Ajahn Brahm talks about 4 things that religion should not be and offers up a "best practice model". In his usual entertaining style he touches on many things including disability and organ donation...
Invention is the mother of intuition! Thank you for this as always. I have been tuning in for 5 years and it has changed my life. I consider BSWA my teacher and as such I am grateful.
He is very compassion and has huge tolerance of imperfaction! His talk(s) seems to make me feel very comfortable and more confident. His talk somehow provides me with hope and more acceptance of myself. Thank you very much.
Thank you for presenting the other side of the argument! Real Buddhists do not blindly believe in the monk and the Buddha say and your argument has inspired many to think deeper about the talk. What you say might have some validity. However, what others say might not be wrong. Listen with an open heart and you might find some truth in what others say too. Both sides should bear in mind that to gain any real benefits from Buddhism, practice of the teachings is more important than debate.
Thank u Ajan Brahm beautiful talk.Honestly I totally agree.I felt this was for me.I didn't think more further and I didn't intend that other cults are inferiors. I feel my way(Theravada/convention) is true.I just wanna end this journey.Because whatever we have done we lose at last.(but we must live happily no doubt there)I am trying to see the mason who build the house again and again and then end this journey forever!
Ajahn Brahm makes an excellent point here: "Buddhism" is an umbrella term for a diverse variety of beliefs and practices, and your local monastery's practices can differ greatly from your personal impression of Buddhism. If you join your local monastery expecting a liberal, down-to-earth approach like Ajahn Brahm's, you may be in for a surprise if your local abbot is a quiet person who expects you to chant a lot.
I mainly listen to talks given by AJahn Brahm, Ajahn Martin and Krishnamurti. These three guys have the teachings I’m looking for. Three different personalities (one is serious, one is a jokester and the other is intellectual), teaching the same thing but from three different perspectives and viewpoints. I listen to other monks every now and then, but these three comprise the core. Krishnamurti never said he was a Buddhist, but his teachings are right up there with the Buddha.
@dtm52 Ignoring that conceit issue (to which I neither agree nor disagree at this point) you mentioned, this video still has many good things to offer. It has been a good conversation with you. I wish you all the best in life. Cheers.
I agree with your sentiments. Thanks for sharing. I think my overall point is that there seems to be a sentiment among some Buddhists about putting themselves up on a pedestal in relation to the monotheistic religions based on historical acts that were deemed uncivilized but the truth is that Buddhist countries don't really have a superior record. It is not a good record. at all, actually.
When I chant, all six senses are engaged .... aware! It quiets me down and makes me peaceful. It’s like meditation to me. I’m teaching myself Pāli. And chanting is an excellent way to learn the language. It’ll take me several Life times to learn it. But I don’t mind. The Chant I’m currently learning is called “An invitation to the Devas.” I’ve memorized two lines: Line 1: Pharitvāna mettaṁ samettā bhadantā ..... Pawreeeet ... vaeyyyyna .... maeyyyy-tum sa maeyyyy taaa ..... bhaaa dunnnnnnn taaaaaaaa ... Line 2: Avikkhitta-cittā parittaṁ bhaṇantu. ..... Ahhhh vi ki taaaaa .... cheat ta .... paa ri tummmmmmm... bhaaa nunnn tuuuuuuuu ... The top is the real spelling. The bottom is how you pronounce the words. It’s a beautiful chant. Very melodic.
Different Buddhist societies can provide drastically different experiences based on the particular style of teaching and focus. Even in the Theravada tradition, abbots can disagree widely on what aspects to focus, so the experience at your local society could be very different than what you expect after watching these videos. The only reliable way is to visit different societies yourself and try them out, really.
Just wanted to say "thanks" for providing these videos and the BSWA sangha. I have to admit that I thought you had a branch in "Washington" state in the US and kept looking; but alas, WA also means "Western Australia". Sad as I was, I can't tell you how enriching your videos have been to my practice and meditation. Should you ever make your way to the states, a large community would wish to help you come this way.
I am happy that you are enjoying your life as a Buddhist. But I am not talking about contemporary times in a western country. My problem is with some people who seem to have a superiority attitude concerning Buddhism and think it is exception historically when, quite frankly, its practitioners have been just as bad everybody else over the times. That being said, I am sure Australian Buddhists are exceptional in this modern era with Ajarn Brahm as your inspiration.
And tolerance and putting oneself in other people's shoes is laudable, but at the same time I'm sure AB would agree (as I think he's partly saying so here - but I only just started listening) that some religion types are less conducive to humans being happy and getting on than others are; eg. ones that say anyone not following their rules will spend eternity in hell etc.
And part of the reason for this is that unlike most major monotheistic religions, there is no support for "defending" Buddhism. In the Buddhist scriptures there is not a single passage that could possibly be misinterpreted as authorising violence to protect Buddhism. In fact, the Buddha explicitly rejected a request to appoint a successor to carry on his teachings after his death.
The Best Talk of the venerable for the competitive religions! Religion is a matter of whether it works or not- not a matter of the name it comes from! __/\__
That is Ajahn Brahm's opinions. He could be right or wrong, but it does not affect the Buddhist practice as real Buddhists will investigate and experience the truth for themselves. Based on my experience, Ajahn Brahm is "attacking" the person's actions, not the person himself as Ajahn Brahm treats all with kindness. He might have different religious views from his catholic friends but they agree to disagree. Likewise, he might not agree with Dawkins but it doesn't mean personal attack on him. :)
While I agree with much Ajahn's talk, I find that as an atheist who practises mindfulness meditation and Metta, he gives an unfair moment to Dawkins. Atheists are perfectly at home in the Buddhist tradtion. I value compassion, reason and science above all else. It is sometimes needed to counter the position of theists when they overstep the mark, not of course through violence, but rather through vigourous debate.
Thank you for your reply RobMacKendrick. It must be remembered that atheists are not a united group of people with a particular philosophy. As an atheist, I do actually believe a profound unity throughout the universe. It is of course a unity that is not supernatural but I do believe in it. The Butterfly Effect is confirmed in quantum physics. I have a deep respect for Buddhists and their beliefs. In return, I bow to you and sincerely wish you tranquility and compassion.
You might want to visit Angkor Wat, where you have steles in the architecture that incorporate both Buddhist symbolism & war victories. You might want to study Buddhism in the political conflicts in Thailand over the last 700 years or even contemporary Thai politics over the last 50 years or so.. Or the fact that Thailand & Cambodia are fighting now over Preah Vihear Wat. You might want to reflect on Buddhism & the role of Buddhist monk revolts in anti-Communist movements in Vietnam & Korea.
My friend, you seem like an intelligent, albeit stubborn person. So I'm sure you understood my earlier comment that "Buddhists killing people" is not the same as "Buddhists killing in the name of Buddhism". None of the wars you have mentioned are a valid example of a war being fought to promote Buddhism. I have a feeling you do actually understand that in your mind. But if winning an argument is that important to you, then I happily concede. :)
I also think Dawkins (not Dawkings, by the way) has done a useful job in shaking up the religious establishment in the Uk a bit - the Christian religion, and the C of E, have had too easy a ride and have too many privilages, like 26 bishops in parliament, the queen as its head, compulsory Christian assemblies in state schools etc. Sometimes being a bit outspoken has its place, in my opinion.
You could send a personal email to Ajahn Brahm's Buddhist society in Australia. Perphas they would know more about this and could help you further. However, if you can't find one, you could still practice on your own as Buddhism is about personal direct experience of the truth. Ajahn Brahm's teachings are based on the Pali canon, which you can easily get online. I would be more than happy to help you further, if you need any.
As for his atheism, he actually calls himself agnostic and says he's only 90% or so sure there is no god, but just sees no evidence for one and dislikes dogmatic religions that claim there definitely is one and claim to know exactly what he's like and wants etc. I should imagine AB also thinks there is no god (at least in the Abrahamic god sense) and that dogmas about gods and their commands are not the most fruitful religious approach.
Another possible reason for the lack of Buddhist holy wars is that even if you stupidly interpret the texts as literally as possible from a completely fundamentalist stance, it is impossible to find -any- promotion of violence in -any- context whatsoever. No "kill your neighbor on a Sunday" or "buy a sword at whatever cost" (Luke).
I don't think the Buddha ever completedly ruled out the possibility of a Creator. However he did say that samsara (the cycle of births and deaths) has no beginning, and that is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of a god who started everything.
I like how Ajahn Brahm discourages attachment to books and symbols. If someone smashes your statue or burns your book, you lose nothing if the knowledge and wisdom is retained inside of you. So there is no need to fret if someone comes and trashes all your books, except maybe the night before a chemistry test :)
Ajahn was not attacking Dawkins at all. Ajahn was defending Dawkin's stand, which is strong and active atheatic stand. In short it goes like this: Militant religious camp called Dawkin as militant and Evengelical. Dr Dawkins would disagreet with those charges. Ajahn was on Dawkin's side when he say Dawkin is not a militant nor evengelical.
Also, I don't see what's necessarily wrong with thinking, and saying, some views are (almost certainly) wrong. If someone says the universe is ruled by a giant purple penguin that lives at the South Pole, I can say I think this is not true, and be fairly certain of myself, based on my experiences and reason. Having said that, people are not going to suddenly stop having different beliefs and I do agree trying to understand others and to get along is a worthy goal.
I am not missing the point. Back in the old days, religion was not separate from governance, rule and imperialism. Religious identity and kingship were completely intertwined. Why do you think there are massive Buddhist monuments all the way from Afghanistan stretching to Sri Lanka and reaching as far as to Japan and Mongolia? Maybe you want to ponder the fact that there is a massive Buddhist monument, Borobodur, sitting in the middle of Java island in Indonesia, a Muslim country.
With you, it is like communicating with a brick wall. I gave multiple examples. I have the space of 3 sentences to make my point. If you wish to have a deeper understanding maybe you should spend some time reading the history of all the countries I mentioned and examine them through a non-European lens. There were a lot of massacres and killing in every Asian country against" the outsider." Buddhists killed Christians and Muslims. Get it through your mind, that is factual history.
One of Dawkin's new-atheist friends Sam Harris likes Buddhism but thinks if it works and contains truths, it should not be necessary to have Buddhism as a religion. In other words if Buddhist ethics are the best for flourishing, they should just be considered ethics, if "Buddhist" meditation techniques make you a wiser, happier person they are just meditation techniques or mental/spiritual improvement techniques, if reincarnation is true it is not Buddhism but is karmic science or something etc
Nepal, Northern India, whatever, there were no countries, only small states. The point you seem to miss is that Buddhism didn't only spread through peaceful voluntarily association and persuasion, but through other means, such as other territories being conquered & then the religion being institutionalized. Or you can think Buddhism just magically spread across vast continents and oceans because a handful of impoverished monks converted these ancient & violent civilizations through evangelism.
I guess, to give credit where it's due, one could say "Buddhic meditation" for example, maybe? (as in, as discovered by the Buddha). But on the other hand we don't say "Pasteurian vaccination" or something, we just say "vaccination", because it just works.
Not sure about Central US, but there's Abhayagiri monastery in San Francisco. It's managed by another disciple of Ajahn Cha, and is very similar to Ajahn Brahm's monastery.
religions is a bit different as it deals with things that we can be less sure of in our current state of knowledge. But, for example, when mainstream Christianity says the universe is ruled by a God who incarnated in ancient Palestine and allowed himself to be killed to benefit us - either this is true, or not. But with less dogmatic things, like saying it is good to be loving and forgiving, yes, common ground and agreement can be found here among people of good will of all religions and none.
I think where religion could learn from science, also, is there is just one science, one common pursuit of knowledge about what exists and how it works, and people seeking through providing proof, to come to the best possible explanation of things; and where a certain question is still very unclear and there are several theories, certaintly is not claimed. It would be good if religion could be more like that, rather than having many isms and anities etc, with their competing truths.
Another reason why Dawkins can sound a bit strident on this is that he is interested in factual truth, and in science it is not equally useful and true, for example, to say infection is caused by micro-organisms that get into wounds if instruments are not sterilized, and infection is caused by a lack of the correct prayers to the hospital spirits, or putting the correct colour of bandage on the wound. Sometimes some statements are true and some are not.
Hi Serfcity1. I can see your point and can agree that many wrongs have occurred in the past. But why carry that past forward? Why should we not see the good in the world and the good that Buddhism has become? Just a thought. Have a banana on my tab.
Traditional Islamic law prescribes the penalty of death for a Muslim who commits apostasy. The punishment is not stated in the Quran, but is said to be based on certain Hadith. So death is still very much a prescribed punishment for apostasy. Dawkins was just pointing this out. He was constantly being told of the religion of peace and wanted to get the facts straight.
I love Ajahn Brahm's talks, but I don't think he was completely fair to Richard Dawkins. He said a good scientist should not think they know it all but be continually questioning and looking for new insights, but I believe Dawkins does fit with this; he often expresses his awe at the natural world and doesn't make any claims to completely understand everything - what scientist does?
Also, any religion that discourages people from questioning and thinking for themselves is not great, I don't think. I think that is one area where most religions actually are a bit wanting, because they nearly all, including Buddhism, make claims to hold the ultimate truth; whereas science, for example, doesn't. I think Buddhism is much better than many in this respect though, especially in the way AB teaches it.
Necto is a cool drink -ne nene ne ne It was a advertisement on TV .first we must sing it then drink Necto continuously. according to ad its the way to drink it
Buddhism is over 2,500 years old. Islam started a mere 750 years ago or so and was spread by the sword hence displacing Buddhism in those parts of the world you mention. Buddhist societies had to take up arms and swords to protect their life and limb. It was matter of survival.
You are lcky... always remember to keep 5 recepts in yur life.....they are NO KILLING, NO STEALING, NO ILLISIT SEX OR RELATIONSHIP ( deep side of one is much more), no taking intoxi. liquor etc, no telling lies. TRIPLE GEM BLESS YOU
I am sure Christianity is a beautiful religion, and there should be no basis for violence in it when practised right. Regardless, those crusades were done "for Christianity", right? None of the wars you keep bringing up were ever waged to spread Buddhism. At most, they were waged to keep other religions OUT, not to force other people IN. That, my friend, is the point!
What was Dawkins agenda, truth. He was asking the cleric for the penalty and he said in Islamic counties it is death. Dawkins is called angry for pointed out that the religious constantly talk of love and peace, but are quick to threaten non believers with hell and punishment forever. Seems to me, Dawkins is very mild in his approach compared to the religious.
I just listened to the bit about sitting down with the Taliban and trying to understand. I agree, but what if the Taliban leader explains he believes his God wants him to kill those who disbelieve in Islam and to punish women who don't completely cover themselves and seek to be educated; and this because of what other people taught him and his interpretation of certain verses in his books. OK, so we've understood his view. But it doesn't stop him being a danger to non-Muslims and woman, does it?
Well when Ajahn said their was conceit on both sides at 4:40, the Catholic and the Atheist, I believe he was very wrong. Dawkins had real facts on his side, the Religious Catholic leader had no facts on his side, just belief in his magic sky god. I wonder if Ajahn Brahm even watched the debate.
You're missing the point, which is that most of these wars you mention were not waged as some form of holy crusade in the name of Buddhism. That is what people have been trying to tell you.
Richard Dawkins uses the scientific method to find truth. The religious use a very old book to find their truth. Dawkins seems much more open minded that the religious.
I believe Dawkins was speaking about Islamic countries, not, the US or Uk. And it seems that in those countries death is an inherent component of the religion. I think Dawkin tries hard to bring out the whole truth about various religions. And of course the religions don't like it.
But to constantly suggest that death is THE penalty for apostasy suggests that it is an inherent component of the religion, and is misleading. Although admittedly it is hard for one to present a balanced view on a show like HARDtalk or O'Reilly.
Real Buddhists do not blindly believe in what the Buddha or monks say. Original Buddhism is experiential not dogmatic. The Buddhist books (or sutta) serve only as a guide for practice. Just as in Science, you read old textbooks and old theories to help you to understand nature. If your experience do not agree with what the Buddha taught, then there is no need to believe, like Science. Buddhism emphasize on direct experience not blind belief. Read the Kalama sutta for more information on this.
The wars waged during the Angkor period was to protect the current civisation against Hindu aggression not in the name of Buddhism. There is no civil war YET in sthn Thailand. When that starts you will see another Bosnia. The Preah Vihear issue was that stupid Abbhisit flexing his muscles for political gain that backfired against him. Cambodia killed the head general during ONE artillery attack that ended the conflict.
I think your comment has some merit but I also see where Ajahn Brahm is coming from. I have much respect for Dawkins but at times he seems to be trying very hard to push an agenda. One of his most frequent arguments against Islam, for example, is that the penalty for apostasy is death, when in fact that is not the case in less radical Islamic societies.
I would have to disagree with you on that, SyrinKitty. Dawkins gave evolutionary facts and real scientific information. Cardinal George Pell said, that Adam and Eve did not exist and Dawkins asked, then where did original sin come from. If you had watched the debate or Q & A, you would have seen that Dawkins had facts,evidence and the Cardinal had magical and wishful thinking to offer. Hard to close a rift between the facts that Dawkins offered and the magic offered by Cardinal George Pell.
Point of order, metrx. As a Zen hermit monk I'd have to say that atheism, properly spoken, cant' be Buddhist. I suspect you meant nontheism, the belief that no "personality" or "mind" runs the universe. Atheists believe that there is no profound unity, and so they reject the concepts of buddha nature, karma, metta, and a great many others the Buddha transmitted. (My objection is purely semantic. Also, my deep bow to atheists.)
What you keep insinuating is unrelated to the point that you have been arguing against. Your facts are correct, but you indeed missed the point that was being made to you by that other person. What people have been trying to tell you, is that other major religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism have all had wars waged IN THE NAME of them, as sort of a "kill the non-believers" mindset. No such crusades have been waged in the name of Buddhism.
I think you are still confused with the fact that wars waged BY Buddhists are not equivalent to wars waged FOR Buddhism. The original Catholic crusades were wars officially endorsed by the Catholic church and pope. And obviously we have had no shortage of wars started in the name of Islam. Now, I'm sure you realize that religion was merely an excuse for expansion or hatemongering, but the fact remains that Buddhism has never been used in a similar manner of endorsement on a similar scale.
Of course they do a lot of good and there are many great guys in church but in general - roman catholic church is too pompous with money, buildings, cars and there is way too much business going on. You have to pay them money for everything, baptism, wedding, funerals, even for the place on graveyard.
I wouldn't describe Dawkins as an angry person. I share the vast majority of his sentiment towards organised religion, but like any person, his knowledge of a field outside his own is fragmented. He constantly pushes the apostasy thing, not realizing that the Quran does not actually prescribe any punishment for apotasy in the current life. Punishment by death for simply leaving the religion is certainly the product of a radical Islamic society.
Further, you say that Buddhism doesn't sanction imperialism and war, but neither did Christianity in the New Testament. So, if you want to play the game of the Buddha didn't sanction imperialism and war, then all those Pope led crusades you cite have no basis in Christianity either.
*Everything* spreads through war. Not just religion. So your point is moot. For starters, your statement that Buddhism spread from Nepal is incorrect. The Buddha was born in Nepal, but by the time he became the Buddha (i.e. attained nibbana), he was in India. And even after that, it took some time before he gained acceptance as the Buddha, let alone establish any form of "Buddhism". If I wanted to learn how Buddhism spread, I don't think your history books are the best way. :)
Again, you miss the point in exactly the same manner as you did in your first message. Go back and read tony's comment which you replied to. It stated that no wars have ever been waged in the NAME of Buddhism, which is an undeniable fact. All the wars you keep bringing up were fought for economic or political reasons. The fact that Buddhism spread through these wars is merely a side effect of that.
you mean this wasn't very conventionally buddhist of me... Yah well... I'm not Buddha.... I'm working on my own problems and solutions... Give it a try.... work on yourself.
Hey Ajahn Brahm sure seems to be attacking Dawkins when he was speaking about conceit. And Ajahn Brahm sure seems to be defending he Catholic friends who's belief is that anyone who is not a Catholic is going to hell. I believe Ajahn Brahm is very wrong.
Your arguments avoid the most obvious evidence of all, staring you right in the face. How do you think Buddhism spread from a tiny province in Nepal and spread across the entire Asian continent and all the way into the heart of modern Indonesia? You think it was all peace, love and granola? You don't think all those people living their lives practicing their animist beliefs and ancestor worship all magically become Buddhist overnight because of peaceful proselytizing of monks?
Invention is the mother of intuition! Thank you for this as always. I have been tuning in for 5 years and it has changed my life. I consider BSWA my teacher and as such I am grateful.
He is very compassion and has huge tolerance of imperfaction! His talk(s) seems to make me feel very comfortable and more confident. His talk somehow provides me with hope and more acceptance of myself. Thank you very much.
Thank you for presenting the other side of the argument! Real Buddhists do not blindly believe in the monk and the Buddha say and your argument has inspired many to think deeper about the talk. What you say might have some validity. However, what others say might not be wrong. Listen with an open heart and you might find some truth in what others say too. Both sides should bear in mind that to gain any real benefits from Buddhism, practice of the teachings is more important than debate.
Thank u Ajan Brahm beautiful talk.Honestly I totally agree.I felt this was for me.I didn't think more further and I didn't intend that other cults are inferiors. I feel my way(Theravada/convention) is true.I just wanna end this journey.Because whatever we have done we lose at last.(but we must live happily no doubt there)I am trying to see the mason who build the house again and again and then end this journey forever!
That's correct what Ajahn Brahm mentioned, Buddhist Society WA's video channel has became my local temple.
Ajahn Brahm makes an excellent point here: "Buddhism" is an umbrella term for a diverse variety of beliefs and practices, and your local monastery's practices can differ greatly from your personal impression of Buddhism. If you join your local monastery expecting a liberal, down-to-earth approach like Ajahn Brahm's, you may be in for a surprise if your local abbot is a quiet person who expects you to chant a lot.
I mainly listen to talks given by AJahn Brahm, Ajahn Martin and Krishnamurti. These three guys have the teachings I’m looking for. Three different personalities (one is serious, one is a jokester and the other is intellectual), teaching the same thing but from three different perspectives and viewpoints. I listen to other monks every now and then, but these three comprise the core. Krishnamurti never said he was a Buddhist, but his teachings are right up there with the Buddha.
@dtm52 Ignoring that conceit issue (to which I neither agree nor disagree at this point) you mentioned, this video still has many good things to offer. It has been a good conversation with you. I wish you all the best in life. Cheers.
I agree with your sentiments. Thanks for sharing. I think my overall point is that there seems to be a sentiment among some Buddhists about putting themselves up on a pedestal in relation to the monotheistic religions based on historical acts that were deemed uncivilized but the truth is that Buddhist countries don't really have a superior record. It is not a good record. at all, actually.
Ajahn Brahm is cool as he gets that you shud try to be cool and have fun when you can in your own way
Buddhism indeed helped me to become a better person. I'm a recent convert and its the best decision in my life yet.
When I chant, all six senses are engaged .... aware! It quiets me down and makes me peaceful. It’s like meditation to me. I’m teaching myself Pāli. And chanting is an excellent way to learn the language. It’ll take me several Life times to learn it. But I don’t mind. The Chant I’m currently learning is called “An invitation to the Devas.” I’ve memorized two lines:
Line 1: Pharitvāna mettaṁ samettā bhadantā
..... Pawreeeet ... vaeyyyyna .... maeyyyy-tum sa maeyyyy taaa ..... bhaaa dunnnnnnn taaaaaaaa ...
Line 2: Avikkhitta-cittā parittaṁ bhaṇantu.
..... Ahhhh vi ki taaaaa .... cheat ta .... paa ri tummmmmmm... bhaaa nunnn tuuuuuuuu ...
The top is the real spelling. The bottom is how you pronounce the words.
It’s a beautiful chant. Very melodic.
Different Buddhist societies can provide drastically different experiences based on the particular style of teaching and focus. Even in the Theravada tradition, abbots can disagree widely on what aspects to focus, so the experience at your local society could be very different than what you expect after watching these videos. The only reliable way is to visit different societies yourself and try them out, really.
Just wanted to say "thanks" for providing these videos and the BSWA sangha. I have to admit that I thought you had a branch in "Washington" state in the US and kept looking; but alas, WA also means "Western Australia". Sad as I was, I can't tell you how enriching your videos have been to my practice and meditation. Should you ever make your way to the states, a large community would wish to help you come this way.
Wonderful teaching. Just to be kind and to respect.
I am happy that you are enjoying your life as a Buddhist.
But I am not talking about contemporary times in a western country.
My problem is with some people who seem to have a superiority attitude concerning Buddhism and think it is exception historically when, quite frankly, its practitioners have been just as bad everybody else over the times.
That being said, I am sure Australian Buddhists are exceptional in this modern era with Ajarn Brahm as your inspiration.
Love these videos! Thank you BuddhistSocietyWA :)
And tolerance and putting oneself in other people's shoes is laudable, but at the same time I'm sure AB would agree (as I think he's partly saying so here - but I only just started listening) that some religion types are less conducive to humans being happy and getting on than others are; eg. ones that say anyone not following their rules will spend eternity in hell etc.
And part of the reason for this is that unlike most major monotheistic religions, there is no support for "defending" Buddhism. In the Buddhist scriptures there is not a single passage that could possibly be misinterpreted as authorising violence to protect Buddhism. In fact, the Buddha explicitly rejected a request to appoint a successor to carry on his teachings after his death.
The Best Talk of the venerable for the competitive religions! Religion is a matter of whether it works or not- not a matter of the name it comes from! __/\__
That is Ajahn Brahm's opinions. He could be right or wrong, but it does not affect the Buddhist practice as real Buddhists will investigate and experience the truth for themselves. Based on my experience, Ajahn Brahm is "attacking" the person's actions, not the person himself as Ajahn Brahm treats all with kindness. He might have different religious views from his catholic friends but they agree to disagree. Likewise, he might not agree with Dawkins but it doesn't mean personal attack on him. :)
While I agree with much Ajahn's talk, I find that as an atheist who practises mindfulness meditation and Metta, he gives an unfair moment to Dawkins. Atheists are perfectly at home in the Buddhist tradtion. I value compassion, reason and science above all else. It is sometimes needed to counter the position of theists when they overstep the mark, not of course through violence, but rather through vigourous debate.
Thank you for your reply RobMacKendrick. It must be remembered that atheists are not a united group of people with a particular philosophy. As an atheist, I do actually believe a profound unity throughout the universe. It is of course a unity that is not supernatural but I do believe in it. The Butterfly Effect is confirmed in quantum physics. I have a deep respect for Buddhists and their beliefs. In return, I bow to you and sincerely wish you tranquility and compassion.
You might want to visit Angkor Wat, where you have steles in the architecture that incorporate both Buddhist symbolism & war victories.
You might want to study Buddhism in the political conflicts in Thailand over the last 700 years or even contemporary Thai politics over the last 50 years or so..
Or the fact that Thailand & Cambodia are fighting now over Preah Vihear Wat.
You might want to reflect on Buddhism & the role of Buddhist monk revolts in anti-Communist movements in Vietnam & Korea.
My friend, you seem like an intelligent, albeit stubborn person. So I'm sure you understood my earlier comment that "Buddhists killing people" is not the same as "Buddhists killing in the name of Buddhism". None of the wars you have mentioned are a valid example of a war being fought to promote Buddhism. I have a feeling you do actually understand that in your mind.
But if winning an argument is that important to you, then I happily concede. :)
I also think Dawkins (not Dawkings, by the way) has done a useful job in shaking up the religious establishment in the Uk a bit - the Christian religion, and the C of E, have had too easy a ride and have too many privilages, like 26 bishops in parliament, the queen as its head, compulsory Christian assemblies in state schools etc. Sometimes being a bit outspoken has its place, in my opinion.
You could send a personal email to Ajahn Brahm's Buddhist society in Australia. Perphas they would know more about this and could help you further. However, if you can't find one, you could still practice on your own as Buddhism is about personal direct experience of the truth. Ajahn Brahm's teachings are based on the Pali canon, which you can easily get online. I would be more than happy to help you further, if you need any.
As for his atheism, he actually calls himself agnostic and says he's only 90% or so sure there is no god, but just sees no evidence for one and dislikes dogmatic religions that claim there definitely is one and claim to know exactly what he's like and wants etc. I should imagine AB also thinks there is no god (at least in the Abrahamic god sense) and that dogmas about gods and their commands are not the most fruitful religious approach.
Another possible reason for the lack of Buddhist holy wars is that even if you stupidly interpret the texts as literally as possible from a completely fundamentalist stance, it is impossible to find -any- promotion of violence in -any- context whatsoever. No "kill your neighbor on a Sunday" or "buy a sword at whatever cost" (Luke).
I needed this video. Thank you.
I don't think the Buddha ever completedly ruled out the possibility of a Creator. However he did say that samsara (the cycle of births and deaths) has no beginning, and that is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of a god who started everything.
I like how Ajahn Brahm discourages attachment to books and symbols. If someone smashes your statue or burns your book, you lose nothing if the knowledge and wisdom is retained inside of you. So there is no need to fret if someone comes and trashes all your books, except maybe the night before a chemistry test :)
i love these videos
Ajahn was not attacking Dawkins at all. Ajahn was defending Dawkin's stand, which is strong and active atheatic stand. In short it goes like this: Militant religious camp called Dawkin as militant and Evengelical. Dr Dawkins would disagreet with those charges. Ajahn was on Dawkin's side when he say Dawkin is not a militant nor evengelical.
Also, I don't see what's necessarily wrong with thinking, and saying, some views are (almost certainly) wrong. If someone says the universe is ruled by a giant purple penguin that lives at the South Pole, I can say I think this is not true, and be fairly certain of myself, based on my experiences and reason. Having said that, people are not going to suddenly stop having different beliefs and I do agree trying to understand others and to get along is a worthy goal.
I am not missing the point.
Back in the old days, religion was not separate from governance, rule and imperialism.
Religious identity and kingship were completely intertwined.
Why do you think there are massive Buddhist monuments all the way from Afghanistan stretching to Sri Lanka and reaching as far as to Japan and Mongolia?
Maybe you want to ponder the fact that there is a massive Buddhist monument, Borobodur, sitting in the middle of Java island in Indonesia, a Muslim country.
With you, it is like communicating with a brick wall. I gave multiple examples. I have the space of 3 sentences to make my point. If you wish to have a deeper understanding maybe you should spend some time reading the history of all the countries I mentioned and examine them through a non-European lens. There were a lot of massacres and killing in every Asian country against" the outsider." Buddhists killed Christians and Muslims. Get it through your mind, that is factual history.
One of Dawkin's new-atheist friends Sam Harris likes Buddhism but thinks if it works and contains truths, it should not be necessary to have Buddhism as a religion. In other words if Buddhist ethics are the best for flourishing, they should just be considered ethics, if "Buddhist" meditation techniques make you a wiser, happier person they are just meditation techniques or mental/spiritual improvement techniques, if reincarnation is true it is not Buddhism but is karmic science or something etc
Nepal, Northern India, whatever, there were no countries, only small states. The point you seem to miss is that Buddhism didn't only spread through peaceful voluntarily association and persuasion, but through other means, such as other territories being conquered & then the religion being institutionalized. Or you can think Buddhism just magically spread across vast continents and oceans because a handful of impoverished monks converted these ancient & violent civilizations through evangelism.
I guess, to give credit where it's due, one could say "Buddhic meditation" for example, maybe? (as in, as discovered by the Buddha). But on the other hand we don't say "Pasteurian vaccination" or something, we just say "vaccination", because it just works.
Not sure about Central US, but there's Abhayagiri monastery in San Francisco. It's managed by another disciple of Ajahn Cha, and is very similar to Ajahn Brahm's monastery.
religions is a bit different as it deals with things that we can be less sure of in our current state of knowledge. But, for example, when mainstream Christianity says the universe is ruled by a God who incarnated in ancient Palestine and allowed himself to be killed to benefit us - either this is true, or not. But with less dogmatic things, like saying it is good to be loving and forgiving, yes, common ground and agreement can be found here among people of good will of all religions and none.
I think where religion could learn from science, also, is there is just one science, one common pursuit of knowledge about what exists and how it works, and people seeking through providing proof, to come to the best possible explanation of things; and where a certain question is still very unclear and there are several theories, certaintly is not claimed. It would be good if religion could be more like that, rather than having many isms and anities etc, with their competing truths.
Another reason why Dawkins can sound a bit strident on this is that he is interested in factual truth, and in science it is not equally useful and true, for example, to say infection is caused by micro-organisms that get into wounds if instruments are not sterilized, and infection is caused by a lack of the correct prayers to the hospital spirits, or putting the correct colour of bandage on the wound. Sometimes some statements are true and some are not.
Hi Serfcity1. I can see your point and can agree that many wrongs have occurred in the past. But why carry that past forward? Why should we not see the good in the world and the good that Buddhism has become? Just a thought. Have a banana on my tab.
Traditional Islamic law prescribes the penalty of death for a Muslim who commits apostasy. The punishment is not stated in the Quran, but is said to be based on certain Hadith. So death is still very much a prescribed punishment for apostasy.
Dawkins was just pointing this out. He was constantly being told of the religion of peace and wanted to get the facts straight.
I love Ajahn Brahm's talks, but I don't think he was completely fair to Richard Dawkins. He said a good scientist should not think they know it all but be continually questioning and looking for new insights, but I believe Dawkins does fit with this; he often expresses his awe at the natural world and doesn't make any claims to completely understand everything - what scientist does?
Also, any religion that discourages people from questioning and thinking for themselves is not great, I don't think. I think that is one area where most religions actually are a bit wanting, because they nearly all, including Buddhism, make claims to hold the ultimate truth; whereas science, for example, doesn't. I think Buddhism is much better than many in this respect though, especially in the way AB teaches it.
Again, my friend, which of these point to wars waged specifically to protect or spread Buddhism?
Wonderful.
There's a wonderful directory of US temples at the usmta site. I can't send the link in TH-cam. The service won't allow it.
Necto is a cool drink -ne nene ne ne It was a advertisement on TV .first we must sing it then drink Necto continuously. according to ad its the way to drink it
Yes, to both.
Buddhism is over 2,500 years old. Islam started a mere 750 years ago or so and was spread by the sword hence displacing Buddhism in those parts of the world you mention. Buddhist societies had to take up arms and swords to protect their life and limb. It was matter of survival.
You are lcky...
always remember to keep 5 recepts in yur life.....they are NO KILLING, NO STEALING, NO ILLISIT SEX OR RELATIONSHIP ( deep side of one is much more), no taking intoxi. liquor etc, no telling lies. TRIPLE GEM BLESS YOU
I am sure Christianity is a beautiful religion, and there should be no basis for violence in it when practised right. Regardless, those crusades were done "for Christianity", right?
None of the wars you keep bringing up were ever waged to spread Buddhism. At most, they were waged to keep other religions OUT, not to force other people IN. That, my friend, is the point!
What was Dawkins agenda, truth. He was asking the cleric for the penalty and he said in Islamic counties it is death. Dawkins is called angry for pointed out that the religious constantly talk of love and peace, but are quick to threaten non believers with hell and punishment forever. Seems to me, Dawkins is very mild in his approach compared to the religious.
I just listened to the bit about sitting down with the Taliban and trying to understand. I agree, but what if the Taliban leader explains he believes his God wants him to kill those who disbelieve in Islam and to punish women who don't completely cover themselves and seek to be educated; and this because of what other people taught him and his interpretation of certain verses in his books. OK, so we've understood his view. But it doesn't stop him being a danger to non-Muslims and woman, does it?
Well when Ajahn said their was conceit on both sides at 4:40, the Catholic and the Atheist, I believe he was very wrong. Dawkins had real facts on his side, the Religious Catholic leader had no facts on his side, just belief in his magic sky god. I wonder if Ajahn Brahm even watched the debate.
You're missing the point, which is that most of these wars you mention were not waged as some form of holy crusade in the name of Buddhism. That is what people have been trying to tell you.
can never catch the talk streaming.....
Richard Dawkins uses the scientific method to find truth. The religious use a very old book to find their truth. Dawkins seems much more open minded that the religious.
absolutely true ...
I believe Dawkins was speaking about Islamic countries, not, the US or Uk. And it seems that in those countries death is an inherent component of the religion. I think Dawkin tries hard to bring out the whole truth about various religions. And of course the religions don't like it.
But to constantly suggest that death is THE penalty for apostasy suggests that it is an inherent component of the religion, and is misleading. Although admittedly it is hard for one to present a balanced view on a show like HARDtalk or O'Reilly.
there would be only peace if every one took his advice
The monks meditate a lot and when you do that, you don't need much sleep.
Real Buddhists do not blindly believe in what the Buddha or monks say. Original Buddhism is experiential not dogmatic. The Buddhist books (or sutta) serve only as a guide for practice. Just as in Science, you read old textbooks and old theories to help you to understand nature. If your experience do not agree with what the Buddha taught, then there is no need to believe, like Science. Buddhism emphasize on direct experience not blind belief. Read the Kalama sutta for more information on this.
The wars waged during the Angkor period was to protect the current civisation against Hindu aggression not in the name of Buddhism. There is no civil war YET in sthn Thailand. When that starts you will see another Bosnia. The Preah Vihear issue was that stupid Abbhisit flexing his muscles for political gain that backfired against him. Cambodia killed the head general during ONE artillery attack that ended the conflict.
I think your comment has some merit but I also see where Ajahn Brahm is coming from. I have much respect for Dawkins but at times he seems to be trying very hard to push an agenda. One of his most frequent arguments against Islam, for example, is that the penalty for apostasy is death, when in fact that is not the case in less radical Islamic societies.
I would have to disagree with you on that, SyrinKitty. Dawkins gave evolutionary facts and real scientific information. Cardinal George Pell said, that Adam and Eve did not exist and Dawkins asked, then where did original sin come from. If you had watched the debate or Q & A, you would have seen that Dawkins had facts,evidence and the Cardinal had magical and wishful thinking to offer. Hard to close a rift between the facts that Dawkins offered and the magic offered by Cardinal George Pell.
@ ajahn Brahm saaaaahdu saaaaahdu saaaaahdu
Point of order, metrx. As a Zen hermit monk I'd have to say that atheism, properly spoken, cant' be Buddhist. I suspect you meant nontheism, the belief that no "personality" or "mind" runs the universe. Atheists believe that there is no profound unity, and so they reject the concepts of buddha nature, karma, metta, and a great many others the Buddha transmitted. (My objection is purely semantic. Also, my deep bow to atheists.)
is that an ipad on his table ? :))
What you keep insinuating is unrelated to the point that you have been arguing against. Your facts are correct, but you indeed missed the point that was being made to you by that other person.
What people have been trying to tell you, is that other major religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism have all had wars waged IN THE NAME of them, as sort of a "kill the non-believers" mindset. No such crusades have been waged in the name of Buddhism.
I think you are still confused with the fact that wars waged BY Buddhists are not equivalent to wars waged FOR Buddhism.
The original Catholic crusades were wars officially endorsed by the Catholic church and pope. And obviously we have had no shortage of wars started in the name of Islam. Now, I'm sure you realize that religion was merely an excuse for expansion or hatemongering, but the fact remains that Buddhism has never been used in a similar manner of endorsement on a similar scale.
That said, boring anecdotes about fruits, vegetables, meat, and rivers lie rampant though :)
Of course they do a lot of good and there are many great guys in church but in general - roman catholic church is too pompous with money, buildings, cars and there is way too much business going on. You have to pay them money for everything, baptism, wedding, funerals, even for the place on graveyard.
not only are there no such thing as religions, there's also no such thing as Buddhism
beg u r pardon ajan brahm
I wouldn't describe Dawkins as an angry person. I share the vast majority of his sentiment towards organised religion, but like any person, his knowledge of a field outside his own is fragmented. He constantly pushes the apostasy thing, not realizing that the Quran does not actually prescribe any punishment for apotasy in the current life. Punishment by death for simply leaving the religion is certainly the product of a radical Islamic society.
Hmm, kind of like Chicken Tikka Masala. You'd think that came from India, wouldn't you? But actually it was invented in Britain.
Is anyone else eating Lasagna while watching this? yum!!
My birthday is the 6th of may!
ajahn brahm , will you please kindly read your youtube inbox thank you
Further, you say that Buddhism doesn't sanction imperialism and war, but neither did Christianity in the New Testament.
So, if you want to play the game of the Buddha didn't sanction imperialism and war, then all those Pope led crusades you cite have no basis in Christianity either.
mine too...
*Everything* spreads through war. Not just religion. So your point is moot.
For starters, your statement that Buddhism spread from Nepal is incorrect. The Buddha was born in Nepal, but by the time he became the Buddha (i.e. attained nibbana), he was in India. And even after that, it took some time before he gained acceptance as the Buddha, let alone establish any form of "Buddhism".
If I wanted to learn how Buddhism spread, I don't think your history books are the best way. :)
I see what you did there.
haha on Wesak day!
I guess we have to agree to disagree. I believe Ajahn Brahm was very wrong and showed a bit conceit of his own with his comments about Dawkins.
i resent that im expected to bake a cake
Again, you miss the point in exactly the same manner as you did in your first message.
Go back and read tony's comment which you replied to. It stated that no wars have ever been waged in the NAME of Buddhism, which is an undeniable fact. All the wars you keep bringing up were fought for economic or political reasons. The fact that Buddhism spread through these wars is merely a side effect of that.
That statement wasn't very Buddhist of you.
Was Buddha, Jesus?
1001orpheus No! Jesus was taught by Buddhist monks in the mountains.
you mean this wasn't very conventionally buddhist of me... Yah well... I'm not Buddha.... I'm working on my own problems and solutions... Give it a try.... work on yourself.
but isn't it being conceited to say to not be conceited?
Oh, baculum!
Hey Ajahn Brahm sure seems to be attacking Dawkins when he was speaking about conceit. And Ajahn Brahm sure seems to be defending he Catholic friends who's belief is that anyone who is not a Catholic is going to hell. I believe Ajahn Brahm is very wrong.
Your arguments avoid the most obvious evidence of all, staring you right in the face.
How do you think Buddhism spread from a tiny province in Nepal and spread across the entire Asian continent and all the way into the heart of modern Indonesia?
You think it was all peace, love and granola?
You don't think all those people living their lives practicing their animist beliefs and ancestor worship all magically become Buddhist overnight because of peaceful proselytizing of monks?