2023....

physicalists aren't buddhist. physicalists are more like born again christians, trying to pray nonexistent emergent properties of consciousness into existence. buddhists are concerned with developing methods of rigorously observing the mind.

Me too! It's a great model of how to disagree with respect. Much needed.

And before this, you don't have to

That is exactly what the buddha said. Find out for yourself. 🙏

Glad to see your comment. I follow you

Based

+Cape P Would you like to answer please, what or who gets to be reborn, since Buddha taught Anatman/Anatta ?

@@agnostinosatomon7023 When life ceases the karmic energy reforms as a different being. In truth, you do not have past lives, since those lives don't specifically belong to you. Most Buddhists profess that nothing survives rebirth in samsara, due to the concept of anatma.

The 5 aggregates get reborn.

agnostinos atomon the 5 aggregates. There is no self because even that self is ever changing. All that’s left isn’t the physical memories, personality, etc. but the five aggregates.

Sure, but the Buddha was just a man, and was ignorant of modern science, which offers absolutely no evidence for reincarnation, let alone a reincarnation toward enlightenment hypothesis. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the books by Stevenson in no way offer that. On the other hand we do have evidence for terror management theory, which shows that human culture, especially religious notions, decrease death anxiety by giving humans an importance and durability that counter the insignificance and finitude represented by death

Yeah why does it matter that they have different views?

+MountAnalogue well said

Batcelor has a false view and he is trying to pass that off as Buddhism People should be angry and shocked at the audacity of this ignorant fool Stephen who can not comprehend the full scope of karma including multiple rebirths. Bachelor is trying to package his innate western ignorance as Wisdom for a profit.

Thank you for your comment. I am a bit disheartened by the lack of loving compassion on this comment page. I see a lot of attachment to views. I have found a lot of freedom in letting these absolutes go. Best Wishes to all.

an idiot tries to change Buddhism a wise man changes himself to fit the path that has taken people to enlightenment for 2500 years.

Quite the opposite. Time is transient, we can only "be" in our present. Which is what he wants to be.

What do you want to say by purity of heart? Again I am reminding you that to write purity of heart is meaningless. This word is used by Godly Mazhabs like Hindu, Muslim, Isai etc Pl take care in future. In Buddhism only purity of mind is required, being epicenter of all activities.

From another point of view, there is the core teaching of the brahma viharas (the ‘four immeasurables’), which are trainings in the affective side of life, rather than the cognitive. It doesn’t seem misplaced at all to say that they are aimed at cultivating ‘purity of heart.’ In any case, surely ‘purity of heart’ could only be a noble goal, no matter what ones creed.

What the fuck do those nonsense rhetorical words MEAN ?

You have to remember that there are people who hate Buddhism and write comments pretending to be Buddhists for the very purpose of giving Buddhism a bad name.

How is rebirth a supernatural claim ? I think it's a much more logical or reasonable claim than events happen by chance, luck or act of god, isn't it ? Also bear in mind that science is not know-all yet and also never debunked or refuted rebirth. In fact, Einstein's energy transformation theory is very coherent with rebirth.

@btw Buddhism is True exactly, Thai singer Langgalamu today is a living proof of Taiwanese sing Teresa Teng rebirth. I think those who don't believe in rebirth are due to indoctrination caused by certain religions.

​@btw Buddhism is True I understand where this train of thought comes from, but that is using analogical thinking to imply something is empirical when it is not. There is no scientific evidence proving the existence of reincarnation. While our atoms continue to compile themselves in various living and nonliving things, it is not known whether consciousness or a continuous karmic life force continues after death. Reincarnation in Buddhism clearly denotes the idea that a person's actions are responsible for where they end up in the next life. This also implies that you can only become something that has life and cannot be reincarnated as a non-living thing. This is fundamentally different from the scientific understanding that we are composed of atoms created from stars (nonliving) that have gone supernova and spread the fundamental elements to create life. In a scientific understanding, we are composed of many organic and inorganic compounds that came from several sources in the universe. I understand the desire to meld belief and mysticism with empiricism to give it credibility, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence that is more than anecdotal and circumstantial. I have a deep respect and regard for Buddhism and many eastern religions, but, as someone with a science background, I make sure not to confound the two for the sake of my own convenience or need for validation. When you do that, you get charlatans using a flimsy and erroneous understanding of quantum physics to justify spiritual dogma or dubious astrometric math to claim the earth is a certain age to fit with a holy book's interpretation of reality. This exercise does not give clarity to reality but obfuscates it. I am content knowing some things are true and having faith that some things might be true. I enjoy reveling in the mystery of faith.

@btw Buddhism is True Sadhu brother! I accept that completely, as long as it is not confounded with scientific principles. The Buddha's teachings are logical within its own esoteric framework. I think existence is complicated enough without trying to jam puzzle pieces together that don't necessarily fit. I come from a Christian background, which has an entirely different metaphysical framework. I have since adopted the dharma as my philosophical and moral compass.

mind is an illusion morality is a meaningless social preference only useful for imposing onto the powerless. or, the final moment of mind in this life functions to produce the first moment of the next, and your actions are conserved, producing your suffering

if you are not comprehending reincarnation you are a fool , you are not following any sort of Buddhist philosophy at all. The Buddha literally calls you a fool or ignorant. What you have here is new age crap dressed up like it was some sort of science or philosophy

We don't pray to the Buddha but we do worship the Buddha. Worship because we acknowledge the worth of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. Praying is to ask for help.

Except his realism doesn't actually establish a solid objective. I don't recall he ever experienced an insight or even the first Jhanic state. His idea of secular materialism is precisely what hinders an insight from Vipassana, because he doesn't have the right views. I have no problem with secular Buddhism, just not scientific materialism reading of Buddhism, which is what is going on with the western movement right now. That's Carvaka, not Buddhism. Steven Batchelor is especially inclined to do that (saying its your brain that basically causes thought), and to be frank, its just that he doesn't fully understand Buddhist philosophy of dependent origination, especially not Mahayana philosophies like Madhyamaka, which completely destroys the materialistic argument. The east already had something similar to secular Buddhism long ago, that would be Tang dynasty radical Zen; its just that it could be secular without being materialistic. Focusing only on meditation makes Buddhism no different from Hindu, Daoism or Sufi Islam, it's the dependent origination and three dharma seals that makes Buddhism unique.

Maybe the right balance while learning is, “First trust, then verify.”

hes an idiot so he became a physicalist.

@btw Buddhism is True I am not sure I know what you mean and I am not sure you know what I mean. For me trying to be a Buddhist is based on my delusion of what a Buddhist is so let that delusion go. From my limited understanding a Buddha is not deluded. I am still deluded so I could be wrong . What do you THINK?

Very reasonable.

Very true and although I consider myself very agnostic as a Buddhist, I think the original teachings should be interpreted and taught as the Buddha taught. Just because we don’t know whether or not the supernatural teachings of rebirth and karma are true, doesn’t mean we should cherry pick certain suttas that would support a case for the Buddha being a people pleasing atheist and ignoring the suttas that show that he clearly isn’t.

Yes. I don't think you have to take the concept of rebirth in a literal way for it to remain an essential aspect of the practice. In the same way, Christians don't have to take the immaculate conception in a literal way for it to remain an intrinsic part of the experience of Christianity.

TINTO RETTO I haven't been to a Thai Forest monastery, but I'm quite sure most any Dhamma talk is given spontaneously, regardless of tradition. I'm not particularly fond of Amaravati. They didn't show even moral support for the 2009 Bhikkhuni Ordination when many other Theravada monasteries around the world did. Even Bhikkhu Bodhi, the internationally rennown classical Theravada scholar, showed his support.

TINTO RETTO You seem to be quite capable of making your own opinion on these controversial issues, so I will leave you to it. I have no issue with anyone's views on these things as long as the ordained nuns get the respect and recognition they deserve.

In what he speaks, Brahmali does not understand Buddhism nor does he represent what Ajahn Chah taught. Brahmali is definitely a 'scholar', in knowing the words in the scriptures but does not understand the meaning of the words he reads. Brahmali is essentially a materialist. In the Bible, Jesus said to a man: "to enter the kingdom of heaven you must be born again". The man (Nicodemus) erroneously believed he had to be born into his mother's womb a second time. Brahmali is similar to Nicodemus, a materialist, a misunderstander & thus a heretic.

Every Thai Forest monk is not trained to talk spontaneously with little to no preparation. This was a tradition in the Ajahn Chah monastery but other Thai monks in other Thai forest traditions did not follow this. Ajahn Sumedho's mumbling rambling talks are examples of spontaneous talk. But not Brahmali. Brahmali is not of the forest tradition but of a new sutta based tradition. Many of us who were part of the forest tradition have outgrown the old Guru-Student relationship and only follow the suttas now. Brahmali is the same. He is sutta tradition & his understanding of the suttas is incorrect. That said, Brahmali, Brahm, etc, are not of the Thai forest tradition. Instead, their doctrines are of the old Sri Lanka Mahavihara Tradition, where they believe Dependent Origination explains rebirth/reincarnation over 3 life times (rather than the origin of here-&-now suffering). If you compare the teachings of Brahmali & Brahm on Dependent Origination to the teachings of Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Buddhadasa, Ajahn Sumedho, Ajahn Amaro, etc, you will find they are completely different. Brahmali & Brahm, true to name, following the Brahministic-Buddhist tradition that took over & polluted Buddhism many centuries ago.

BarbarraBay "and only follow the suttas now" You follow texts written hundreds of years after the death of Buddha, which were written due to political pressure and in many cases contradicted several of the 18 original schools which predated Theravada. Keep in mind the texts had further additions after that and even before hand there were already changes to the vinaya which had no justification. Enjoy Tissa's pollution of Buddhism.

+Oliver Wild I've never walked around the entire earth, winding up at the same place I started. But I still carry on my life as if the earth was round. I have a certain amount of faith in the photos and other evidence, have heard from others who have circumnavigated the planet, but in the absolute sense, I have no direct experience and cannot say "I have seen the earth is round for myself." For practical purposes, you have to operate with a certain level of faith based on second-hand knowledge and reason. You meditate to get a clear mind so you can distinguish which is more wise-to live life based on the belief the earth is flat, round, or some other shape.

fuk u . you are extremely attached to your ignorance. It is a travesty that you display any sort of Buddhist name at all, if you are too ignorant to understand that reincarnation is essential to the Buddhist faith.

@@enstigatorofficial You are in error. Repent.

fuk off ignorant asshole. Buddhism has practiced reincarnation for thousands of years and it is crucial to understanding the teachings on karma. you buy that robe at Kmart you disgusting perverted filth, if you understood realms you would know the torment of hell awaits you according to the Pali Canon

@Enstigator Official get some help!

Enstigator Official a little too much hatred there brother

+Phil Hynes Nothing can be proven, what he is saying is not to accept something as true without evidence (ie not to take things on faith/belief alone). Evidence comes through investigation and experimentation, science provides the tools/practices for that process. So to understand reality is to use scientific methods. "All my followers should not accept my teaching out of devotion or out of faith; but rather through investigation and experimentation". Its clear to me though that Buddhism relies on reflection and logical questions to enhance understanding of the self and the causes of pain. It doesn't need belief to achieve that.

+TheUnbeholden , That is not what the buddha taught. He did say that dont contempt yourself with mear faith but experiment for yourself the teaching. Buddha stated and gave paths to prove his statements, incluiding rebirth and karma, and ofcurse nibbana. Although logic has a role in the path the main point is contemplative experience, that is direct, non conceptual experiencie of this truths. Science is great in giving third person evidence but is not what buddhism is about, buddhism is about direct experience through contemplation

+TheUnbeholden , we all believe in things, scientists included, it's unavoidable, but 2+2 only makes sense because of convention........and that's what we forget....

+Phil Hynes A separation needs to be made between Buddhism and science, because the two things are not contradictory, nor are they the same thing. You say you don't accept the "scientific version of 'reality'", but could this be seen as ignorance or wrong view? Scientists know things, just as Buddhists do. Perhaps, think of the meditation practice as a Buddhist equivalent to the scientific method. The scientific method consists of the means by which scientists test experiments and hypotheses in order to determine their accuracy. This is how we know scientific facts, such as evolution, climate change, gravity, etc. to be true and accurate. In Buddhism, we practice insight meditation, to literally gain insight into the true nature of reality. The true nature of reality most definitely encompasses these fields of science, but Buddhism simply acknowledges these things to be true and searches for something deeper in reality. There is no such thing as Buddhism versus science. I've never heard a monk or teacher of any kind reject a scientific fact (except for the Dalai Lama, who denies the randomness of natural selection, but acknowledges the theory of evolution itself). If we practice meditation, and we deny things such as science in order to make way for superstition, we may find ourselves blocked in our practice.

I don't deny it but its not necessary, lots of practitioners achieve goal without science view so its not important to me or to enlightenment, some do it with faith and devotion, I heard Dzongsar KR saying HH Chatral Rinpoche and Thinley Norbu would laugh at Buddhism having to be validated by science. Also unless you personally fully understand Einsteins complex equations and can fully explain gravity yourself etc then you are simply believing in someone elses view yourself.

Yes. Also, the only meat you're allowed to eat is chicken, cow, and pork, as long as you recognize that the animal was slaughtered against its will, and went through agonizing pain for nothing more than to end up on your plate. :D

yet kamma is one of the central tenets of the Dhamma, whos recognition is one of the elements of the Right view, without the Right view there's no Buddhadhamma, only its makeshift versions the knowledge of past lives was one of the 3 supernatural knowledges obtained by the Buddha at Uruvela during the process of his awakening, this fact alone testifies for the importance of the doctrine of kamma for the Dhamma

excellent constructive comment. I think both the speakers provide great insight. instead of saying hes right or wrong we can leave room for ambiguity and say "the truth may lie somewhere in between " waiting to be found once we reach the maturity nessesary to experience it for ourselves...

Buddhism should be call right: the next religion , the next science.

Buddhism is not a religion. Religion = believe in a god.

Reincarnation is not a Buddhist belief. It is called rebirth because the same consciousness is not reincarnated. The philosophy of atta or permanent self underlies reincarnation, whereas the knowledge of anatta (a kind of opposite) is consistent with rebirth.

In Buddhism, you don't want to be re-birthed, as your main goal is to reach a state of nirvana. But goals do not count as desire.

Gautama didn't passively inherit ideas about reincarnation/rebirth, he ACTIVELY inherited them from the faulty religion around him. Why? Because as a human being he was imperfect and as a good mentor he let us know to always test his words against reality. Those so afraid of death that they cling to rebirth-ideas should not seek to pass such clingy genetics to their children. There is only this, and it's right here, so focus!

Amusing but totally arbitrary interpretation.

Amusing but totally arbitrary interpretation.

Amusing but totally arbitrary interpretation.

Amusing but totally arbitrary interpretation.

***** yeah we are programmed by nature to suffer for food, sex, status and many other things much more but buddhism teaches us how to reverse that process which means less craving equals less suffering..no one is fking telling you not to stop wanting things, stop looking for the end process god damn it (buddhism is not all about Nirvana, nirvana, nirvana oh god please stop comparing it with christianity end states) you all are so narrow minded, it's the process all the way along..living in the present, enjoying the present moment there is all there to it. the main point about buddhism is people tend to jump to the future or go back to their pasts in their minds to change something or prevent something from happening and these are all futile because what only matters now is the present moment and you are slowly letting it slip away without even realising and sooner or later you are going to die without realising you haven't even lived because you were too busy wanting this and that to happen,

+NyowNyowl once one started cursing, it means that he's losing an argument and hence he shoudnt be taken serious. please answer me, what is the fundamental basic understanding of live and death in Buddhism, and does heaven exist in Buddhism?

+JesusChrist TheGoodSheppard yes

Ranjith Hapu first, you lied for saying buddhism has heaven. Secondly, supposedly heaven does exist in buddhism. Then what is the clear justification to substantiate the buddhist teaching of incarnation? buddhism teaches that life is like circle, die then becomes something else, and your reincarnation depends on your enlightenment and karma. That is a huge contradiction in Buddhism

Dear br ,first learn budhisam then you will know all univarse and what buddha did during 45 years what teach evry thing you will know thanks triple jem bless you

"I think it is completely against what Buddha said" Buddhologists might be quick to point out that you are taking him out of context, that the Buddha taught eclectically, depending on his audience, and would modify his teachings to suit. In the Kalama he was teaching non-buddhists who were prone to skepticism as is. While we see a very different tone when dealing people who have already converted to being a disciple of the Buddha, where he lays down very clear unambiguous guidelines about what is good and what is bad, such as how one conducts oneself, how one speaks, and how one meditates. Even in the Kalama, he is giving no indication that his teachings could be unskillfull or could lead to harm or suffering, he is making a general statement to appeal to his audience as to win them over, which he so often does in the texts. He gives fire teachings to fire-worshipers and he gives teachings that the self is the aggregates to people need this specific teaching, none of those can be used to draw absolute generalizations. As mentioned, in regards to already-converted Buddhists, there is not a single mention of him providing Kalama-like teachings to his monks. This is critical to understand. Once you have accepted the buddhadhamma there is clear cut path that one is expected to follow and have confidence in, one isn't to fallow one's own path as that isn't the way that the Buddha laid out. He asserted directly was is true and what is false, what is noble and what is pernicious, without ambiguity or wiggle-room. Scholars like the late Michael Dorfman has discussed this at length and side against you on this issue. Therefore, Ajahn Brahmali might be far far more justified in his statement than you think, because that his how the Pali depicts the Buddha and his teachings.

You are now claiming indirectly that Buddha taught wrong things to "non-monks". Be clear of one thing brother/sister, Buddha never gave private sessions to anyone. All what he said was to be heard by his monks, memorised and taken as a lesson. So what he said cannot be ambigious, and if he said something to someone, then he meant it for everyone. Don´t be a fanatic dear.

+imi hote

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Im not sure he is saying you should discount anything, except karma and rebirth (at least until you have reason to believe it because of your own understanding). Just my opinion. Hope this helps. If i'm wrong please correct me

Yeah fair. People here seem really nice. :) What path are you on if you don't mind me asking? would it be useful for me?

James Sheffer wonderfully captured the essence of Ajahn Brahmali's argument

The elegance and subtlety of Buddhism is far beyond the weak grasp of Mr.Bachelor... he is only able to wrestle with the packaging. He really needs to drop the 'Buddhist' label as he is danger to it. 🤷🏼‍♂️🤣

@@dublinphotoart I hear you. You may be right. I don't know enough about Mr. Batchelor to comment on his grasp, but calling oneself Buddhist implies following the teachings of the Tathagatha, and he seems to have diverged from them.

You could say this for any religion.

@@LukasOfTheLight , yes, perhaps you could. But the issue here is what the early Buddhists understood with regard to rebirth.

@@maliksamarasinghe Not perhaps, you could. And therefore your point about the issue that "I think it's true because people went to great lengths for it" is weak.

It's been re-interpreted for centuries. It's extremely diverse already.

causation ie. moments arise due to causes and conditions

@@backwardthoughts1022 My question is.. how can any of the Buddhist beliefs, concepts, or principles be considered reliable since even they are subject to change? If everything is impermanent and subject to change, then... every [truth, belief, concept and principle] that Buddhism proposes... is also subject to impermanence and change, and thus... it can't be considered reliable.

If you find one thing that doesn't change - tell the world about it! I think even the Dalai Lama would become your apprentice.

@@janopian389 If Christianity is true, then God is not subject to change. He is purported to be uncreated, eternal/permanent, indestructable, unconditional and subject to nothing. (He is also believed to be the source of perfect unconditionsl love and dignity.. both of which are thus, also eternal and permanent).

@@1StepForwardToday God is a concept, I'm sorry. The Dalai Lama is saved. Greetings

Idiot. Study the 1st & 2nd sermons of the Buddha, where the listeners entered & realised the path & Nirvana due to realising impermenance. Instead, you try to argue about nothing, showing your mind is the supreme putthujjana.

You sound like you are possessed by Mara the Evil One - you and that Brit who is a Protestant in Buddhist robes (oh, I forget, Batchelor demitted twice).

Thank you Mujaku. I still see you are spamming these videos. Are you & Ardent Hollings the same person? Regardless, if you disagree with what i posted, then this will be wrong understanding. "Rebirth" is for puttujjana because every stream-enterer & every arahant in the suttas realised: "All that is subject to arising is subject to cessation". Unlike you, Vishnu, Brahma & Krishna, every stream-enterer & every arahant in the suttas did not believe: "All that is subject to cessation is subject to re-arising". Brahmali has wrong view. Based on what Brahmali spoke, there is no other option but regard his mind as puttujanna. Regards

Now both if you putthujjana fools, Ardent & Mujaka please review the suttas & stop slandering Buddha: Now during this utterance, there arose in the venerable Kondañña the spotless, immaculate vision of the True Dhamma: "Whatever is subject to arising is all subject to cessation." Then the Blessed One uttered the exclamation: "Kondañña knows! Kondañña knows!," and that is how that venerable one acquired the name, Añña-Kondañña - Kondañña who knows. "Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, O Lord." "Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?" "Unsatisfactory, O Lord." "Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?" Indeed, not that, O Lord." "O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life, what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this becoming.'" Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Monks, do you too understand the Dhamma as taught by me in the same way that the monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, does when, through his own poor grasp [of the Dhamma], he not only slanders us but also digs himself up [by the root] and produces much demerit for himself?" "No, lord, for in many ways the Blessed One has said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness.'" "It's good, monks, that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in this way, for in many ways I have said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness.' But this monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, through his own poor grasp [of the Dhamma], has not only slandered us but has also dug himself up [by the root], producing much demerit for himself. That will lead to this worthless man's long-term harm & suffering. "Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in dependence on which it burns - a fire that burns in dependence on wood is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is classified simply as a rubbish-fire - in the same way, consciousness is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

By your logic it's OK to posit the existence of the tooth fairy and then to demand evidence for or against its existence. It's silly to assume that the tooth fairy, at least relatively, exists.

+519blackpanther This is atheism vs Buddhism.

Buddhist atheism versus religious Buddhism

not religious buddhism, you mean traditional kind of?

It's secular/western Buddhism vs. Traditional Buddhism. Basically it revolves around the truth of rebirth - the secular/western speaker views rebirth as a backward cultural remnant from times past that can be done with, while the traditional Buddhist views rebirth as a reality and says that acceptance of it as reality is absolutely needed for fruitful buddhist practice.

It's not just the afterlife, Steven Batchelor doesn't seem to understand basic notion of dependent origination.