Nirvana mean suppos in our life any goal ,aim is achieved completely and go forward 😊

buddhism or dhamma is not for ethics or living a good life. its for destroying the everything we think as reality. and its not for everybody. its only for beens who found existence is genuinely suffering and need to get rid of it , or destroy it in individual level with the individuality too. if you need to live a good life or grow good ethics , you dont necessarily need buddhism. most religions out there can do that.

No one has commented.

Very nice teaching. Btw, the 'what is this' part starts at around 30:00.

It is unbelieveable that people believe what Stephen interprets. He speaks only theoretically about things. He has no understanding what deep meditation is and what it does.

Thank you One Mindful Breath. You have contributed to a Right View map for my own Dharma. Be well Stephen Batchelor. Greetings from the Philippines.

Doesn't McMindfulness mean the commercialisation of mindfulness. It isn't a comment on the people that eat at McDonalds.

Thank you loved this! I've heard Martine's name forever, where I'm not sure, and was enchanted by her & this little(?) group. BTW I'm watching from San Francisco area (thx, youtube & technology:)

Great an admirer that I am of Stephen Batchelor, I fear he has misunderstood the critique levelled by Ron Purser and others (viz. Glenn Wallis, in my experience, but I'm sure many others too) at the adoption and dissemination of mindfulness 'techniques' by corporations and institutions. I do wonder has he read Purser's book? If anything, the McMindfulness critique is a marxist one, and Purser's book and various articles through the years (including a long read in 2019 in the Guardian) excellently elaborate the argument. Batchelor's response, at least in this video, is confused, and confusing, and suggests a serious misunderstanding of the matter. The first question from the 'audience', as it were, and Batchelor's response, converge in their shared misunderstanding of the critique. What is essential to Purser's critique is not, necessarily (though it could reasonably be argued) the segregation of meditation techniques from the integrated framework of the Buddha's Eightfold Noble Path, but rather the conviction, implicit and critical to this practice, that the responsibility for individual well-being can only be downloaded at the individual level, thereby exonerating wider political, corporate, and social structures from responsibility for this proximal and ultimate ambition.

Perhaps Mr Batchelor will revive Buddhism.... or the dharma.

Is Nirvana cognitive behavioural therapy?

Thanks Martine for all of your great teachings. Imma

a breath of fresh air...

21:50 Reactivity gets us all now and then. :-)

Great talk!

How about let's be mindful of how we're not mindful we are not. Be a good place to begin for most of us.

Love that he's studied the Pali! I enjoyed his talk with Ajahn Brahmali. I know Ajahn Brahm is not a particularly big fan of McMindfulnesa, and does not approve of the Rohinga situation anymore than the Dalai Llama does. Nataionalism is everywhere like a fast virus. It's certainly not related to Buddhism. And those monks are considered disrobed even though they continue staying in them. They're not supported by the wider Buddhist community at all.

nice talk!

Thank you for sharing Stephen Batchelor's patiently carved formulation of his inspiring spiritual journey

I find Mr. Bachelor brilliant. His work leads me to the certainty that the teachings of Gotama have been outrageously distorted due to cultural forces. This includes the miss-remembering and mis-recording of what Gotama actually taught during his life. I fully accept that every single recorded sutta, from the first to the last, is distorted and erroneous. The truth of Gotama's teaching is still present in the Dharma, but we will have to sift out the gargantuan distortions to make it worthy of our practice. We are hugely fortunate for Mr. Bachelor's contributions.

Are my ears hearing this correctly, is Stephen saying that buddhist monks altered the meaning of kamanta over time in order to suit their self-interest, namely because they don't have a career or want to work? So if this is the case what might be some of the major implications for a secular buddhist due to this modification of the eightfold path? Secondly, if ajiva is 'what we do in order to survive or keep alive' as the good Batchelor says, doesn't this conflict with his translation of kamanta, for what we do for work/career is also or largely our means for staying alive or surviving? In my opinion Stephen doesn't adequately untangle his interpretation of the two terms but keeps them dangling at polar ends of a stick. Perhaps you would like to have a stab at it my good sir...

How might one get their hands on Stephen Batchelor's in depth views of the eightfold path? Your best guess if you don't know?

An interesting way of understanding Buddha's talks (that is close to mine), particularly the problem of the definition of words. But there are not so many buddhists who realy believe Buddha is a god to be prayed, and himself just saw the world as composed of humans, devas and asuras, but he didn't advocate any worshiping and saw human condition as the superior one, best one to attain nibbana... so the term "religion" is not adequate to define Buddhism in general, whatever stupid ways it takes, and it's true that the fundation of a monastic, disciplinary, path that became even ritualistic is "kind of" religious and absurd, but to me it's a general problem, not specific to Buddhism, so if we take the term "religion" as a way of speaking, all is religious no ? It's not specific to Buddhism, the need to follow blindly leaders, gurus (in all possible ways), thoughts (Buddha warned about that), rituals, national flags, armies, disciplinary stuff is a subject in itself and "Buddhism" just an expression of this problem. Buddhists should stop talking exclusively about Buddhism ! Do we ever say Army, Police, etc. are religions ? Not SO much. Though it's the same thing, what's the difference ? Religiosity is everywhere (and yes Stephen talks about this, but systematicaly comparing the evolution of Buddhism to the evolution of a religion such as christianitiy to prove that Buddhism was not really meant to become somewhat religious (not A religion again to me) is not the best way to convince !), but when we talk about a religion in the original sense, we assume it is BASED on the worshipping, love etc. of god(s), it's in the definition of "religion", otherwise, again, so many things should enter in this category of "religion" if we're talking about following blindly someone, an order, rituals, a path etc. About "sankapa" meaning more something like "imagination", "planning" (a work) etc. and "kamanta" meaning more something like "work" itself : an interesting and wider statement than what is commonly thought, I agree, but that doesn't mean necessarily that we HAVE to be imaginative and industrious (even if monks do elementary and daily practical work too), Sakyamuni himself dedicated essentialy his life to meditation, and going from a place to another and speaking, teaching, interfering etc. (yet at the same time maintaining a very elementary, basic, way of life), which is a kind of work yes but essentialy turned to the expansion of Dharma, he had a particular and historical role to play as the founder of Buddhism, but that doesn't implies everybody should be as busy as he was ! So I would rather say that he meant that IF we decide to be implied in worldly things (but notice that being a monk is not the only alternative, some as me would rather prefer going their own way...interacting or working when they think this can realy make sense and avoiding the rest), we should be industrious in a true and effective way (which implies imaginative and engaged, e.g. politicaly, artistically), avoiding opportunism or just "doing things" or having any job just to earn money (trying and being selective, as much as one can afford of course), not paying attention to the interest or the conditions of it, not being able to interfer with authorities (workers solidarity etc. to the point of possibly trying self management, trying to participate in cooperatives etc. etc.).

There are so many of problems with Stephen Batchelor's approach to Buddhism it would be far too extensive to delineate here. I think however there is an excellent critique from a traditional Buddhist perspective of Mr. Batchelor's view of the Dharma if you wish to examine it and I have included the website where you can find it. Beyond my disagreements with Mr. Batchelor concerning the issues and ideas that he espouses about the Buddha Dharma,. There is another issue that is not addressed by the author of the critique of Mr. Batchelor's book Buddhism without beliefs, and fatuous ideas themselves. The issue for me is that Stephens demeanor and his language resonates the old British Raj ,who seeks to bring order and discipline to the colonials subjects of the Empire and their quaint ideas. The contempt he has for a traditional Buddhism is best illustrated in his comment about reincarnation, a man could come back as a poodle. Reminds one of another British Raj Bwana Dawkins speaking about theology as leprechaunology. Stephen is a self-designated Buddhist scholar. Is also a self-designated Buddhist expert. Caveat Emptor www.arrowriver.ca/dhamma/woBeliefs.html