Totally agree. He's so human, vast-ranging in mind and also funny--makes a person really glad to have the 'precious jewel' of a human life.

It's a beautiful thing listening to Bob talk.

If quantum physics says that the world has 11 dimensions, there is one dimension that quantum physics cannot perceive. which is a one-dimensional object which is the state of nirvana No deterioration appeared, no other conditions appeared. but only one state appeared.

Hans van den Bogaert nobody else can be a Buddha. even not a monk. monks and laypeople are followers. so it not good to refer to someone as Buddha.

nidahas sith. Yes, anyone can be a buddha.

nidahas sith everyone is a buddha

Hussain Fahmy حسين فحمي

Whose actions ? The individual who is outcasted? Then what about scapegoat model, this is obviously the fault of those copying one another and becoming a mob.

Hussain Fahmy حسين فحمي what action? Then why did the Buddha accepted a serial killer as a student? If his actions were so abhorrent? Look it up... Aṅgulimāla. the dharma doesn’t judges others but seek to better oneself and through that become a model for others to follow on their own accord. The Buddha left society and renounced its ways. Isn’t he an outcast?!! “Judge not lest ye be judged” says Jesus.

Fu Dan Chu Hello Fu, how are you? I was wondering if you knew anything about Buddhism being taught from classrooms on KZfaq? For example like Jordan Peterson teaches Christianity on KZfaq from his classroom at the university of Toronto.

There's lesser proof of no afterlife than there is of rebirth.

Peter Cohen i read your comment, interesting. good that u altruistic, and more. However, what Bob is saying is not wrong. HH Dalai Lama is the one advocating ethical conduct and secular living for those who does not favour religion. like altruistic u, who work to create a better world, HH DL highlight an interesting point- if u work with altruistism for sentient beings, there is a strong 'self' who willingly forego self-cherishing to benefit others, the strong 'I' will take on the suffering, 'I' will do this for sentient beings, etc.. whereas if u are talking about emptiness of self, the development of wisdom realising emptiness is different, heavy on analytical meditation on self and phenomena. u check it up. but i apologise for this poor uncalled for input. but i saw your interesting remarks, ..

Peter Cohen look into emptyness as conceptual underpinning of something very different than investment in immortality. Emptiness is an entirely different idea than nothingness. That is not semantics. It is fundamental to Buddhism, and the ballenced polar twin to compassion which opens up our "evolution". All the best.

Peter Cohen The great difficulty here, if I understand you correctly, is that the properties of experience Buddha revealed still escape you as a reality in everyday life, which is why your tone has its basis in speculative philosophy.

Reincarnation is in Hinduism, Buddhism is rebirth. From this point, your question will not find answer here, maybe in hinduist space. If you listen to Robert Thurman, nothing is absolute, no-self so no soul which you deal with, all are relative even the concept of rebirth, by this way rebirth is not an absolute concept in Buddhism, as an non absolute concept all buddhist do not have to believe in rebirth. Rebirth is not a dogma in Buddhism. There is no dogma, no absolute in Buddhism but concepts. concept of Nirvana, concept of Karma, concept of rebirth, concept of Samasara, concept of no-self, concept of impermanence, concept of emptiness ... As one and only one concept, there is no really interest, there is interest when many concepts are put together (relativity). Like the concept of production, trade, finance...ther are not absolute, they have value for you if you believe in some interest, profit, if you are not interested in the production, the finance, the trade, you don't need to be explained on these points. Because to explain on the relative is to explain on each choice, on each vision of thing...

I may not a buddhist expert but indeed I'm a buddhist. Just for your information in Buddhism, we believe that there are 31 levels of lives such as animal, human, ghost/soul, etc. From the lowest to the highest and it is all related and keeps happening until you reach your nirvana where in a state when u will not be reborn again. For the question u ask. Just simply put that in buddhism it is possible in our world (human/people) may exist more than our earth which simply translates that alien is possible to exist and just like how scientist and all people says that earth will disappeared/destroyed in the future. Simply just imagine that the earth is destroyed, therefore we the people in there will be reborn in other world whether in the same level or higher or lower depends on your karma unless you reach nirvana and become a Buddha then you will not reborn again. Again it is just a simple things that I learn in my school as a Buddhist however I can't explain furthermore. There are a lot of Buddha's official book and it is all can be counted hundreds or thousands to read it needs a lot of time which makes it impossible. So yeah probably if you are interested you can search it in google by yourself :) Anyway I'm vey happy if I'm able to answer your questions. Have a great day!

Ya thats basically the same for example when the earth going to go through the end of the earth or extinction, not only human will die but also animals which means the soul of the animals will also being transferred or reincarnated. Anyway how are you so sure ? How can u count other living souls besides human and animals. So yeah... Have a great day :)

The lower realms are filled with exponentially more beings than the realms above them.

+Martin Clausen No shit, the logic is clear and easy on that, why people like this still make these obviously wrong claims is a mystery to me.

Martin Clausen different onologicsl claim about what truth is and about what a fact is. When you approach from a different angle than the realist when viewing evidence you end up with an oportunity to open up to something out side of the knowable in the mundain realm. That' the claim. And it is sound.

My comment is directed at his claim that atheism is a blind faith belief. It clearly is not. It is merely the assertion that there is not sufficient evidence to believe in a God.

Great, but Thurman is saying that there is no evidence that an afterlife (non-material realm) does NOT exist. So neither stance would have "sufficient evidence," and some would say there's in fact more evidence stacked up on the non-material existence side. (Eg, consciousness itself is not physical; it's nonlocal.) So Thurman's point is that those who say there IS no spiritual realm, having no proof to back it up, must therefore being going on blind faith. ("'Nothing' can never be proven." -R.T.) It's curious that this statement would seem insulting? Unless one thought oneself to be above anything so low-brow and uninformed as 'blind faith.'

The scientific method is a method of observation/measurement.. to verify some hypothesis, scientifically, one must be able to set up an experiment that can offer evidence in either direction. The scientific method does not accept negational proof - it is only through observation/measurement that it accepts valid statements. Thurman missed the primary teaching of the Buddha, which helps here, which is that every 'thing' within the phenomenal world is impermanent - every 'thing' is subject to conditions to start, subsist, and cease. Take a proton (theoretically expected) to have a half life of 10^34 years. Black holes are (theoretically) expected to evaporate.. QM is pretty accurate with its predictions though, so science offers this agreement on impermanence. Therefore, if you agree that everywhere, every thing, is impermanent, then to claim a permanent property for such a thing, is foolish. As such, death cannot be rationally seen as a permanent property. That is not to say that 'this exact being' does not die, and reappears somewhere else, that requires a permanent being! The point is that conditionality does not cease, because there is no thing for cessation to grasp or act upon within the conditioned world. Cessation can only be done through conscious choice.

@Anand Sharma be careful u idiot! do u read news? what is happening in France and Europe? Mohammad( PBUH) Was most enlightened human ever. Accept it.

@Anand Sharma Muslims have given task to spread the message of Allah. And we will do it at any cost. Islam is fastest growing religion in the world, this itself says somthing...within 10-20 years islam will be largest religion with highest number of islamic countries this says a lot about which religion is enlightened...buddhism has only 500mn followers...laughable isn't it...and atheism is 1 billion.....hahaha! Fucking buddhism!

😢😢😢

This simply isn't true for Vajrayana practioners.

How does feel this lecture.?

Jesus was very much like a Buddhist. Unfortunately, Christianity today has nothing to do with being Christ-like.

Because the jesus figure is not historical dr.richard carrier already discuss that....because if you realize that anything that is inside the bible has not been proven as truth and anybody that is mention in the bible has not have any resources outsude of it....in other words the gospel is not a relaible source the names that are mention in the bible including jesus has not validation to their existence.

And Muhammad is not quite a qualified role model in my opinion lol.

@@David-lx4yb jesus is very buddhist because the romans have inserted some of the teachings to fit the jesus figure as acceptable in the bible....

I don't think there is such a thing as Dogmatic Buddhism. It sounds like an oxymoron to me. There are dogmatic religions which claim to be Buddhism, but those are for people who cannot practice meaningful introspection, due to lack of capacity; mental or otherwise. These religions bring meaning to the lives of such people and are meant to bring about social harmony. Buddhism is inherently without dogma. It encourages you to use your brain to challenge anything and everything. When there are inconsistencies between Buddhism and science, I can defer to science and still call what I practice, *Buddhism*. Dalai Lama, whatever you may think of him, encourages Buddhists to defer to science in such situations.

@@norbzt thanks for a long and thoughtful reply.

@@z0uLess Care to share your thoughts? I'm open to discussing and learning.

@@norbzt the comment was made at a time long gone. also, I am not in a good headspace right now.

@@z0uLess oh.. I'm just a stranger but if I can do anything for you, let me know..

optizap mmmm... bacon 🥓

optizap yeah, then the big corporations destroys forest lands to grow beans and vegetables, thereby causing species extinctions. I say better off eat less, like once every other day or so... this way you won’t kills as many insects and animals with pesticides. Better yet, don’t take any medicine if you get sick, you’re killing bacteria and living viruses. How far do you want to take this? Best to not have children because it adds to carbon footprints adding to extinctions and global warming. The Buddha was a meat eater, he died by eating spoiled pork. More than half of the world’s Buddhists are not vegan or vegetarian.

@@moonmissy and your point is?.....its not wrong nor is it right.....buddha ate it because he knows he will perish anyways and also he doesnt want to refuse the offering because he didn't want to upset the person who gave it to him....he is very compassion something that people lack nowadays .....

singye wong You will be consumed as the bacon of a more intelligent species one day. That is your karma. Namaste 🙏

Lol. You have to do some real research to find this video and comment like this. 🤡

Jason West Buddha said you can practice, whether laity or monastic and reach a point of attainment of “non- returner”, at which point desires for sensual and sexual gratification will dissolve and you need to become a monastic to further become an Arahat. Most Buddhist practitioners, monastics or laity.. rarely attain this stage. It is easier to practice as a monastic for meditative progress, but not a guarantee. However, the Buddha’s monastic orders were wandering monastics with no personal ownership or homes and begs for food daily from town to town. Rarely stays at one place for more than a few days outside of the rain retreat. They are forced to practice with changing environment and different people treating them differently... some with respect, others with disdain and sometimes even violence. That’s the real practice and challenge of monastic life that helps someone becomes enlightened during the Buddha’s time. These days, monks get everything taken cared of by laity in Asian monasteries, they don’t cook, clean or do much at all but have much powers over worshipers. Their ego is never questioned or tested. This is why few attain even the first stage of enlightenment as “stream enterer” never mind anything further. I have a friend’s brother who became a monk for 10 years, 7 of which was spent in Burma, after which he disrobed and got married. He told his brother that the monks all knew which route in the town where they would get what type of food if they go beg for lunch, so they would take the route where the food is more fancy and tasty. That’s already desires for sensual pleasures! Not the same experience as the Buddha’s monastic during his time where they do not know what kind of food, if any all they will get that day. They can learn to lessen desires that way, to learn to accept what comes and desires less. This situation no longer exists today, this is why many cannot go far and disrobes. So if you find a Buddhist teacher who is teaching about enlightenment and still engaged in sexual and sensual pleasures, they have not gone through to “once returner” but still remains at best in the first two stages of enlightenment (which is already pretty rare, so I wouldn’t discount their teachings). The Buddha made this point very clear during his lifetime teachings. Many interpret his teachings and abuse “skillful means” as a way to violate the basic precepts of the Buddha. I think people need to be honest with the teachings and admit that it’s ok to not become celibate until “non-returner” stage is reached. At which point desires for sensual pleasures falls away. Whether you like it or not, you’re not going to care too much about sex or other sensual pleasures, even the pleasures of the first 4 material Jhanas are discarded.

John Lawrence I beg to differ. There are ethical conduct as precepts prescribed by the Buddha, but he told people to apply it to oneself and one’s own practice, not to judge others. Sila forms the foundations of all Buddhist practice, whether laity or monastics.