วีดีโอ

If you dont believe in rebith, then delete the word bhudhism from your baby secular bhudhism.

Either Batcher does not know how to express himself or he is ignorant. He talks so much, which causes his talk to go astray.

Batchelor talks too much. He has to practice to speak more succinctly.

Batchelor talks too much. He has to practice to speak more succinctly.

In "Theravada" Buddhism in Sri Lanka, all enlightened "Baghavath Buddhas" appear on earth after eons of life times of purification of the mind, as a fulfilling universal qualification to perfecting qualities of "conscious energies" described in Sri Lankan Buddhist texts "Pali Thripitaka" as "paramitha kamma" (perfectible universal deeds). The Baghvath Buddha has described beings existing in 31 realms. All creations in this universes are "energies" with influence of the "elements" under "causality". The Buddha has described how universal energy called "kamma" manifests in human form through human faculties of seeing, hearing, smelling, taste, touch & mind (past experiences) called aggregates, amalgamating with external world experiences of feelings through the Human heart organ as electrical signals to develop a "seed" to become "conscious energy" which continues to the brain as a "thought" and this continuation of experience is stored in the "sub conscious" mind in the human brain called "mano" (pali ) (mind) in Buddhism. This" perception " action is called "thought". Thought becomes a conscious energy called "kamma/karma in Buddhism.

Here's the fundamental problem I see with this debate - no one defined their terms at the start. We have no idea what either speaker's unique understanding of rebirth is. For example, maybe one person believes rebirth is like reincarnation - aka a "soul" carries on after death and is implanted into a new body. Maybe another person views rebirth as an acorn sprouting and becoming a tree. And when the tree dies, it's eaten by insects, bacteria, and fungi, so the tree becomes all of these things, and it also becomes soil, which becomes a new plant. Different people will have varying levels of acceptance or rejection of either of these two beliefs. You have to get on the same page otherwise you may be misunderstanding your debate partner and vice versa.

Albert Einstein........If there's a religion that could correspond to the needs of modern science, it will be Buddhism! th-cam.com/video/hTbz6wuDKyc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=grrmUJmMsJqLhGrF

Buddhism came before Hinduism

yolo got merit. that's all i'm saying.

How lovely to watch a civil, respectful debate.

A Buddhist is not someone who just has faith in Buddha's teachings. A Buddhist is someone who understands Buddha's teachings.

From Brahmali I only heard appeals to authority and exclusion. My sense is this resolve towards certainty is antithetical to the dharma. Buddhism is its own worst enemy.

I believe Bachelor was a good young student who tried to learn something he is interested in. Unfortunately he did not find the right buddhist master (who is so rarely to find in nowaday world). So he misunderstood and interpreted the Buddha teaching on his own way. Such as he think the core of Buddhism is meditation (same as majority of the world) so he wanted to re-arrange the order of noble eight fold path by bringing the Summa Sati(mindfulness) and Summa Smadhi(concentration) to the front instead of Summa Thitti (right view). If one starts with wrong view then it is impossible to walk the path of the Buddha to liberate the mind.

The Buddha taught his followers to practice Buddhism step by step starting from: 1. Observe and practice the precept; Five, Eight, Ten, etc seriously. 2. restraint of the six senses not let unwholesome get into. 3. Bhojane mattannutā - moderation in eating, utilizing things etc. 4. Jagariyānuyoga - moderation in sleep, to keep mind and body function correctly and awakening from worldly way into aryan way. With above four practice will take the person to ; 1. Sotapanna 2. Sakadagami 3. Anagami 4. Arahant Meditation => is not the core of Buddhism but it support. Anyway, meditation is what the West as well as the main Buddhist around the world is taking seriously. It is the way of the ascetics practice prior to the Buddha.

It seems like the only person with a bone to pick, really, is Brahmali. Batchelor is saying that you can follow the eightfold path successfully (in a way that brings peace, equanimity, and non-reactivity to difficult sensations, thoughts, and circumstances) without believing in reincarnation, though it is completely fine and reasonable if you do. Brahmali agrees, and even points out that there are many monastics convinced of reincarnation who fall very short of Buddhist ethical ideals, and many secular people who uphold Buddhist ethical ideals without even being aware of Buddhist doctrine--he just doesn't want Batchelor to call himself a Buddhist. For him, a membership badge hinges on belief in reincarnation, and without that conviction you're not in the club.

I'm not an expert on Buddhism, but I think Ven Brahmali makes a very fundamental mistake and does injustice to Buddha when he states that the idea of rebirth is the foundation of Buddha's teachings, be they the four noble truths or eight fold paths. Buddha was trying to understand 'dukkha'. The concept of rebirth and karma in the previous life were some concepts he adopted from the then prevailing religious discourse to explain it and the means to reach the end of 'suffering'. Having discarded 'god' as an explanatory idea, Buddha found the idea of rebirth a more rational concept. Today, 2500 years later, we know that rebirth is an idea that has no rational/scientific basis. Had Buddha been alive today, he wouldn't have fallen upon this ridiculous idea to explain anything. Though rebirth/karma were only minor ideas in Buddhist teachings, the priestly class that grew up around Buddhism later made these ideas fundamental to Buddhist religion. In our era, it's our duty to retrieve the real Buddha, the rationalist, from the clutches of the monks and priests.

I do not understand how a person,who practices the teachings of the Buddha, can discount rebirth. Everything falls apart without it.

Those who disbelieve in and openly reject the reality of rebirth have not understood it properly. Neither do they understand the true nature of consciousness. Because of their basic inability or unwillingness to reject identification with the body - which is never truly alive and only appears to be due to the presence of consciousness, and instead seeing themselves as consciousness, which is existence itself and can never die - they remain in ignorance. That which can die was never truly alive to begin with, and that which is truly alive can never die. This is fundamental fact.

Ajahn Brahmali knows what he is talking about. He gets to the point. He shows what the Buddha actually taught hence the term 'Buddhist' ... That is not dogma, to think that is dogma is the all too common Abrahamic mindset. You cannot just cherry-pick what suits you and yet still insist on calling yourself a Buddhist. Bachelor just loves hearing himself talk and has lots of words but little if anything to say. Larper! 🤷🤣

Stephen Bachelor talks a lot of words.... Kind of like a large word salad.

I think it is cool that you two guys in the beginning of the video look very similar to Stephen Batchelor. Uplifting video. Thanks.

Excellent conversation. Learnt a lot and enjoyed it fully and appreciated it so much. Thank you! Very healthy!

💚What suffering isn’t a reaction Stephen sir?

💚Stephen, you have to have faith in secularism’s ability to be able to see suffering within both objectively and subjectively, especially these days as secularism is turning into some form of rancid Marxism. Secularism just seems like pure arrogance these days, to me.

💚My ego can seem quite helpful Stephen sir. I hope my ego isn’t baked into my interpretation of Abhidhamma Venerable Ajahn Brahmali🙏

Brahmali seems to want to dogmatically cling to his version and interpretations of Buddhism, and especially reincarnation. Religious hierarchies love to cling to their authority. I see many Western Buddhists as closer to the original writings because the Buddha was an anti-absolutist and asked us to examine everything. Alot of ritual and local paganism accreted in Buddhism over millennia. Even non-Western Buddhism is hugely diverse. I see the old guard as grasping over sectarianism at times, and throughout history. This could be considered it's own baloney of sorts. My point here is that Buddhism already has a tremendous amount of diversity. Ajahn Brahmali is grasping here at a dogmatic conceptualization of rebirth. I do think it is important for Buddhists to share common core principles though, like sunyata, dukkha, dependent origination, impermanence, and some conceptualization of no inherent self. I do not think Westerners on the whole are giving up on those core beliefs, and I think that is what matters most. I don't think we should throw out rebirth, just question it. It is OK to question it. Regarding karma, I think cause and effect still matters in this life, but it may or ay not extend to other lives. We do not know if it does. I see Ajahn Brahmali's definition of awakening too close to the unproven reincarnation conceptualization. I see Western Buddhism as Buddhism and not just secularization because we retain the real core - sunyata, dukkha, dependent origination, impermanence, and some conceptualization of no inherent self. Buddhism does not hinge on rebirth into a new body being a reality. Rebirth can be conceived as something happening during this life. I think we can be open to reincarnation too while doubting whether it's an actual phenomenon. This doubt changes my practice 0%. The type of rebirth or no rebirth at all changes my practice 0%. What's left is still a practice rooted in Buddhism. I do respect Ajahn Brahmali's points here (he seems like a great man and I love his passion), even though the tie of all Buddhist concepts to a 100% acceptance of reincarnation seems weak. Remembering your past lives seems the stuff of folklore, until it can proven with certainty. It is completely in the realm of metaphysics, and for now, is pure speculation. There is diversity, including doubt from many Buddhists already in regard to rebirth >>> www.lionsroar.com/just-more-of-the-same/

Stephen is stuck in a philosophical and intellectual mindset while Ajahn Brahmali is experiencing Buddhism. It's like Stephen is still reading a book on "How to Ride a Bicycle?" and learning about how the brain balance our body while Ajahn Brahmali is already cycling around on a bicycle.

Things are simple. Rebirth is the core belief in Buddhism. To escape the wheel of samsara, being reborn/re-death over and over again. If one doesn't believe in reincarnation, one cannot go further to explore His teachings. Stephen overthinking rebirth got him stuck to go even further to understand Buddha's teachings. Look at him 37:00 - 43:00. Going through complex explanation and more confusing ideas. Things are simple. Don't make it so complicated.

Buddha wanted everyone to find his or her own path. If their own experience is different to that of Buddha's then it's still the truth for them.

The Monk won!!

What surprises me is that both of these men have studied and practiced the teachings of the Buddha for many years in great depth and still take the self as a given. This is especially pertinent when considering that one of the three essential doctrines in Buddhism is anatta/sunyata. Awareness of anatta/sunyata is nirvana. ‘Birth’ as an idea is only due to the belief of a self existing in a past, a present or a future; the continual re-emphasis of which could be named karma. Where and when is that self? As the Heart Sutra states, ‘no attainment with nothing to attain… Far apart from every deluded view they dwell in nirvana.’🙏🏻

I felt that

9 yrs later. I enjoyed the debate. Morality is the way to live. It's never too late. Have a right view. ❤😊❤

PROOF of RE-Birth? BE HERE NOW.

If Buddhism is tied to a literal teaching of rebirth, then it has no real long-term future.

🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻😊

wow... when you listen to actual Dhamma practisioers versus the garbage intellect based stuff Stephen spews out, t doesnt half make you really how blessed you are...... this really akes me pitty mr batchellor

Steven really needs to accept with humility, that maybe.. just MAYBE, the fact he cant get his head around rebirth suggests he should meditate more, and get out of his head and intellect... this is holding him back.... if anyone can experience dependent origination in their meditation practise, for real, not working it out or reciting it via texts, they wont need to debate about rebirth, they will KNOW.... not believing in rebirth means there is an underlining belief in a self, its quite simple... its such a shame as the deluded egos of these practisioners who simply refuse to balance their own wisdom with their own faith, leaves them lobsided and relying to much on their own wisdom, which is very limited... he refers to OUR TIME.. as if thats relevant... no, im sorry, but The Dhamma is timeless!!!! TIMELESS!!! What isnt timeless is peoples ability to practise it, so drop the books and go practise, as this is a clear sign that The True teachings are dying in favour of something that fits peoples world views

Mr. Stephen is close to trouth. But Ven Brahmail is not wrong.👍👍👍

Perhaps when the existence of consciousness & the mind can be better understood scientifically, then rebirth will be part of the narrative. Thus it has been said that science ends where Buddhism begins.

Future is a mental construct born out of our senses and imagination. Mental operations are all about anticipating outcomes based on past experiences. The Buddha asks us to expand our perspective beyond our momentary perceptions and conceptions. What better way to expand your perspective than looking at reality from the height of 1000's lifetimes?

This video captures a point in time, Stephen seems to have moved ON. Ven Bramhali recently reiterated many of the criticisms towards so called secular Buddhism.

We are indeed living and witnessing "rebirth" all the time in our lifetimes. Every day and every moment, new cells regenerate within our physical bodies as old cells die. Where do the material for our new body cells come from? What happen to the dead cells? Of course there are many factors that control such "rebirth", such as the source material that allow new cells to grow. Such source material are organic material that are/were once living plants and/or animals. It is undeniable that our bodies are indeed once the physical bodies of plants and animals that we eat. We are indeed the "rebirth" of those plants and animals. As our body cells die, they become food for bacteria and minute living forms. As a matter of fact, our dead cells are experiencing "rebirth" as well. The next question is, why does such "rebirth" happen? I would think that it's the will to "continue". We cannot deny the fact that all sentient living beings have something call "will". It is indeed a very powerful driving force for what happens on an individual base as well as to the world as a whole. We are witnessing the effect of such "will" all the time. So what happens when our physical bodies deteriorate to the point that it cannot "continue" despite of our will? Could it be that we must abandon the deteriorating bodies and start anew in order to "continue"? Of course, there are other factors such as "accidents" where a perfectly healthy body may terminate due to some diastrous events including murders. This is clearly when "Karma" starts to make sense. However, how do we prove Karma? In this scientific era, nothing could be accepted without reproducible "proof". The Buddha had also mentioned the six realms of living beings which have strong association with the concept of karma. These six realms are Heavenly beings, human beings, asuras, animals, ghosts, and hellish creatures. Other than human beings and animals, the majority of people could not comprehend or accept the existence of the other four realms. Of course there are many people who claimed that they had seen and experienced creatures of the other realms. Unfortunately, not enough people have such experience and such experience could not be fully proved through science. I am afraid such concepts of "rebirth" and "karma" will remain debates for eons to come.

Recent research light up many doubts on the brahmanical tradition existed at the time of buddha. Even I feel that so, buddhas enlightenment and teachings are free from any influence of any other traditions. (There is no evidence of brahmanical language and traditions) please reconsider this idea that brahmanical tradition existed in buddhas time.

This was a horrible, inane debate. If secular Buddhism has some truth that religious Buddhism missed, then present it and argue it. Instead, all these two argued is whether secular Buddhists "have the right" to call themselves Buddhists. Stephen: you struggled with doubt about what the Buddha taught. Instead of sitting with your doubt, you went and made a new form of Buddhism and now are whining that the others don't respect it. Stop writing books and sit with doubt. Having doubts is normal. Brahmali: your only response needs to be "practice and see for yourself." No, we don't need to decide what is Buddhism and what isn't. It doesn't matter. Just practice and see the truth for yourself. That's all. There. Solved this one.

I find no conflict in rebirth and being an atheist/ agnostic Buddhist. Because of not-self teachings of the Buddha, parts of aggregates disintegrates, no single entity moves as a soul to a new body. Even moment to moment, the aggregates changes and we’re reborn all the time with shifting identifications with the aggregates. Rebirth isn’t the same as reincarnation. The whole teachings of the Buddha is to meditate and verify for yourself his teachings. Practically speaking, I’m still doing that after 40 years of knowing Buddhism. The relief from sufferings is verified, end of sufferings totally, not yet, and rebirth or existence after death, agnostic about it. I’m still appreciating the meditation and the teachings related to it. Metaphysical wise.. I’m agnostic. Psychology wise and phenomenology of the mind wise.. it’s definitely verified by my own direct experience through meditation. I’m happy to say after being born into a Buddhist family, growing up in the Buddhist Asian culture learning and practicing it, I’m more agnostic about many things and has 99% less beliefs than when I started meditating decades ago. I have a more profound respect for the Buddha’s teachings but is less religious than I have ever been. Beliefs had fallen away with the deepening practice of meditation. While I still enjoy reading scholars write about different dogmas and beliefs, I find them not useful to the meditation practice as much as testing the methods out directly. I find the explanation of the late Maha Thera Punnaji much more logical and relevant than what Ajahn here is explaining about rebirth th-cam.com/video/MF193PfSHoU/w-d-xo.html

The problem with Stephen Batchelor is he didn’t understand the difference between a Mundane Consciousness vs Supramundane Consciousness. Unless you understand those words, you will always be in state of confusion and doubt.

The fact that "I" can be reborn as "I," but just in another body/entity seems awfully egotistical and grasping to the "I."

Thank You so much Venerable Brahmali .👌🖖

Ven. Brahmali's perspective is typical of religious traditionalists or fundamentalists who believe that their religion must be founded upon, or articulate, epistemological certainties. Mahayana Buddhism, as practiced in Japan or the US by most Buddhists, isn't dependent on an historical Buddha. As the saying goes, "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him".