Why Secular Buddhism Is Baloney! | Ajahn Brahmali
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ต.ค. 2024
- Source:
www.podbean.co...
Ajahn Brahmali is the guest on this episode to talk about how and why Secular Buddhism misrepresents the original teachings of the Buddha. This discussion goes in to some depth about the importance of understanding the place of karma and rebirth in the Buddha's teachings, and how our views impact upon the way that we act, including upon our practice. There is also discussion about the role of mindfulness in Secular Buddhism, and how mindfulness is a good thing, but also, how we cannot practice Buddhism fully without other important factors of the Eightfold Path.
Links from this episode:
Events coming up with Ajahn Brahmali (including his upcoming tours)
Support the Buddhist Society of Western Australia
Treasure Mountain Podcast links:
Treasure Mountain Podcast - www.treasuremo...
Treasure Mountain Website - www.everydaydh...
Treasure Mountain facebook page - / treasuremountainpodcast
Ajahn Brahmali is brilliant, and this is a wonderful podcast. One of my complaints about Western Buddhism is too many people are shy about criticizing distortions of the Dharma. Like Ajahn Brahmali, in a sense I don't mind what people believe. But what I object to is people claiming they are teaching the Buddha's Dharma when they are grossly misrepresenting it. And as Ajahn Brahmali says, the only way you can know what the Buddha taught is by reading the first four Nikāyas of the Pāli Canon.
Or meditate. All sutras and Tripitaka manifest itself when one meditate. That is how the Buddha obtain all the dharma and share to the world
Like above, it’s not about understanding or believing, it’s about experiencing and realization 🙏
I am what might be called a "secular buddhist" and I agree with this comment. I actually see this and argue a lot with people in secular buddhist groups about this. I am secular and western, so I don't really believe in stuff like the devas or reincarnation and all that. But I cant in any way argue that the Buddha believed in them.
I've had secular Buddhists who tried to say Buddha didn't believe in devas or afterlife. I've seen secular Buddhists say that Buddha didn't even believe in or advocate sitting meditation. I've seen people say that sitting meditation is useless and pretend this is backed in the scriptures.
It's pretty gross. It's a major distortion and fabrication. It misleads people and it slanders the memory of the Buddha. I don't get how you can claim.to be a buddbist while lying about what the Buddha said and believed. If we are going to reject or, in my case, "set aside" the more supernatural aspects, we should do so deliberately and honestly. We shouldn't try to pass our beliefs off as being the authentic beliefs of the Buddha or the early buddhist traditions. It's fine to disagree with the Buddha. He wasn't a God. He was an immensely wise person and an incredibly skilled teacher. He deserves our respect,.not blind devotion. The ironic thing is that many secular Buddhists, in their effort to.avoid the latter, fail to give him the former.
Some self-identified secular practitioners are more quasi-spiritual/religious than others. The teachings are about the dharma, not about the buddha.
@@TravisCBarker the dharma comes from the Buddha. I mean if we are going to alter the dharma we should at least be clear we are altering it and why.
There is no "self" to be "reborn". Rebirth happens within the context of one life, and a new self is reborn with every thought that arises. Basic consciousness can't be extinguished by death, but there is no self that is reincarnated into a new life. Saying there is a self is contrary to all Buddhist teaching. Karma is energy. There is ultimately no self for it to effect. Reincarnation is saying there is an intrinsic self that is continuing on to another life.
I am not even sure that we know what happens with consciousness after death. I don't think we can speak with any certainty there either.
I believe Nisaragadatta Maharaj also preached there is no no incarnation. I agree with you.
This still sounds like annihilationism. The mindstream is a flux of causal continuity from karma created in your subject-object relation to the 5 aggregates. If what we mistake for ourself in our current life is this causal continuity and form is just another part of the process why would it end with the dissolution of the body? That is in itself suggesting a self. Imposing a self is the closest thing to heresy in buddhism and they are very clear that to be reborn is not related to an unchanging self.
“Each thought is a little dream.
The first insight is that each thought cannot point to anything outside of itself.
The second, which is just an implication of the first, is that each thought is "self-enclosed." At this point, what's disclosed is, as it were, the thought's self-enclosed world. A thought is like an act of a magician.
The third re-situates the thought in its proper context: it's actually resting in the field of awareness. In fact, it's so drenched by awareness that it's nothing but a movement of awareness.
Each thought--impermanent, self-referential, and plunged into the water of awareness--feels like a little dream, one that comes and goes, one whose essence is aware presence.”
- Andrew Taggart
And what exactly does any of this mean…? Really it’s still just word salad. “Rebirth happens within the context of one life” … that is not communicating anything coherent.
Perhaps words as we ordinarily understand them simply cannot serve to explain any of this.
In fact they DONT
I guess just keep meditating and hope it’s clicks into place some day somehow… rational discourse is not possible.
Not one single person or book has ever convincingly explained what “no self” means (I read a good 20 or so attempts)… only campy analogies like the “parts of the chariot” and so forth, but really - if you need to eat or breath you have a self. Tell me how it can be otherwise?
For myself, secular Buddhism was the carrot 🥕 that got this cynical, overly intellectual, profoundly stubborn horse to even consider something beyond my rigid, naive, pessimistic worldview. And I am grateful for that.
I'm also grateful for this particular podcast episode. It has inspired me to to continue the journey. Rebirth was just something I wasn't able to accept whatsoever when I started. I'm glad that folks like you are around and help point me in the right direction.
Thanks for this comment. It's honest and candid, and it makes a subtle point about the value of Secular Buddhism that could easily be overlooked in the debate.
Excellent talk, thank you very much Ajahn and TMP for hosting this interview. I have shared this with several of my friends!
Thank you for sharing!😊
Thich Nhat Hanh also understood rebirth and karma quite differently than the main Buddhist tradition. I even think that most Secular Buddhist would accept Thich Nhat Hanh's versions of rebirth and karma. I think it would be very strange not to call Thich Nhat Hanh a Buddhist.
Secular Buddhism is the gateway to the more mystical forms of Buddhism, which the intellectual mind would never have accepted in the first place.
love the plug for the 'US tour'.....everybody's got to make a living.....secular buddhism is baloney? Every culture that was exposed to buddhism affected it; some argue 'zen isn't buddhism', Chan or Mahayana? Vajrayana?. Rigid thinking seems to be a danger for those who have adopted religions outside of their culture. Reconciling 2500 year old teachings to our age via 'secular buddhism' seems to be another attempt to make those teachings resonate at a different 'place and time' and not something to be trivialized. Explaining that which cannot be explained only experienced is a daunting task, so to criticize an honest, 'non traditional' attempt is parochial. Read the original texts, then put them in the context of the time. Question everything.
@@Giantcrabz You'd make a pretty good know-it-all Republican politician yourself, hahaha. It's funny what we see in the 'mirror' and not notice ourselves....
Yes
Buddhism can be simplified;
1. We all suffer.
2. To end suffering, think correctly.
Nothing is needed after you learn these two nobel truths. Thinking correctly leads you to the rest of the 8 fold path. Thinking correctly will solve your problems that lead to suffering. The relationship between quantum physics and Buddhism is irrelevant. Reincarnation is irrelevant. God is irrelevant. Dont waste time on irrelevant issues.
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. 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 though, even though the tie of all Buddhist concepts to a 100% acceptance of reincarnation seems weak.
There is diversity, including doubt from many Buddhists already in regard to rebirth >>> www.lionsroar.com/just-more-of-the-same/
If there is no rebirth and you take the 1st noble truth seriously, then the escape from suffering would be death.
@@emperorpalpatine9841The Buddha taught in the Instruction to the Kalamas, AN65, that even if there is no rebirth, one should follow the path of the dhamma to find the way out of suffering in this life: 'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.'
Great talk. I think one of the biggest issues with secular Buddhism is their aparent desire to dump one of the three jewels: the sangha. Sure, much of the sangha is in desperate need of reform, but it is still a necessary element of Buddhism. I do think calling secular Buddhism "baloney" is a bit overkill though. Secular Buddhism has a lot to offer to the conversation.
I am of a secular mindset, but I would never advocate dropping the sangha. Many of us can say we've learned so much about the dhamma from Buddhist monks. Secular Buddhism is bad when the secularization is used as an excuse to reject the Buddhist worldview entirely. This is where techniques of mindfulness and meditation can help people achieve goals of excessive craving for wealth, power, sex, etc. Such secular Buddhists talk about Buddhist ideas as a "seasoning" for whatever you're already doing or believing.
You do not need to believe in reincarnation or the supernatural for the Buddhist worldview to make sense. The three marks of existence (anicca, dukkha, and anatta) still apply. The idea of kamma still applies within a person's lifetime. I find it hard to understand why modern society thinks renunciation and monasticism are somehow abhorrent. Especially, it comes from our society's over-fetishization of romantic love, sex, wealth, and a comfortable lifestyle.
I will say one last thing--as an American, there are few places in the world that need the core ideas of Buddhism more than America. Especially right now. Secular Buddhism that does not reject the heart of what Buddhism is about, and freely criticizes modern society, can be revolutionary for the happiness of Americans. And by embracing the secular aspect, Buddhism can gain more interest from people who are disaffected with the abuses of American religion.
The Sangha refers to the "Noble Sangha". The Noble excludes rebirth, per the sutta teachings.
What exactly does secular Buddhism have to offer?
I've actually pretty much tossed out the concept of "Buddhism" along with the religiosity. By "Buddhism" I mean the institutionalization, codifying of creeds, and the various rites and rituals that go along with it - cultural add-ons. As Ajahn Sujato pointed out in one of his talks on EBTs, he had attended a conference of Buddhists (of all traditions), and his was the only talk that even mentioned the Suttas. I used to go to a Thai temple, but all they seemed interested in were festivals and putting more gold on the roof and getting more statues - never any Sutta studies, and only (as far as I could tell, not speaking Thai) very basic practice.. I've finally found a Sri Lankan temple that DOES focus on Suttas and practice.
My point is, that "Buddhism" is at best a vessel, a container; and there may or may not be any real Dhamma there.
As far as rejecting bits and pieces of the Dhamma because they might not make sense, I'd never do that. The teachings I don't fully comprehend, I put those into the category of "don't know" - neither accepting nor rejecting, as in the exchange with Bhante Sariputta: “Sariputta, do you believe in this Dhamma that I have taught?” Ven. Sariputta respectfully replied, “I do not yet believe.” The Lord Buddha said, “Wise people shouldn't believe easily. Investigate and take it into practice before you believe."
How has the Ajahn so completely lost the plot of suttas that he is arguing that the 4 noble truths are arguing for an actual rebirth? Buddha was trying to clear away all that nonsense, and says so explicitly, repeatedly, yet this guest is brining all of that back in to muddy the crystal clear waters of the dharma. I feel sad for him, and those at his dharma center who are not able to hear the truth clear of these misleading abstractions.
You misunderstood what’s being said, the 4th noble truth assumes rebirth, without rebirth what’s the point of the 4th truth. I take it you call yourself a secular Buddhist?
The Buddha took rebirth quite seriously:
Rebirth. See also Hell; Jati (birth); Kamma; Sagga (heaven).
The skillfulness of one's actions in life determine one's destination after death: Dhp 17, Dhp 18, Dhp 240
Causes of favorable or unfavorable ~: MN 135, AN 3.65, Dhp 310, Dhp 316
How to gain rebirth as an elephant or a horse: AN 10.177
The laws of kamma and ~ are as inviolable as the law of gravity: SN 42.6
What's so bad about being reborn?: SN 5.6
Why not just settle for rebirth among the devas?: SN 5.7
The preciousness of our human birth: SN 20.2, SN 56.48
Today, it is easy to trace the evolution of Buddhism as it traveled around the world through the centuries. Secularism is the latest addition. In the time of the Buddha, suffering was tied to endless rebirth. Today, many people don’t see it that way. Yet, we suffer just the same. We are capable of gaining insight into this just the same. These are my thoughts. If they were of any help, please use them. If they were not, please set them aside.
actually this is wrong. If you know the basics about what the Buddha taught, his core teachings are about the here & now.
@@Dhammadhatu I am pretty sure that's exactly what he said.
@@tayrowell what "he" (who) say?
@@Dhammadhatu the original poster seems to also be addressing present suffering, and the here and now.
@@tayrowell the OP said suffering is endless "rebirth". The Buddha did not teach this. In Pali, the word "jati" does not mean "rebirth". "Jati" means "identity".
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.
“Consciousness… is existence itself and can never die”. You could be correct. But that is not what the Buddha teaches in the Pali Canon. According to the teachings on the Five Skandhas/Aggregates, the fifth of which is consciousness, consciousness itself is dependently originated, and only comes into being with sense contact. Some later schools interpreted pure consciousness as ultimate reality, but this is contrary to what the Buddha himself taught, so if we are going to be purists about the Buddha’s teachings, you are condemning your own view. Maybe it’s better we allow people to interpret the dharma as it makes most sense to them. We can see it differently and discuss that - but being judgmental seems to amount to the kind of clinging and aversion we strive to let go of.
Thank you. 🙏🙏🙏
It seems as though Ajahn Brahmali has a complete misunderstanding of the suttas /Nikiyas with regards to rebirth and the 4 nobel truthes. What suttas is he basing his notions of rebirth on that he seems to equate it with reincarnation? I don't think there are any, unless they are poor translations. The suttas make it very clear, repeatedly, that such abstractions like reincarnation are not suitable to final realization here and now, and therefore not spoken on, and the the 4 noble truths are about ending the cycle of dependant origination. The cycles of craving that lead through the chain to suffering, here and now in this life. Reading reincarnation into the core of suttas and 4 noble truths is a far greater distortion of the teachings than any of the secularization he is critisizing.
This is not correct. I do not endorse all of what Ajahn Brahmali is saying but the idea of reincarnation, meaning for some part of one to be reborn as another being after the death of the body, is found throughout the suttas in the Pali canon and is integral to the Buddha’s teachings. Not least of all the story he tells of his enlightenment:
"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two... five, ten... fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus I remembered my manifold past lives in their modes & details.
"This was the first knowledge I attained in the first watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose - as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute.
"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I saw - by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human - beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings - who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views - with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings - who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views - with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus - by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human - I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.”
- Majjhima Nikhaya 4, source: www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.004.than.html
The description of “Secular” Buddhism introduced in the beginning of this talk falls short, misses the mark and just scratches the surface of what “Secular” Buddhism is. This talk implies a watering down of core insights that The Buddha depicts as foundational to his awakening - which is not the case at all.
Secular Buddhism pulls the rug from under the hierarchical structures embedded in traditional Buddhism that includes the Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana schools where a traditional hierarchy has been operating for a long time that categorizes where women are in this structure along with the position of laypersons and where they fit in.
There tends to be misunderstanding of the core purpose of the meaning of the word “Secular” that is prevalent throughout history as Buddhism and other religions adapt to different cultures over time. It has been imbued with a derogatory connotation that is associated with it - and that colors its intent.
The secularization of Christianity is it’s triumph and not it’s failure since the deep values of Christianity such as compassion and love are included in this secularization sculpting human beings into becoming more attuned to the better Angels of their nature.
A similar misconception is happening from the orthodoxy of Buddhism coming from the long term deeply motivated and highly inspired monks who are the experts in The Teachings of the Buddha and do not take kindly to a critique nor a dismantling of profound ways that they have walked the path.
Just as in the Kalama sutra that incites pratictioners to deeply question the teachings just as a goldsmith would test gold to verify if it is gold, so to, Secular Buddhism is moving on that course.
Secular Buddhism is another stream of the river inviting those of us who are beginning to wake up to our suffering and are looking for a raft to carry them to the other shore.
This inquiry is the triumph of Buddhism as it travels the globe offering freedom from “Dukkha” ie pain and suffering to those who put into practice the understanding and application of The Buddha’s gift to humanity.
Theravada Buddhism and Secular Buddhism are not in opposition to each other but are complimentary to the needs of the people who are seeking a way out of their pain.
Secular Buddhism relinquishes belief in favor of experience to navigate through life.
Not knowing is a prerequisite stance when applying the various practices encouraged by The Buddha such as meditation. As a great teacher once said “Great Doubt - Great Awakening”, “Little Doubt - Little Awakening”, “No Doubt - No Awakening” this approach is encouraged as it shines the light on our ignorance and makes us acknowledge that when we look real close to our actual experience of ourselves - we really “Don’t Know” and “Don’t Know” mind is quite useful to ferret out our assumptions and lead us towards a deeper contemplative reflection that nourishes our very bone marrow.
Does the monk believe that rebirth and reincarnation are the same thing? He seems to believe the soul or "Mind" are eternal substances.
All the monk knows is Sunyata emptiness . This is what you should embraced. Attachment is a defilement that shall be eradicated
@@Giantcrabz and still attached when parents leaves the world unless you add not close to your parents
Buddha himself very adamantly said not to believe him on faith but only after investigating for yourself. As such, I don't have really have any issue with the so-called "secular Buddhism", which actually takes the Buddha's suggestion. I also don't think materialism necessitates that death is the end, especially when one considers the teaching on non-self.
You mis understood the Buddha . What he means to investigate is meditate and gain insight to what his teaching is. All his teaching ( Tripitaka) sutras was gained through meditation and mindfulness. And that Is exactly what he want you to experienced.
Ignore the dogma of these commenters. They are drawn to bare teeth against any scent but their own, which is (in my interpretation) antithetical to Buddhism. You see the same reactions from the most insecure Christians and Muslims as well when discussing interpretations of religion. Unfortunately, many use spirituality as a means to build glass houses of insecurity instead of as a means to find inner peace.
@@nheimi99 well with my interpretation you are wrong too
@@bloodrain1776 “I’m dogmatic too” is certainly a position to take.
@@nheimi99 who watches the watchmen buddy? It is very easy to bastardize the dharma I bet the majority of us un this comment section do not even know Pali or sanskrit.
Introduction music is slammed to the max... I guess it's hard to master the voices so that they sound almost as loud. Otherwise, this is a very important lecture. Secular Buddhism is of shallow use. One can turn to it to learn how to live a simpler and kinder life, and that's about it.
Thanks for your feedback. I'll work on tweaking the mix.
Secular Buddhism is merely psychological self-help. You may not like that and indeed nor do I but that does not make it baloney. Yes, Buddhism has been reduced to a mere shadow of its former self but that does not make secularism to be wrong. It makes it different from traditional Buddhism; certainly it does that but it does not necessarily make it wrong. I suspect that the real reason why this monk objects to secular Buddhism is that if it were agreed to, secular Buddhism would obviate the need for monks.
Study the suttas, which refer to liberation of mind (cetovimutti) as the highest state & goal, which is psychological.
@@Dhammadhatu Ah! So your quotation changes everything, or does it? There we have it in black and white from Holy Writ in the Suttas no less! Surely that is just the kind of legitimization which Secularists would otherwise decry. The quote does seem to confirm that Secular Buddhism is just psychological self-help. That does not make it right.
@@marksmith1779 Again, totally illogical. You know the Buddha taught the path to Nibbana is the destruction of craving. This path is psychological. Even if there was 'rebirth' (which the Buddha did not teach in relation to supramundane dhamma), the only way to end 'rebirth' is by mentally ending craving. Buddha only provided one path and this path is 100% psychological.
@@marksmith1779 What makes you think the whole path of the Buddha is not psychological self-help? Have you never read the Attavagga of the Dhammapada?
@@Dhammadhatu So, you are agreeing with my characterisation of your approach to Buddhism as psychological self-help? It seems that you are. This is somewhat underwhelming. It is less than most people take Buddhism to be about.
A much needed talk...thank you so much, Ajahn
Birth is suffering… it is not about the future… it’s about now. You are born every moment and you die every moment. It’s a constant process, right here, right now. Yes that includes your perceived physical death and perceived physical rebirth in time but that is not the heart of what the Buddha is pointing at. Buddhism teaches rebirth not reincarnation.
The main problem with modern Buddhism and modern spirituality in general is that Physicalism has become so all pervasive that we no longer understand anything except in the context of physicalism. Buddhism is not a physicalist teaching
Very interesting, thank you. I've been practicing for ten years, took refuge three years ago, and the matter of reincarnation has slowly and gradually become more and more meaningful and somehow obvious to me. It really does matter.
Thank you for your insights Ajahn Brahmali. I am always interested in your thought-provoking and wise talks. It's clear that this is important to you and I respect your expert view, but I respectfully disagree. I think we agree that, from what has been written down about what the Buddha said, there is no indication that he was secular. But although I see him as one of the wisest men in history, he was still a product of his environment (time, place, ...). I am sure you will disagree, but I think we can keep almost all of his teachings, if we just interpret them with a modern, scientific mindset.
Rebirth: there is no permanent self, no soul. So the question is, what is reborn? The consequences of your actions. That's it. Moment to moment and even over generations. You pass the consequences of your actions to your children through genes and nurturing. And even if you don't have children the consequences of your actions can be reborn in others (the kindness you display, your teachings, ... can inspire new kindness, just as viciousness or selfishness inspires more viciousness and selfishness).
Karma: Karma does not mean that the person who does an action experiences the consequences of that action. It's true that the person is most likely to experience consequences of their actions, but actions are not exclusively connected to a person. It simply means that actions (and the intentions behind them) have consequences. These consequences apply to everything. To others, animals, the planet, ... To those who live now and future generations. It becomes part of the shared consciousness and as such we share it's results.
Enlightment: is the ending of suffering, no more no less. When you are enlightened you don't suffer the second arrow, you are equanimous, you don't automatically judge and react to things you like or dislike. In this sense your judgements and reactions to events don't generate new actions. Through successfully following the Eightfold Path you transcend suffering.
Very well said!
Please read my comment also.
As long as we have teachers who really have not understood Buddha’s teaching but living a life while enjoying altered states of mind (Jhanas) most followers live with suffering.
"There is no permanent self, no soul. So the question is, what is reborn?" - This betrays a lack of understanding of dependent arising, that refutes absolute existence and absolute non-existence. (see Kaccayanagotta Sutta)
"Karma does not mean that the person who does an action experiences the consequences of that action." - That's categorically untrue, according to Lord Buddha: "And wherever the beings spring into existence, there their deeds will ripen; and wherever their deeds ripen, there they will earn the fruits of those deeds, be it in this life, or be it in the next life, or be it in any other future life."
"Enlightenment is the ending of suffering, no more no less. When you are enlightened you don't suffer the second arrow, you are equanimous, you don't automatically judge and react to things you like or dislike." - This is incomplete, tantamount to untrue, at maximum, the three knowledges are attained. You see the Buddha and many arahants proclaim the three knowledges.
@@yaseenackerman150 I am sure that what I am saying would be "wrong view" according to some texts and a traditional understanding. Ofcourse, according to someone who is secularly inclined a literal interpration of the texts would be "wrong view". I am not saying that I know which interpretation is right or wrong. I can't say for sure, I just look at the teachings and try to identify for myself how these teachings can make sense to me, through my experience and understanding of reality. I can't keep my eyes closed for everything that happened since the life of the Buddha. Advances in psychology, philosophy, neurology, ... I think it is amazing that a man living 2500 years ago continues to give so much wisdom and value to the lives of people, traditional and secular. In my opinion, the part that needs to be interpreted figuratively is very small, although I am sure that someone with a traditional view would think differently. I respect your view, and maybe one day I will leave my secular interpretation for a more traditional one, and maybe one day you will have a more secular view. Whatever the case: have an excellent day and life.
Please.... there is no need to tread on egg-shells with politeness towards Mara Brahmali, who has no respect for the truth. Brahmali is Mara & fostering hatred & intolerance. Mara Brahmali is no expert and is a fraud.
Ajahn Bramhali isn't Mara. Nobody is Mara. Sometimes we all have unskillful thoughts and actions, but that doesn't make us Mara. You are not your mistakes. And although I have my opinion I cannot say for sure that Ajahn Bramhali is mistaken in this case. I wish AB, you and me right view and a good practice with lots of kindness.
I bow down to the sanga. I am blessed to hear these teachings on the Dhamma online. Thank you.
If I listen to buddhists online, a lot of stuff resonates… except strict definitions of karma, rebirth and enlightenment.
but there is still a lot left that is very useful, like meditation, recognising suffering, no clinging to self, and all traditions I listened to basically treat this the same, and that helps me.
The sophisticated language, wise selection of words and tone of voice are very convincing. However, I find the argumentation shallow. This is not an objective discussion at all, just a presentation of one perspective of a person with conflict of interest.
How can something be sophisticated, wise and convincing yet be shallow? I'd love to hear your description of something you reckon is "profoundly mind-blowing"!
Please read my comment carefully.
@@internetprogress I think you'll find that even amongst 8 billion people on the planet you will be hard pressed to find pure objectivity. Yeah he's giving his perspective on this topic, so what. He never said he wasn't. Are you Chief of the Subjectivity Police? To suggest that someone's viewpoint is bogus just because you think they're 'subjective' ( a word simply translating to-"I don't agree with them"), and not fence sitting, is a fallacy of argument, if not lame and adolescent. You'd be better served by presenting a counter opinion...with some hard examples.
Invite Noah Rasheta on for a rebuttal. It is easy enough to debate an idea or person that is not present.
I find Ajahn’s reasoning here to be reductive and dogmatic, and in direct conflict with what the Dalai Lama has professed about non-Buddhists learning about Buddhist teachings.
Buddhism is not an exact science. I would argue that a secular approach with a great grasp of the core ideals is better than a strict reading of Buddhism with a flimsy hold on the philosophical overtones.
That's an interesting idea. I might just do that. Do you have any contact details?
Agreed. I'm not saying secular Buddhism is good, I don't practice it. But something about this feels off, at least a little. It leaves a bad taste.
Your thinking is completely distorted . What that “ British Monk” learn in Thailand and bring back he learn is completely false. Distort the teaching of the Buddha and call it secular Buddhism in the west. Buddhism has been practiced in the east. Don’t distort
@@charliecheng3340 secular buddhism is inherently different than traditional buddhism, hence the name difference. Noah attempts to bridge the gap between Western and Eastern minds and introduce Buddhist philosophies to a secular audience.
No one, not even Noah, argues it as a replacement of buddhism. It is simply a path.
I do not understand your hostility beyond a purity scale for what you see as a single route toward enlightenment, but I wish you luck in pursing it with intention and peace.
Good point.. In a discussion about secular Buddhism ' being baloney ' , the least one can do is invite a secular Buddhist . Otherwise it becomes a echochamber.
Seems like a value judgement. Looks like you're clinging to the idea of "religion." As long as it helps certain people, it doesn't matter.
Without rebirth buddhism is meaningless
Amazing interview, thank you all so much 🙏
Hmmm, gatekeeping…very certain of the doctrine he follows…I understand that he places importance in the concept of rebirth, but I don’t think adherence to a doctrine is what the Buddha was suggesting we need…just my opinion:)
Far be it from me to tell someone whose faith is different from mine, that they are wrong. Having been raised as a fundamentalist Christian, it took me years (decades!) before I had the courage to take a step back from my faith and my religion and begin to question what I had always been taught as literally true.
In my humble opinion, all religions, after they have been around for a couple of thousand years, begin to ossify. When someone comes along and begins to questions the dogma of centuries of teachings, some of the "true believers" will be offended and get upset. Those who challenge the faith become heretics and are accused of being on the wrong path, or accused of watering down the "true teachings".
Unless there is room for growth in any religion, it will eventually die and become a relic of the past. Again, only my opinion.
you can do what you want to do nobody care. Unless and until you gain insight as the true nature of things, you can be siting their saying your mantra “I am right and i can do what i want to do “ for eons but nobody care. Poor you
@@charliecheng3340 Funny, you seem to be the only one complaining about what I said. Nobody cares. Poor you...
Richard. The speaker in the video teaches the opposite of his own self-professed teacher (Ajahn Chah).
I am with criticizing secular Buddhism as there is only one teaching that is written down in the Sutta Pitaka very clearly (but only the 4 nikayas and parts of the 5th).
My agreement with this priest ends here.
Anyone who spends so much time to prove rebirth is a fool at the same level as a person who tries to prove that there is no rebirth (Sabbāsava Sutta MN2).
In the Saccavibhanga Sutta (MN 142) the word Jati is explained as follows: (in English and Pali but ignore the English translation)
“And what is rebirth?
Katamā cāvuso, jāti?
The rebirth, inception, conception, reincarnation, manifestation of the aggregates, and acquisition of the sense fields of the various sentient beings in the various orders of sentient beings.
Yā tesaṁ tesaṁ sattānaṁ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti khandhānaṁ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṁ paṭilābho,
This is called rebirth.
ayaṁ vuccatāvuso: ‘jāti’.”
Now focus on the two Pali words that you find next to each other; Jati and Sanjati.
Have understood the meaning?
I feel sorry for this priest.
Hello Mark A. Thanks for your comment. However, wouldn't you say that it is the role of a bhikkhu to give wise advice based on Right View? There are many misconceptions about Buddhism in the West, isn't it the role of a monastic to address those and offer clear guidance?
You will be able to be free from ignorant unless you meditate and gain insight as to what reality is. Talking here and there will just show you how ignorant you are
@@solhanna5857 sorry I just saw your message today.
I wonder why you think that only a priest can and/or should teach others.
You had mentioned ‘right view’. Could you please explain what this means using your own words? Please don’t say that understanding the four noble truth is the meaning - yes it is one of the 16 ways the right view is described in MN9. If you just repeat it then I might think that you are just repeating what you read …. That is why I kindly requested to describe in your own words.
Thanks.
@@marka2188 The definition of jati is literally about the birth of "beings is a class of beings". SN 5.10 and SN 23.2 literally defined "a being" as a "view" and "strong attachment". Jati is something mental, as clearly used in MN 86 where the Buddha says to Angulimala he was now born into the Noble birth (ariyāya jātiyā jāto). As for the word "samjati", it is found in one other place in the suttas, about the "generation" of financial revenues.
So, can a Christian be a Christian without believing in hell? Can a Christian mystic committed to deep immersive meditation experience God not as a person but as the vast infinite empty expanse of pure awareness and still be a Christian? I think so. I also think and hope one can be a Buddhist while not believing in or suspending judgment about things like karma and rebirth. The topic needs to be addressed with the same rigor, analysis and understanding that secular Buddhists devote to these topics, and in this discussion they aren’t. I am a secularist insofar as I am a methodological naturalist (not a metaphysical naturalist) as well as someone who uses meditation to explore the possible nonphysical nature of the mind, open to the possibility of nondual Idealism. I do not consider myself a Buddhist. But I have no issue with people like me calling themselves as such in the same way that I have no problem with Christians who don’t believe in hell or Christian mystics who share the same experiences as an arahant or buddha calling themselves Christians.
I can't recall Christ talking about hell....I believe it was made up to scare and control the plebs.
Very good, strongly agree
Ajahn Brahmali has invested a lot in Buddhism and of course can't really see the point of being secular. Buddhism has evolved in all the countries it went to and changed in the process. Theravada Buddhism in India and Sri Lanka, Chan in China, Zen in Japan, Vajrayana Buddhism in Tibet. The ideas and values evolved in all these different forms incorporating elements of the local culture. Brahmali is not looking for the truth, but is a believer, so cannot see the point of secularism which is insisting on seeing and believing in the truth - that which is really out there. I really think Brahmali should show some humility, not be so attached to his own world view, and read someone like Stephen Batchelor (SB) who was a Tibetan and Korean monk and is now a secular Buddhist, or rather, an enlightened follower of the dharma. SB is a devout, kind, deeply religious man who follows the dharma profoundly and has also translated the Pali canon and found the real meaning after weeding out the misinterpretations of a lot of the teachings therein, and especially the interpretations that came after Gautama's time. He is a firm proponent of the ethics of Buddhism, but agnostic when it comes to it's metaphysics. There are multiple explanations for why the Hindus and Gautama believed in reincarnation, before the discovery of DNA and the proof of the evolutionary history we all lived through and can maybe still experience in our dreams and minds. By the way, science is based on evidence, on testing hypotheses with experiments, and throwing away those ideas that haven't been proved, whether you like, love them, or not! Also, the physical world is not "only material". The more you go into it the more "spiritual" and "mental" it gets, as shown by quantum physics. Brahmali shouldn't worry too much about scientists, they are used to having their ideas debunked quite often ! That's what they do most of the time, try to prove each other wrong! 🌿
Ajahn Brahmali did debate Stephen Batchelor back in 2014, for the record: th-cam.com/video/MuHi9Zpx7zo/w-d-xo.html
@@solhanna5857 both comedians. Both fakes.
What a great explanation of the four noble truths and I love the way Ajahn talks about the correct translation. I am always looking for the actual words that the Buddha said. Loving kindness to you all. 🙏
Brahmali is a fake scholar mistranslating Pali words. It is not possible any explanation of the Noble Truths can be correct from Brahmali.
Why call yourself a Buddhist if you reject the core principal of Buddhism which is the wheel of Samsara, the cycle of life and death? This seems to me to be the same to call yourself a Christian and you don’t believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Btw everyone who has done a few retreats these days calls himself a Buddhist teacher. Not even knowing the actual words of the Buddha himself. In my opinion we as Buddhists need a reference point which for me are without a doubt the words of the Buddha himself.. When for example I as a person have a spiritual crisis why would I be interested in the intricate interpretation of a so called secular Buddhist and not in the actual words of the Buddha? That makes no sense to me.
We have 1st, second, third turnings of the wheel of dharma and now 4.Buddhism is suggested to be adaptable to every culture.The real issue here is not just about rebirth.Hindus believe in rebirth, many christians too.When you get into zen they make it pretty clear that its not a matter of believing anything but about direct experience and if you can't personal verify it you just don't know.Like the student od one zen master asked what happens after you die? The zen master said I don't know. Well you are suppose to be a zen master...Uhuh the master say's ,but i'm not a dead one.
A bit silly strawman. “Secular Buddhism” is indeed absurd if it’s trying to be a religion or a substitute for religion. But if it’s just “meditation as psychological stress relief plus some basic attitudes about not being a jerk”, so what?
Other non secular Buddhists get very upset at westerners who like meditation and openly disregard Buddhism. Those Buddhists insist that all meditation is buddhist.
Secular Buddhism is like vegan cheese. Sure, people can complain that if there’s no dairy, it’s not cheese. But why should the people who like it and eat it care?
...and it only costs $3000 (does not include airfare, to and from airport fees, food or teaching) for a 3 day Secular Buddhist retreat in Bali, roll up!, roll up!
Buddha-Dhamma is Niyama (Law). Yet few Buddhists take a legalistic approach to Dhamma Law. Instead, they engage in personal interpretations. The word "jati" translated as "birth" in India means "social identity". The Pali suttas defined "jati" as birth of "beings into a class of beings" (Yā tesaṁ tesaṁ sattānaṁ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti). The Pali suttas define "a being" ("satta") as a state of "strong attachment" (SN 23.2) and a "view" (SN 5.10). In MN 87, the Buddha said to the former mass-murderer Angulimala he was now "born into the Noble birth" (ariyāya jātiyā jāto) when he became a monk. "Jati" is something mental. It is not physical. This is the legalistic truth for those who understanding legal truth. Ajahn Brahmali's birth is in the class of godly beings called "laughing Mara comedians". His undermining of the Buddha teaching is so serious.
Yes. His forcing of a reincarnation-type-rebirth into the center of the suttas and 4 nobels truths does more damage to the teachings than the secularization does. It makes it sound like modern western 'new age'.
I appreciate this talk and the ideas presented. I consider myself a secular buddhist and I do agree to an extent with a lot of this. I do however do not agree with a major premise that much of this talk hinges on, which is that someone who is presenting an altered or revised version of the dhamma is fundamentally not a buddhist. This doesn't make sense and it becomes more clear when you compare it to other ideas or frameworks. It's like saying that Einstein couldn't be a physicist because he heavily revised many core assumptions and concepts of physics that newton had discovered and presented. Or it's like saying someone can't be a liberal or communist because the modern ideas of liberalism and communism are very heavily revised and altered from the classical ideas of liberalism and communism, and bear almost no resemblance to each other in many ways.
At the very least the modern secular buddhist can draw a line from their dhamma back to the buddha. That alone gives legitimacy to it being called buddhism. As people use the qualifier and modifier of "secular" when describing it, they are already making it clear that their ideas are somehow distinct, but related to buddhism. It's been millennia since the buddha lived. Ideas and frameworks evolve over time very normally as people from different places in time and space interpret the teachings through their own cultural and metaphysical lens. Also,the buddha himself was not a god. Although many buddhists do attribute omniscience to him, and refer to him as a perfected being, that doesnt mean he was absolutely right about absolutely everything. Buddha was himself just a snapshot of his own culture and society. His teachings were revolutionary, but they were still based on ideas that preceded him. I see the buddha as more like a scientist than a prophet. He had great insights into the nature of experience and the meaning of our life. Revision and evolution are acts of tribute and respect to our intellectual ancestors that we draw ideas from. We keep them alive by continuing their ideas and we continue their ideas by reinterpreting and applying them within our own context.
I do agree however that a major problem in secular circles is that people present their own dhamma as being indistinct from, or even worse, a more authentic version of the buddhas dhamma. I've been told by people who are secular buddhists(and claim to be zen students weirdly) that sitting meditation is not truly buddhist, that buddha never taught sitting meditation, and that you should just do calligraphy all day. They present these ideas as if the buddha had actually said this stuff or that this is accepted zen practice, despite it being patently false. I think that if you personally believe in something different than the buddha, that's fine and it doesn't necessarily make you not a buddhist. But I think when you present your own ideas and dhamma as the pure, unadulterated teaching of the buddha, you are being deceptive. You are lying. We should be honest if we are going to revise the teachings. Lets be clear about what we are doing and explain why.
Also we shouldn't be too attached to whether what we are doing is truly "buddhist" or not. What the buddha gave the world was a precious jewel. Such a jewel is precious no matter what name you give to it. I consider myself a buddhist because I believe in the 4 noble truths, try to follow the middle way, and study the dhamma as presented both in the pali canon and in the scriptures that are central to later mahayana traditions. I practice meditation and try to adhere to the precepts. I dont agree wholecloth with everything said by the buddha or everything allegedly said by the buddha as described in the canon. And I set aside ideas of rebirth and things like devas because I am a westerner and these ideas don't really have a cultural context or backing for me, and also because I see them as being, at least to me, completely unnecessary to understanding and following the path in THIS life, the only life I know for certain I have or will live. I will never claim that the buddha didn't believe in these things or he didn't personally find them very important to his teachings. In fact I'll argue against anyone who does.
Eloquent. Bikkhu Analayo wrote a book: Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions: A Historical Perspective.
Writing about the conceit in all traditions. The assumption is that any of the traditions are pure. The Buddha was not a Buddhist.
@@TravisCBarker I'll check that book out.
@@nickscurvy8635 Ajahn Brahmali, Analayo, etc, are all fakes. Its best to avoid them.
The belief that the Original teachings were not corrupted…
True or not. Meditate. All sutras or Sutta manifest if you meditate. It’s How you gain the insight
Buddhism is a practicing religion,if u dont practice Buddhism your not finding a definite answer. Original teachings in Buddhism are Buddhism's not Christianity or Islam. The level and type of freedom and question is completely different in these three beliefs. That is what you need to understand. This is a phycological philosophy as well as a religion in another aspect. Not an eastern version of christianity.
They have compared teachings thousands of years old for example like the original pali to the ancient Chinese and everything has held up the same separated by vast distances and still remained in tact. Ajahn brahmali constantly makes note of those teachings that have been corrupted. The core of Buddhist teachings has been very well preserved. 300 years or so of time from the time of the Buddha to those written teachings I mentioned. It’s incredible.
@@jojoanimations3 Buddhist teachings are not those of the Buddha. They are a compilation of cultural adaptations.
Is the monk Norwegian?
Originally, yes. Though he's been in Australia for over 20 years and has taken Australian citizenship. In fact he's been here so long that after his last visit to Norway he told me that it took him a little while to get back in the groove of speaking Norwegian as it has been a long while since he had used it in conversation. But these days I think he might think in Pali. :D
The monk is a Mara. The monk is a fraud. Being Norwegian is irrelevant.
Yes he is
I can't tell if "is the monk Norwegian" is a Koan or not.
😂
I am mindful it is the podcast host who proposes the language that secular buddhism is baloney, and not Brahmali............
The dharma is not proprietary and yet many continue to cling to a moment in the past and seek to own something available to everyone and globally investigated over the centuries. Views of another tradition always support one's own counter positions, including Brahmali's. This is not wisdom. This is counter rationalization, which can be distinguished from any single practice. Support for one's own practice can not rest on the criticism of others.
The subject of investigation is the mind, perception, phenomena, and ethical living. Wisdom is not static. Insight can be glimpsed here and now. The Buddha did not write down anything and buddhism inherited beliefs from its environment. The binary arguments inherent in buddhist conceit do not follow the middle way, and do not adequately acknowledge the views of other groups. The words of critique adopted by one group are often not adopted by others. For example, the term Hinayana and enlightenment is used differently depending on the school.
The importance is not the teachings, but the insights that continue to be born through their investigation and practice. Many secular practitioners follow the middle way, an agnostic view of the imponderable questions.
Secular practioners have several sangha's. One (possibly others) has an ordained monastic teacher. Taixu and Chophel were aware there is only one community, not many in conflict. One dharma. Understood and taught to the needs and maturity of the audience. Some prefer technically precise interpretations, and put testability and validity as secondary considerations.
The Buddha teaches us to test these teachings and not just accept them because of the teacher (or school, etc.). He tailored his teachings to the audience. And yet many seek to propose practice and belief as binary, either true or false. Buddhist conceit and rhetoric certainly keeps it interesting, altho its unclear how much wisdom is transmitted. Brahmali refers to Thomas Kuhns discussion of paradigm shifts and revolutions in thought 37:00 altho seems to propose this does not apply to wisdom as it pertains to the investigation of the dharma. I was listening for a discussion of Buddhist cosmology but heard no mention........
Very nice
"If I just say the Therevada interpretation of 'jati' is 'historical context' it's obvious the Buddha meant only what I want".
Is irony dead?
Irony ain't dead, it was reborn....as cognitive dissonance..
It is not intended to be so, but this is quite a condescending talk. The central argument and especially the tone, is that if you do not accept rebirth then you are not only missing out but are somehow naive and deceitful and certainly not Buddhist. But nobody owns Buddhism. Nobody has the right to claim the 'correct' principles of Buddhism. This is because, as Brahmali himself suggests, the paradigm (Thomas Kuhn) we are trapped within can shift. Buddhism is just as much subject to this trapping and shifting as is Materialism and Naturalism (Science). Also, Buddha would not have asked us to "put faith in the Buddha". Listen closely to the Buddha and one would never suggest doing so. Lastly, yes, the Buddha can be wrong. I can still take much and even most of what Buddhism teaches and my guide, and indeed, I may even call myself Buddhist if I feel. The fundamentalist approach to Buddhism, as it is presented here, approaches dogma.
Congratulations for being born with the faculty of discernment. Please accept me as your disciple Good Sir. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🌷🌷🌷🌷✨✨
Buddhism without the beliefs Ajahn! Secular Buddhism is most probably closer to how the Buddha taught.
Not really. Learn more
@@Giantcrabz go learn more
The best way to understand the process of rebirth is studying Theravada Abhidhamma and its commentaries.
Thank you for your comment Suresh. I think that you will find that one of the key points of teachers like Bhante Brahmali who are interested in Early Buddhist Texts is that everything outside of the Vinaya and four core chapters of the Sutta Pitaka (the Majjhima Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Anguttara Nikaya and Digha Nikaya) is, at best, of questionable origin and probably apocryphal (coming AFTER the time of the Buddha). It is striking that in the core Nikayas that there is almost no mention of the Abhidhamma (except in the Potthapada Sutta) yet frequent mention of "Dhamma and Vinaya".
@@solhanna5857, The Buddhists councils re-arranged some teachings, but they didn't add new teachings. If you trust the virtue of early Buddhist Theros, then you would not doubt their teachings. Abhidharma is helpful for Vipassana meditation and to develop the right faith in the Buddha's teachings. The mind needs guidance through Abhidharma to remove misunderstand about the science of mind. Also, if you can understand Abhidharma, you will see that only a Buddha could teach Abhidharma. Surprisingly, there are fundamental elements that I can show mathematically and similar to the fundamental elements mentioned in Abhidharma. So I have no doubts about those teachings. If you can those understand the teachings then you will understand the importance of those teachings.
@@solhanna5857 questionable ? All you need to find out if all sutras or Sutta is true is if one is to meditate. Nothing will be true if you just read. You need to gain the insight as what is reality . All Nikayas will manifest through meditation. Where do you think the Buddha received his sutras? Sit down and think about it
@@smlanka4u can you share the mathematical modeling you mentioned. I will highly appreciate it . Thank you 🙏
@@charliecheng3340, It is a large document, and it is: 1st word: Verifying. 2nd. The Origin. 3rd. Of Everything.
To truly understand the lack of virtue & integrity of the speaker, simply study the teachings of Ajahn Chah. The speaker claims Ajahn Chah is his teacher but Ajahn Chah taught the direct opposite of the speaker. In fact, the speaker has been expelled from the tradition of Ajahn Chah, as an outcaste. This is the "jati" of the speaker; an outcaste.
Calling secular BUDDHISM baloney goes against the teachings of the BUDDHA... respecting and being inclusive to other human beliefs is to be awakened, yea? Stop being judgemental... "EVERY WISH FULFILLED" E.T........................................................
everything the buddha said had already been said... buddha was an Indian yogi... Patanjali states in the yoga sutras that life is suffering... there is no humility with Ajahn Brahmali, he can't see where Buddha got his teachings because he does not want to look instead he wishes to deify the Buddha contrary to Buddha's own teachings.
Meditate . That’s where the Buddha get his Tripitaka. Buddha challenge you by seeking the truth . How ? It’s through meditation. Consciousness is the key to Buddhism . What you believe here and there cause you to be become even more ignorant
@@charliecheng3340 the yogis also meditate. Buddha was a yogi. It is you who is ignorant of the origins of the Buddha's teachings. What he said had already been said. No doubt Buddha was a master but there are many yogis masters. You arrogantly deify the Buddha against the true teaching. The true Buddha is my own mind.
@mhatayur Maya is already existing as a concept. Nothing new here.
@@directdemocracy133 have you even meditate ? Why show being arrogant . You are just being ignorant . Listen meditate more rather then being a charlatan running without a brain and showing your ignorant
@@mhatayur that guy @ direct has none but the Maras mind. Totally ignorant about Buddhism . I would ignore a deficient person limited with brain capacity
Just another apologist trying to justify fantastical thinking. Evolutionary psychology shows us why we believe and hold on to nonsensical ideas.
Fantastical?? He is a Buddhist teacher not a cult follower
@@helenmanos7262 anyone that believes in supernatural nonsense is a cult member.
Buddhism is profoundly spiritual to disappear.
Not longer your follower Ajahn Brahmali. WV
congratulations. A blessing for you. You have made so much merit shunning the Mara named Ajahn Brahmali.
@@Giantcrabz Please refrain from false speech thank you. There was no sarcasm. Brahmali is actually Mara. He is deceiving people about what the Path truly is. This is what Mara is. Mara is the deceiver. This is the reality. When the truth is spoken, this is not anger. My impression is your personal belief system is affected by cultural marxism. For your mind, it appears truth is hatred, anger, racism, sexism, etc.
@@Giantcrabz As was written elsewhere, to truly understand the lack of virtue & integrity of the speaker, simply study the teachings of Ajahn Chah. The speaker claims Ajahn Chah is his teacher but Ajahn Chah taught the direct opposite of the speaker. In fact, the speaker has been expelled from the tradition of Ajahn Chah, as an outcaste. This is the "jati" of the speaker; an outcaste.
sad, sad, sad that few people care about reality. For many, dogma and fantasy are more important. Yes, the world is also a creation of our brain, but there is a difference between where it is a dream and where we have the experience of reality. I am afraid that Buddhism also leads to another deep dream, perhaps sometimes even deeper than the emotional dream. I see different problem of secular budhism - there no sandgha. Or real dharma and budha are there? But I think that dharma must be open for new cnowlage and new findings, not divide betwean different budhism scools but unite all budhist and not budhist that needs for something.
There is only one Buddhism and all boils to consciousness. If you emphasize consciousness in your practice , the ultimate reality will be attained . No doubt .
@@charliecheng3340 For the Buddha, consciousness was like a magician's trick (SN 22.95). Buddhism is not about consciousness. Your ideas show you have no idea.
@@Dhammadhatu then what’s your idea ? I hope is not faith based or Hocus Focus lol 😂
@@charliecheng3340 crazy chinese superstitions about ghosts & rebirth
@@Dhammadhatu Superstitious? That’s the last thing you can get from me. I have a a Master’s degree in chemical engineering and I owned a design and engineering company with 10 engineers that works for me . We design and engineered a pilot plant that produced clinical material of MAb that treat patients inflicted with non Hodgkin’s lymphoma and many therapeutic protein that treats many diseases . You can’t get any secular than this guy that is writing to you. What do Have that think I am superstitious. You are nothing! Nothing ! You understand