y golly gosh, nirvana! I stumbled across this at Big Think and left a pithy comment that I’ll expand on here. As the original post is titled “How Buddhism Differs From Judeo-Christian Religions”, and the following are the first words of the speaker, you’d think the video would be quite short.
“Buddha says, “There is no creator other than mind.”
That is a great difference and really needs no further explanation. But he goes further and shows there’s not much difference after all.
“Rather than talk about who created “the world”, it is more pragmatic, more practical, more relevant to actually ask yourself who created your world.”
This is starting to raise suspicions because he used ‘the fingers thing’ to put the quotes around “the world” but not your world. He goes on to confirm them by explaining his wee chat in terms of how people hear and see it differently, uniquely:
“So, for example, like this talk, you know, my answering this question . . . Everybody who hears this is going to hear it in a different way. So you’re going to hear it in your way, I’m hearing it in my way, and whoever, you know, is watching this, is hearing it in their own individual way.”
For him, this begs the question:
“Where is the talk? Where is the answer?”
Which is actually two questions, but the talk is a viddy on the intertubes and the answer is forthcoming, I’m sure. Aren’t I?
“And actually we have to say, then, there is no answer outside of the perception of the answer. The answer is always linked to an individual perceiver. And so from that point of view, everybody is experiencing their own answer.”
This sounds like he’d regurgitate Quantum Theory and a certain cat-in-a-box when called for clarification. He switches to “viewing” and “experiencing” uniqueness as if they are separate from hearing when experiencing a viddy:
“So similarly, you know, everyone is having their own view of me right now. Each one of you is experiencing me uniquely.”
True to a point, but he is the only one speaking and we are all going to experience, watch, or hear the same words he assembled for this talk. Or are we?
“Therefore, the “me” that you’re experiencing is not outside your mind. From that point of view, who created me, for you? You did. Because I’m not outside your mind.”
The speaker doesn’t exist but in my mind?
“”So, if that’s true for me, it’s actually true for the world. Your world is a reflection of your mind.”
Perhaps he’ll remember this one day when there’s a knock at the door and a complete stranger hoofs him in the yarbles and flees gibbering “there are no yarbles, no pain other than my mind”…
Mealsothinks, his P&M might quibble aboot my being his creator.
He is a creation of mine, therefore the world into which we are squeezed is a reflection of our thoughts. Even when mere picoseconds old? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is more likely, so maybe after that I dreamt up Gavrilo Prinzip, Louie Armstrong and my grandparents? He doesn’t exist “outside my mind” because my foot hasn’t met his yarbles, therefore “it’s true for the world”.
See how creation is the same as perception and reflection which equal the obvious fact that Morten exists? Humpty-Dumpty would be proud.
Is this not solipsism in spicy peanut sauce? Morten says this idea is tremendously optimistic because it connects you to everything. Interestingly, there is a thing called solipsism syndrome where the person becomes withdrawn and detached because the idea of a universe which only exists in their mind is a very lonely one. The ultimate in narcissism.
“And so if I change my mind, I actually change my world. Like, if I have a lot of anger in my mind, the world that I perceive is a world full of conflict and, you know, irritating people and stuff like that. Whereas, if I have a lot of love in my heart, then the world that I perceive is completely different. It’s a beautiful world and it’s full of attractive people and, you know, a place of love and kindness. So, it shows that if we work at changing our mind, we can change our world.”
Not only does this paragraph give off a Stepford or Landru vibe, it sounds awfully like that “The Secret” shite and it’s Law of Attraction where the positiveness of your thoughts is responsible for the niceness of what happens to you. If you have bad thoughts you will be mugged while on vacation. Seriously. At $40 a pop for book or DVD, that’s the secret.
Regardless, he forgets or ignores that these are his words, he assembled them into this video he created and they are the same words everyone will see and hear him say, or later read a transcript, perhaps with their fingertips. What happened to the great mass of the history of our beautiful blue marble, much less the universe, without any people on it to say “your world is in your mind”? What about the heinous things we’ve done to each other for the last several thousand years with the blessings of doG? It all becomes sunshine, lollipops and rainbows because you fill your heart with love.
So far Buddhism seems a lot like any other religion – wobbly thinking and vague, slippery language unbound. The only thing missing is multiple flavours of Buddhism. Wait, found them. Just like the Big Three, they can’t agree amongst themselves as there are several schools selling their interpretation of their prophit. The flavour Morten swallowed, The New Kadampa Tradition, has broken away all Schism-like from Tibet in what is known as the Dorje Shugden Controversy.
How people comprehend his words will be unique, sure, and from these we will create an opinion of them and maybe of him but, create him? No. These words conveying his ideas will remain unchanged. Unless he changes his mind, which isn’t likely as he’s now going on about Buddhism being the science of the mind since he posted this.
What is it with these spiritual gurus and their obsession with having the blessings of science and the requisite misunderstanding of what it is. In this more recent video where he is only in my mind, and didn’t walk into a studio with at least some idea of what he was going to say, he invokes the divine in describing his schtick.
Vive la difference…