , motivating and applicable to ongoing circumstances and events of every day life . A beautiful human being and wonderful example of our potential

[Dan Jighter]

04:48 PM on 06/08/2011

To respond to the numerous criticism of empiricism.

Firstly, you need something to ground your claims. You can just think really, really hard on stuff. You can't just meditate in some cave somewhere. You need something of substance to give you basic facts and to double check your claims. Now it could be an axiom system or empirical evidence, but it has to be something. Otherwise, you are just BSing.

Secondly, you can not defend your religious beliefs by just attacking empiricism/science. Attack science all you want. If you want to go tiresome, mention "love". If you want to go ad hominem, mention "scientism". None of this ever works. But suppose it did and you torn down science to a pile of rubble. You still haven't done anything to show that your religious beliefs are true. All you've done is attack science.

Sorry, if silly criticism of "you can't study everything using science or empirical evidence" is the best you've got, you've got nothing.

[Matthew2010]

08:57 AM on 06/09/2011

To suggest that someone is engaged in scientism is not an ad hominem attack. "Scientism" is, essentially, the view that the method of the natural sciences is adequate for every area of inquiry or experience. To reject such an approach is decidedly NOT to reject science; rather, it implies an attempt to extend the (legitimate) results of scientific inquiry beyond the scope of their proper application.

In raising questions about the scope of scientific inquiry, one is not defending Buddhism as such. Rather, it is part of an attempt to question the criterion that YOU are insisting as a means of of evaluating Buddhism. When you insist that Buddhist inquiry can only be justified by appeal to empirical evidence, and that term is understood (roughly) in the way that it functions in the context of science (i.e., it does not include the investigator's immediate experience), then you are implicitly assuming that the method of the natural sciences is the sole means of assessing Buddhist inquiry. That assumption is quite rightly being questioned.

[Dan Jighter]

01:53 PM on 06/09/2011

Scientism is the sort of thing people bring up (and only ever bring up) when some atheist starts asking for evidence for that person's silly religious beliefs. On the surface they are trying to keep science within a jurisdiction away from their religion. That way empiricism and reason can't look too closely at their beliefs and show it to be complete rubbish. And to an extent it is a mere insult against the atheist for their bad taste in challenging their religion. "Scientism" is code for "keep your science off my religion". You quite frequently here the "scientism" charge in fake-intellectual scathing and hateful criticisms of the Gnu Atheists, sometimes shortly before the charge of "fundamentalism". So yea, it's ad hominem. You never hear someone in a political discussion or any other setting get charged of scientism, just atheists when discussion religion.

What the heck do you mean by "adequate for every area of inquiry or experience"? Do you mean just for knowledge in general? I know of no atheist who for example denies mathematics (which at least has axioms and examples). Do you mean for knowledge about the world? Yea, I think if you want to know about the world you should, gasp!, actually look at the world. The scientific method and similar empirical method of testing hypotheses using evidence is the only decent known way for doing so. Sorry if you don't like that, could you kindly present some other approach that actually works? ...

[Dan Jighter]

02:01 PM on 06/09/2011

Do you mean as an approach to living life, for example that science is adequate for enjoying music? Your definition of scientism is rather broad and vague and scientism is used at times to capture such things. Really, most atheists enjoy music of some sort and don't bother with evidence when listening to Bach or Lady Gaga. Of course, you aren't really concerned with legitimate approaches to knowledge or Dawkins' enjoyment of the St Matthew Passion, you are just interested in getting me to lay off Buddism (or perhaps religion more broadly).

The sort of it is I don't actually think you mean what you say you mean with regard to scientism. I don't think you raise this as a genuine commitment to rationality. This is just an insult and defensive measure against atheists who are too critical of religion, cleverly packaged as if it were serious philosophy rather than an insult.

The thing about Buddhism is that you are making claims that can be empirically studied. Claims about why people suffer and how to be free of suffering. Well,darn it, we have real live people here who sometimes suffer. Let's check out on them! Surely science can say whether these people actually suffer for the reasons you say they do. I fail to see any serious objection to actually serious looking at sample population of people to see why they really suffer, except that you want to take another approach and science might debunk your approach.

[Matthew2010]

09:05 AM on 06/09/2011

So how does Buddhism justify its claims?. First, there is a massive body of literature, much of it consisting of high level philosophical arguments. Second, there is an appeal to the experience of the individual practitioner, especially to the meditative experiences that play such a crucial role in Buddhist practice.

Now it would seem from your previous posts that you reject out of hand philosophical inquiry (despite your own pechant to engage in it) as well as meditation. In this case, it seems unlikely that you are going to be convinced by what Buddhism has to say. But that is fine. Buddhism does not insist that everyone accept its claims; it does not run after people trying to convert them. Rather, the practices and philosophical view are for the benefit of those who feel the pull of spirituality and the desire to develop themselves in this way. If that doesn't describe you--fine. There is no use arguing about it.

Out of curiosity, what is your own area of expertise? Do you work in one of the sciences?

[Dan Jighter]

02:22 PM on 06/09/2011

http://answersingenes.blogspot.com/2011/06/show-me-sausages.html

If you claim to have a machine that makes sausages, I don't care how brilliant your argument for you having a sausage machine is. I want to see actual sausages. For a number of reasons, for one that people sometimes make claims that seem right but are in fact wrong. Well, with Buddhisms talk about suffering, show me the suffering people. I don't want brilliant philosophical arguments for why people suffer or the anecdotal experiences about suffering, I want to see a careful demonstration that actual people actually suffer for the reasons you say.

And massive literature, high level philosophical arguments? Based on what? How do you know any of the premises of your philosophical arguments are true? Do you have evidence for those premises? Axioms of Buddhism? If your basic premises are about people suffering, shouldn't you verify that they are true for actual people? Philosophical arguments are just useless unless your premises are correct.

Appeal to the experience of the practitioner? So a form of anecdotal evidence based on what they think they experienced and how they interpreted the experience. Sorry, this just isn't valid.

Honestly, how does this approach of Buddhism be any better than say Christianity where they hold a lot of bogus superstition based on convoluted philosophical arguments and personal experience of god? Heck, how is this better than astrology, where there are clever rationalizations for astrology and people experience their reading being correct?

[Miriam Pia]

05:51 AM on 06/08/2011

I'm glad she was able to start a nunnery-school and is helping a bunch of other women. Its different in the West in the co-ed atmospheres to which people like myself are accustomed. 40 years ago, or maybe 60 years ago the only teaching openings in philosophy would have been at women's colleges. I am not against teaching women and never have been but I had intended to teach in a co-ed atmosphere.

[logicanada]

05:52 PM on 06/07/2011

I wonder. Do these people ever sit down and actually listen to the gibberish they spout.

[Dan Jighter]

09:23 PM on 06/07/2011

I agree entirely. When listening to the Dalia Lama and the video above I got the same feeling.

I also wonder if they check any of their gibberish with logic and empirical evidence (when available, which on human suffering and human interactio­ns there is certainly evidence). I somehow doubt it.

[HawaiiSteve]

11:52 PM on 06/07/2011

You have to understand that in the Buddha's time, the Scientific Method was unknown. It was a time of rampant superstition. The Buddha was able to transcend these limitation through meditation, and discover what he felts was the true condition of mankind.

Meditation can bring clarity to one's own thoughts, opening the path to learning. I am a Buddhist, and also trained in science. Research is the backbone of science, but I also get insight through meditation. I do not need a study to understand that Greed, Hate, and Ignorance are the major cause of suffering in this world (the core teaching of the Second Noble Truth).

Which brings me to my final argument; faith does not need to be proven. I know some Christians are trying to teach creationism as science. I feel no such need to validate my faith. The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path provide me with a moral compass that is quite comfortable and workable in my world. As a result of my mediations on the subject, I have come to accept the Dharma as something beneficial in my life. I hope it helps others to find peace, and I am always happy for a chance to spread it around. But I never would dream of forcing it on someone, or trying to prove that I'm right and you're wrong. My faith is my own, if it works for you great, if not you are still a wonderful being worthy of love and compassion.

[ZenGardner]

02:10 PM on 06/08/2011

Most of them can only perceive the world through the filter that they have been trained under. They're told that the Buddha said life is suffering, and so they see suffering. They see evidence of it where others may not.

But these are biases that we all have.

[Miriam Pia]

05:54 AM on 06/08/2011

Did that really seem unclear to you? No one says you have to always agree; normally people don't agree with even great thinkers about absolutely everything.

As far as the DL's gender. Well, some men will only be submissive to another man. There are differences at times in how best to lead when there are gender differences. It can be done for co-ed groups - some people prefer female or male leaders. Others have a 'case by case' type of preference. In some cases it depends on how old one is and on who has hurt one the most - there may be aversion or reliance on whichever gender caused the most pain.

[logicanada]

12:47 PM on 06/08/2011

It has a gender?

[logicanada]

05:49 PM on 06/07/2011

The greater question that may never be asked is : Why is this video being published.

[onlyThis]

10:40 AM on 06/07/2011

I do not think there is a path to anywhere. YOU are the path that is being walked. You are the expression of Infinity here and now, just as you are. Nothing to achieve, nothing to reject, no grasping, no pushing away. It is only the mind which makes any distinctions. See the mind for what it is.

[urownexperience]

05:11 PM on 06/07/2011

You are trying to talk the wisdom of a marathon runner while you haven't learned to crawl yet. You are a beginner.

[logicanada]

05:50 PM on 06/07/2011

Most marathon runners think about sex when they are running.

[onlyThis]

12:19 AM on 06/08/2011

First of all, I am a long distance runner.

Story: Student is standing on the bank of a swollen river and sees the Master walking on the other side. "Master! Master! How do I get to the other side?" he shouts. "You already are on the other side." Master shouts back.

Have you not read the story of how Hui-Neng became the Sixth Patriarch?
Have you not read the Diamond or Heart sutras?
Have you not read Huang-Po or Nargajuna?
Have you not read the Advaitic sages Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta Maharaj?
Have you not read the Tao Te Ching or the writings of Chuang-Tzu?

Story: Man walks into the psychiatrist's office with a chicken and says "Doctor, my brother here thinks he is a chicken, can you help him?" (hint: brother is mind)

Have you not seen or read any of the non-dual teachers out there today? Adyashanti, Wayne Liquorman, U.G. Krishnamurti (deceased), david carse, Robert Adams (deceased), Francis Lucille, Gangaji, etc etc

If you find yourself in an infinite sea and swim for a million miles you are no closer or father away from anything than when you started.

There are no beginnings except in the mind as there are no endings except in the mind. You are the dream, not the dreamer.

Am I a teacher?

Nope.

Am I a master?

Nope.

Am I enlightened?

Nope.

Who/what am I?

Now, at least, we are asking the right question.

[Dan Jighter]

02:49 AM on 06/07/2011

How does she know the Buddha and his four noble truths are correct? How does she know that there is a such thing as enlightenment? This all sounds very nice, but how much of it is true?

[dharmadhatuzoo]

07:23 AM on 06/07/2011

OMG, you're blowing her mind, man.

[urownexperience]

05:15 PM on 06/07/2011

That you can only know for yourself through meditation, otherwise your beliefs are based on only on what you think is true. In the absence of thought comes insight. You apparently haven't meditated to any depth.

[JohnyTL]

05:47 PM on 06/07/2011

I'ma pirate!

All I had to do was rescind my ability to think and insight came to me immediately.
Sailing boats and stealing gold was always in me. I just needed to stop thinking!

Wait, do you actually believe this?

[Dan Jighter]

09:18 PM on 06/07/2011

I fail to see how when meditating your beliefs are based on more than what you merely think is true. From what I understand, meditation is a mental phenomenon where part of the brain powers down temporarily. I can see that giving one a new perspective and experience of their own consciousness. I don't see how that can give one information beyond what is in one's own head. How can meditation, for example, demonstrate that the four noble truths are indeed true? The four noble truths sound like a claim that can be empirically studied to me, surely empirical analysis will give a more reliable result than quiet thinking or meditation and we can at least compare it with the result from meditation. Is there empirical evidence of the four noble truths?

For this reason I think JohnyTL actually has a good point.

[JohnyTL]

12:03 AM on 06/07/2011

OMG that guy was a woman!

[urownexperience]

05:16 PM on 06/07/2011

Insensitive and immature

[JohnyTL]

05:38 PM on 06/07/2011

No, you don't get it.

That's no man, it's a woman!

[Solveig Nielsen]

09:02 PM on 06/06/2011

Lovely to see such video teachings with Tenzin Palmo on HuffPost.

The work she does for 'her' nuns in India is great and she also did an incredible job raising funds and constructing the nunnery altogether.

I once visited the nunnery while the nuns were chanting their evening prayers and in my memory still stands how the prayer hall completely filled with this amazingly beautiful, peaceful, and sweet spiritual chant.

I wish they will release a CD at one point because I am sure many people would want to listen to it and absorb themselves into the beauty of the sound.

Best wishes to Ani Tenzin Palmo for her great work!

[urownexperience]

05:16 PM on 06/07/2011

Working in India is only for the brave.

[JohnyTL]

05:49 PM on 06/07/2011

Well that's kind of insulting to Indians.

[Miriam Pia]

05:58 AM on 06/08/2011

That's so inspiring. I'm working on getting an actual Unitarian Universalist monastic order going. This is our first one in our 500 years or so of denominational history. I'm assuming it will be co-ed because its 21st century UU, but its a mysterious process. I have found some women and men in Buddhism and in Catholicism to serve as some inspiration about achieving this. I don't plan to do it all alone and - well, if you don't know what UUism is, check us out.

[Saijanai]

04:01 PM on 06/08/2011

UU dates back to about 1960.... DId you mean 50 years instead of 500?

[aklib]

08:20 PM on 06/06/2011

Christ and Buddha taught the same truth. Buddha's teaching comes down through the ages less distorted than Christ's teachings. Christ and Buddha taught reincarnation and karma, and thus the individual responsibility of each person. The Christian teaching was highjacked by selfish men and distorted to suit their ends of political power. Specifically, the fundamentalist Christian teaching of heaven and hell, and the individual making a choice between the two. Plus, the idea of "original sin" is a fabrication. Modern fundamental Christianity uses fear (of going to hell) and guilt/shame (original sin) to contol its followers. The whole framework of modern Christiany is a distortion of Christ's teaching. Essentially, Christ taught "as you measure it unto others, so shall it be measured unto you." Thus, individual responsibility for your creations. The truth will set you free and NOT put your mind in a trap. Now, a response to releafer: Releafer, judging from your icon, I would guess that you are a practicing Bud-ist. Judging from the clarity (or rather, lack thereof) of your post, you probably hit the bud pretty heavy. However, the ideas you express are accurate. Time does not exist in the way we percieve it physically, and our souls are indeed eternal. We are spirit in flesh, learning and growing in this dimension of actuality, learning how to handle creative energy. This is my understanding of reality and if you want a link or a source, I refer you to Jane Roberts/Seth. :)

[religionfree]

10:36 PM on 06/06/2011

Jesus is a mythological figure that never existed.

You might as well be talking about personal beliefs of Peter Parker or Bruce Wayne.

[kadellagroove]

01:14 AM on 06/07/2011

Proof?

[dharmadhatuzoo]

07:26 AM on 06/07/2011

There is just as little evidence for the Buddha's existence.

[P3]

02:33 AM on 06/07/2011

nice f/f

[aklib]

03:58 AM on 06/07/2011

Thanks! Back at ya. :)

[Occams SawZAll]

07:05 PM on 06/06/2011

Hi Diddlely Dee and Atheist Life for me !
Where are the women centered religions of the world ? hmmmmm!

[dharmadhatuzoo]

07:27 AM on 06/07/2011

Wicca?

[Occams SawZAll]

07:50 AM on 06/07/2011

Wicca is a nature based religion....I would agree that it has more feminine elements than most of the male centered religions.

[Miriam Pia]

06:04 AM on 06/08/2011

Yes, Wicca. There are also goddess based Druids. Not all Wiccans or Druids are "goddess only" but there are many who are. In RC, Holy Mary and a number of female Saints serve the role of connection to the feminine divine. I don't honestly believe that a Creator of the entire Cosmos is properly understood as purely male - but maybe its OK is the boys that don't like girls think that, LOL. Also, if the deity were to be masculine, I think its random rather than done for the purpose of insulting the females.

[Occams SawZAll]

08:59 AM on 06/08/2011

I think it about power and control.....

[Entheo]

05:40 PM on 06/06/2011

i've no problem with it, but that was two minutes of gender advocacy, not wisdom, which seeks unity (or non-duality) out of the opposites. let's call a spade a spade.

[Tmboy]

06:29 PM on 06/06/2011

She was not advocating for anything. How is this advocacy? She was clearly responding to a set of questions. Her stating the clear gender bias/roles in the culture/sect she is referring do should not be deemed as advocacy. And if you listened you would actually find wisdom in what she said, gender discussion included.

[Erdgeist]

05:18 PM on 06/06/2011

In the old Pali canon the Buddha makes zero distinction between men and women. If a person has entered the stream to nirvana, they are noble ones (aryasravaka); who belong to the Triple Gem Sangha. Spiritually speaking, they are higher than worldlings, monks and nuns who have not entered the stream.

[kadellagroove]

01:16 AM on 06/07/2011

thats kind of what she said is it not?

[Erdgeist]

10:36 AM on 06/09/2011

I am showing what the oldest canon said. This nun is not schooled in the fine points of the Pali canon as I am.

[dharmadhatuzoo]

07:30 AM on 06/07/2011

Ahem. Not that I contest what you say, but also in the Pali canon he wouldn't let women into the sangha until his aunt asked repeatedly, and then he said that a nun ordained years and years ago would have to bow down to a man ordained at just this moment, and then he said that the Buddhadharma would last only half as long in this age due to his permitting women to enter the sangha.

[Erdgeist]

10:32 AM on 06/09/2011

Whether or not this account is fiction since Ananda, the Buddha's cousin, didn't become the Buddha's attendant until 20 years after his awakening, remains to be seen. However, it is a fact that gender has no place in the triple gem sangha of holy persons (arya-pudgala) which begins with stream-entry. It is only holy persons who can become Arhats. This leads to the conclusion that being a monk or a nun is not the highest achievement. A layperson who is stream-entered is spiritually superior to either a monk or nun who is not stream-entered.

[djc]

04:15 PM on 06/06/2011

What an arrow-clear wisdom-bite; a great way to begin my meditation. May we all know happiness; may we all live in peace and safety.