This is the Perfect trio. Creating good Karma in the world with these talks, so cheers. Changed my view on life, and I have changed others in ways too I hope. Great talk

I was a Buddhist for 30 years and became orthodox Christian recently. My main reason for converting is that I concluded that while Buddhism has a great intellectual system that appeals to human reason, I found the practice itself ultimately ineffective - both in myself but also in observing others. Ultimately, I couldn’t disregard an increasing feeling that Buddhism was a human invention. Christian prayer has had more effect on changing me as a person than 30 years of Buddhist practice of loving kindness and vipassana meditation. And the strange thing is that Christianity often still doesn’t satisfy my human reason and these gentlemen in this video mention many of these points. For example, I still struggle greatly with the idea of one lifetime determining the rest of your after-life forever. But after studying the matter very closely and practicing orthodox prayer for a year I concluded that it is probably true bc more effective. Also, I have started to realize that the truth is not as convenient as our little human minds can think of.

Really nice to hear that you guys have not swallowed this modern perennialist and new age idea that all religions are ultimately the same. Nothing is more annoying than those people who wish to blend everything in the world into some undivided gray goo.

The story of Christ (at its core) is about the worst possible thing happening to the best possible person. How did Jesus respond? He bore his cross. Whether or not Jesus actually lived doesn’t take away from the value of the story 🙏

Very intriguing discussion Ven. Paññobhāsa, please hold a similar conversation one time about Buddhism and Hinduism; specifically Vaiṣṇavism!

Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu

Ajahn Punnadhammo, storing books at an angle is very bad for them. I like to keep mine flat instead of on the edge/bottom. Otherwise you can use that statue to help keep them upright.

The life of Brian a man of many Mansions!

Just one side of debate!

What was the name of that book and author Ajahn mentioned by the Christian priest about the Buddha?

Some points : - Buddha's two best students reached self-realised in only a few days, therefore what is practiced today is not the original Buddhism - The 4 noble truths and other lists are not authentic; you can see the loss of authenticity in the arising of the idea of a "dharma teacher" rather than a teacher who is in self-realization and therefore speaks from his own knowledge - Christianity has many practices but they are concealed, for instance confession (psychological), scripture (mental development), rosary (mantra), kneeling and cross are a type of body work and energy work, communion (transmission) - Christianity does not require the relinquishing of the world, it is integrated in Western society and so is superior to Buddhism in this way. The Indian paths have a lot of deep penetration expressed conceptually so they are superior in the that way. However to be able to raise the dead and cure the sick through your presence reflects the transmission of a knowledge that is not conceptual, it is of a higher ilk. And the superiority of Western people over the planet for 2000 years demonstrates this. - Dependent origination does not really make sense. The item that is always removed from Buddhist philosophy is "who is asking?" and "to whom does any of this matter?" or "who is confused?" or "who is there to practice?". If there is nobody then there is no point practicing for there is nobody to be veiled. - Buddhist practices being forcefully and simple are powerful however. - We can move away from the idea of which is better because the species is not very developed, we can only try and receive authentically what is there. Most commentators of Christianity have never known it. Problems with the Buddhist investigation into dependent origination: - as you are already told what "the answer is" then people have no need to really look, and if you found a different answer your teacher would not be happy because most are robots - to investigate such things internally requires exceptional skill and few can do it - there is a difference between following concepts as a Practice and for those concepts to be literally correct ... for instance saying "I Am Brahman" or "Nothing Exists" can help to shift something but they are not literally correct ... likewise saying that the kalpas are empty may be practical to remove certain types of tethers to a low plain of existence, but that does not mean it is literally correct - if you could find a teacher who himself has a different answer then he would allow you to truly investigate, but it is rare - the answer is evolutionary, it isn't about analysing a static condition, things are changing through practice the one at the beginning and the one at the end are different ... so both situations needs to be analysed separately If you say at the end that you know nothing, this means complete failure of your tools.

@25:40 Concerning two truths: "Theravada makes much of the doctrine of the “two truths”, conventional (sammutisacca) and ultimate (paramatthasacca). Conventional truth is the domain of such ultimately unreal notions like “persons”, “nations”, and the like, while the ultimate truth deals with the fundamental phenomena of existence (dhammas). This distinction applies both to the expression of the truth-where the Suttas are supposed to deal with conventional truth, while the Abhidhamma deals with ultimate truth-and the underlying realities spoken of, where the “ultimately true” phenomena are so by virtue of the fact that they have an “intrinsic essence” (sabhāva). No such distinction is found in the EBTs. There we find the Buddha easily moves between discussions framed in terms of people and those in terms of phenomena, without having to impute any ontological significance to this distinction. The fact that words have specialized meanings, and that what is true in one domain of discourse may not apply in another, is a normal feature of specialization and is not a characteristic of the Dhamma. In physics, for example, what we take to be solid matter is seen as energies moving in space. That doesn’t mean that the idea of “solidity” is wrong or lesser, it just means that it applies when considering things from some perspectives but not others. In the ordinary world we live in, “solidity” is perfectly real: no physicist tries to walk through walls. When the term paramattha appears in the EBTs, it does not mean “ultimate meaning” or “ultimate reality” but “ultimate goal”, and is a word for Nibbana." (Bhikkhu Sujato)

Buddha is not a religion neither god. Buddha teached us be good person and love all creatures and humankind live in this world. Religion is your own preference. I like to wish you live happy is more important. Buddha love you.

Thank you Venerable Ajahn Punnadhammo, Brian and Pannobhasa aka David Reynolds for this interesting video. Venerable, I’m baffled, you stated that Panikkar was born a Hindu and converted to a Catholic. But, according to Wikipedia, Raimon Panikkar’s mother was Spanish Roman Catholic and he was educated at a Jesuit school who ordained as a Catholic priest. Later he wrote, "I left Europe for India as a Christian, discovered I was a Hindu and returned as a Buddhist without ever having ceased to be Christian.” So is the Venerable referring to the same Panikkar? How can anyone with any right understanding of morality and wisdom state that the Buddha Dhamma and Christianity are similar? Please read the bible and/or watch a KZfaq video, “why did God murder so many people in the Bible ?” Some Horrific killings done and attributed to God with refrences to the passages in the bible are provided. Sorry I cannot provide the link herein as it was removed twice!

Thank you so much for this vid. Amen.

Paul never says he met anyone who knew Jesus on Earth. He met Peter and James, but he doesn't say they knew Jesus. He does describe James as a brother of the Lord; this (along with another mention of brothers of the Lord by Paul) is one of the most frequently cited pieces of evidence for a historical Jesus. But there are other explanations that present themselves, the most straightforward possibilities being that "brother of the Lord" is being used as a figurative title; or this phrase can very easily be an interpolation, since the sentence would read normally without it. It's interesting that the Epistle of Jude begins with the author describing himself as "Jude, the brother of James". Traditionally, this is considered to the Jesus' brother Jude and his brother James the Just. In that case, for some reason the author didn't seem to think it was relevant to mention that his brother is the Son of God and Messiah.

Very true guru ji sadhu sadhu sadhu 🕉️☸️🙏🙏🙏🧡🧡🧡✊🦶💪

Venerable Ajahn Punnadhammo, appreciate if you can kindly provide me with some references for me to check that writings were available during the Buddha’s time? Also, I note that my earlier comments were removed!

Christianity and Hinduism might be more appropriate, as both stress on a supreme creator and in Buddhism there is none.

Yehoshafat means something along the lines of god's judgement in hebrew

In 40:50, where do you get the specifics about the magi from the east? The Bible doesn't say that much.

And I find it interesting (but maybe I just missed it), that you talked for a long time, but never really mentioned the resurrection of Jesus. That's the one aspect where Paul writes without it the whole faith is futile (1. Corinthians 15). A bit strange that it is barely or not at all adressed...

If one doubts the existence of Jesus, he is just a poor scholar. The evidence for the crucified rabbi, also a messianic figure is simply overwhelming.

“Jesus never existed” is the idiotic view.

𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐦 💕

Brian Ruhe is not exactly a sane person.

"Christianity demands blind belief" it depends on the denomination we are talking about and which church you go to. From my experience with it, it demands no such thing but encourages you to open your heart to God and to have direct encounters with Him. You pray for guidance and you hear the voice of God, you are guided by the Holy Spirit all the time. The best denomination that focuses on direct revelation is the Pentacostal one. You are not reborn as a Christian until you are moved by the Holy Spirit and SEE the Truth for yourself according to them. Following the teaching of Jesus and the guidance from the Holy Spirit is no different than following Buddhist practice and ethics. They both prove themselves correct. The only problem is that you will have different revelations from each and each will reveal itself as the most obvious and fundamental truth. Then you will become a nihilist because you will realize that neither can be true 😞.

Never existed… lol. I’m out

Both religions are misogynistic and homophobic. The similarity ends there.