physicalists aren't buddhist. physicalists are more like born again christians, trying to pray nonexistent emergent properties of consciousness into existence. buddhists are concerned with developing methods of rigorously observing the mind.
‘You have a right to be confused. This is a confusing situation. Do not take anything on trust merely because it has passed down through tradition, or because your teachers say it, or because your elders have taught you, or because it’s written in some famous scripture. When you have seen it and experienced it for yourself to be right and true, then you can accept it.’
The Buddha says that we have uncountable number of past lives. But our minds are not pure enough to recollect them. Let's purify our minds. Greetings from sri Lanka
Sometimes it seems to me that Stephen Batchellor speaks of "modernity" as if it were some sort of point of arrival - as id t were not, itself, transient.
Thinking about it, I really think they are almost at the same place. While Brahmali is traditional and follows the original teachings of the buddha, he wouldn't say that he 'knows' if the 'supernatural' aspects are true, but he has faith. Batchelor is almost on the same wavelength. Batchelor would agree he too, can't prove or disprove of the 'supernatural' aspects of Buddhism, but would never discard the possibility of it being possible. Brahmali has confidence in the 'supernatural' being true, while Batchelor discards confidence and no confidence in the 'supernatural' and simply just practices. The practical teachings are golden and that's all that truly mattered to the Buddha. If one does not have a true knowing and experience with the 'supernatural' being true, then confidence in the 'supernatural' at the most is appropriate alongside practice, just as long as their is no belief.
The strong reactions posted pertaining to Stephen Batchelor's views show just how much fear people feel when their beliefs are questioned. This is a sign of extreme attachment which arises from the lack of proper dharma education and consistent practice.
fuk u . you are extremely attached to your ignorance. It is a travesty that you display any sort of Buddhist name at all, if you are too ignorant to understand that reincarnation is essential to the Buddhist faith.
fuk off ignorant asshole. Buddhism has practiced reincarnation for thousands of years and it is crucial to understanding the teachings on karma. you buy that robe at Kmart you disgusting perverted filth, if you understood realms you would know the torment of hell awaits you according to the Pali Canon
I agree with Ven Brhamali. Buddha lived during a time in India when there were other atheistic schools of philosophy like Charvak ( Lokayatas), Ajivikas and others, totally materialistic philosophies, they did not believe in God, soul, rebirth or anything They were total atheists. Ajivika founded in the 5th century BCE by Makkhali Gosala, was a Śramaṇa movement and a major rival of early Buddhism and Jainism. So why Buddha did not identify himself with those philosophies and deny rebirth ? Budhha believed in rebirth, in fact there are passages in the Buddhist literature where he quotes that he remembered his previous births during the enlightenment. One more thing, the great Dalai Lama ( Tibetan Buddhism) quotes that Buddha believed in rebirth. Stephen Batchelor can have his own version of Buddhism but he cannot deny that Buddha believed in rebirth.
@@agnostinosatomon7023 When life ceases the karmic energy reforms as a different being. In truth, you do not have past lives, since those lives don't specifically belong to you. Most Buddhists profess that nothing survives rebirth in samsara, due to the concept of anatma.
agnostinos atomon the 5 aggregates. There is no self because even that self is ever changing. All that’s left isn’t the physical memories, personality, etc. but the five aggregates.
Sure, but the Buddha was just a man, and was ignorant of modern science, which offers absolutely no evidence for reincarnation, let alone a reincarnation toward enlightenment hypothesis. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the books by Stevenson in no way offer that. On the other hand we do have evidence for terror management theory, which shows that human culture, especially religious notions, decrease death anxiety by giving humans an importance and durability that counter the insignificance and finitude represented by death
There is so much anger being posted on here. Anger destroys the mind. Batchelor has his view, and Brahmali has his. Cease cherishing views. Be in peace.
Batcelor has a false view and he is trying to pass that off as Buddhism People should be angry and shocked at the audacity of this ignorant fool Stephen who can not comprehend the full scope of karma including multiple rebirths. Bachelor is trying to package his innate western ignorance as Wisdom for a profit.
Thank you for your comment. I am a bit disheartened by the lack of loving compassion on this comment page. I see a lot of attachment to views. I have found a lot of freedom in letting these absolutes go. Best Wishes to all.
I think we're too caught up in the labeling of things, if a person practice the Noble Eightfold Path then he/she is a Buddhist. It hard to have confident in something that you haven't witness or experience it. We have to experiment to see if the result is as predicted, if it is then we can confidently accept that it is. But we still need to keep an open mind and not to disregard what we have not yet experience/achieve. If we disregard it then what's the purpose of conducting an experiment without having a hypothesis.
What do you want to say by purity of heart? Again I am reminding you that to write purity of heart is meaningless. This word is used by Godly Mazhabs like Hindu, Muslim, Isai etc Pl take care in future. In Buddhism only purity of mind is required, being epicenter of all activities.
From another point of view, there is the core teaching of the brahma viharas (the ‘four immeasurables’), which are trainings in the affective side of life, rather than the cognitive. It doesn’t seem misplaced at all to say that they are aimed at cultivating ‘purity of heart.’ In any case, surely ‘purity of heart’ could only be a noble goal, no matter what ones creed.
this was totally eye opening.Both men are into a separate identities. They come out with their intellectual beliefs and begin to gain respect for each other and thats really awesome.
Very interesting and considered debate/discussion. Thanks a lot for the upload. The question of tradition and how it changes or does not.... whatever the case may be.... and again the question of how religions might change and be transformed in different cultural settings. Thanks again.
I'd like to think Buddhists are inherently more civil and eloquent in speaking and certainly less abrasive. Reading these comments I am constantly reaffirmed that it is simply a romantic view of the practitioner. In reality, many fall short of the practice in their vehement and dogmatic view points when the whole point of this the Buddhist experience is to let go of those things. There are many paths to enlightenment, some more direct than others. Rebirth is a perfectly acceptable idea to accept but it is a leap of faith like any super natural claim.
You have to remember that there are people who hate Buddhism and write comments pretending to be Buddhists for the very purpose of giving Buddhism a bad name.
How is rebirth a supernatural claim ? I think it's a much more logical or reasonable claim than events happen by chance, luck or act of god, isn't it ? Also bear in mind that science is not know-all yet and also never debunked or refuted rebirth. In fact, Einstein's energy transformation theory is very coherent with rebirth.
@btw Buddhism is True exactly, Thai singer Langgalamu today is a living proof of Taiwanese sing Teresa Teng rebirth. I think those who don't believe in rebirth are due to indoctrination caused by certain religions.
@btw Buddhism is True I understand where this train of thought comes from, but that is using analogical thinking to imply something is empirical when it is not. There is no scientific evidence proving the existence of reincarnation. While our atoms continue to compile themselves in various living and nonliving things, it is not known whether consciousness or a continuous karmic life force continues after death. Reincarnation in Buddhism clearly denotes the idea that a person's actions are responsible for where they end up in the next life. This also implies that you can only become something that has life and cannot be reincarnated as a non-living thing. This is fundamentally different from the scientific understanding that we are composed of atoms created from stars (nonliving) that have gone supernova and spread the fundamental elements to create life. In a scientific understanding, we are composed of many organic and inorganic compounds that came from several sources in the universe. I understand the desire to meld belief and mysticism with empiricism to give it credibility, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence that is more than anecdotal and circumstantial. I have a deep respect and regard for Buddhism and many eastern religions, but, as someone with a science background, I make sure not to confound the two for the sake of my own convenience or need for validation. When you do that, you get charlatans using a flimsy and erroneous understanding of quantum physics to justify spiritual dogma or dubious astrometric math to claim the earth is a certain age to fit with a holy book's interpretation of reality. This exercise does not give clarity to reality but obfuscates it. I am content knowing some things are true and having faith that some things might be true. I enjoy reveling in the mystery of faith.
@btw Buddhism is True Sadhu brother! I accept that completely, as long as it is not confounded with scientific principles. The Buddha's teachings are logical within its own esoteric framework. I think existence is complicated enough without trying to jam puzzle pieces together that don't necessarily fit. I come from a Christian background, which has an entirely different metaphysical framework. I have since adopted the dharma as my philosophical and moral compass.
I find no conflict in rebirth and being an atheist/ agnostic Buddhist. Because of not-self teachings of the Buddha, parts of aggregates disintegrates, no single entity moves as a soul to a new body. Even moment to moment, the aggregates changes and we’re reborn all the time with shifting identifications with the aggregates. Rebirth isn’t the same as reincarnation. The whole teachings of the Buddha is to meditate and verify for yourself his teachings. Practically speaking, I’m still doing that after 40 years of knowing Buddhism. The relief from sufferings is verified, end of sufferings totally, not yet, and rebirth or existence after death, agnostic about it. I’m still appreciating the meditation and the teachings related to it. Metaphysical wise.. I’m agnostic. Psychology wise and phenomenology of the mind wise.. it’s definitely verified by my own direct experience through meditation. I’m happy to say after being born into a Buddhist family, growing up in the Buddhist Asian culture learning and practicing it, I’m more agnostic about many things and has 99% less beliefs than when I started meditating decades ago. I have a more profound respect for the Buddha’s teachings but is less religious than I have ever been. Beliefs had fallen away with the deepening practice of meditation. While I still enjoy reading scholars write about different dogmas and beliefs, I find them not useful to the meditation practice as much as testing the methods out directly. I find the explanation of the late Maha Thera Punnaji much more logical and relevant than what Ajahn here is explaining about rebirth th-cam.com/video/MF193PfSHoU/w-d-xo.html
I pay respect to Ajahn Brahmali from the bottom of my heart He is the real disciple of the Lord Buddha not only humans pay respect to him but also angels in the heaven also do like that! Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu! there is the Arahant monk in the world.🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
I follow mr.steven for a few clips. Has he followed any version of tipitaka at all? If so, he should state which verses he accepted and which verses he rejected. Or anything arbitrary as long as it supports his view. I am here very confused.
These two men are at the opposite wing tips of the same bird. One concerned that Buddhism cannot take root in the west if it just presents itself as an antidote to Brahmanism, and the other concerned that the traditional teaching will be diluted by the other secularists. The fact is that western culture is in state of flux and the western Buddhism that will emerge may not be anything like their own concepts. I am glad that people keep the tradition and Secularists give a route into Buddhism.
Very true and although I consider myself very agnostic as a Buddhist, I think the original teachings should be interpreted and taught as the Buddha taught. Just because we don’t know whether or not the supernatural teachings of rebirth and karma are true, doesn’t mean we should cherry pick certain suttas that would support a case for the Buddha being a people pleasing atheist and ignoring the suttas that show that he clearly isn’t.
I found the debate very interesting. I was puzzled by the claim, repeated by Stephen, that there are more connections in the brain than atoms in the universe, as this seems very unlikely, given that every single neural connection is dependent on a large number of atoms. It might be true for the number of permutations arising from the number of potential connections, but this didn't seem to be what was stated?
I can understand where Mr. Batchelor is coming from in his search for what he think is truth. Going from Tibetan Buddhism to Zen Buddhism and now Buddhist atheist, and It is our Divine right to choose which path we wanted to take and which in our conciousness would accept. Unfortunately, I can sense that along the way of his practice he became cbjective and complex which I vividly observed in this debate and to all of his interviews. I admire Venerable for calm and concise delivery on this debate. I had been into different philosophies and practices of different religions including Buddhism. I can say that all teachings and philosophies has, one way or another will be beneficial for one person but not necessarily would lead you to the right path for it still depends on certain individual on how that certain philosophies resonate with him. In my own view, the Basic essence of Buddhism, regardless of lineage, regardless of whether it is Hinayana, Mahayana or Vajrayana, is compassion and Part and parcel of compassion is being humble. The Eightfold path alone is very fundamental and simplified in which I don't have any problem explaining to children as early as 8 years old and, amazingly, they find it very logical and adoptable. Other religious philosophies, although they are good, seems to falter in my experience because there is no compassion. Tibetan Buddhism philosophies and practices are in its highest form and might be quite complex to understand unless one was born with it as his religion itself. I was so fortunate that in this lifetime I was able to grasp the sublime teachings of Tibetan Buddhism that suited my inner ideology and did not objected them consciously. For those who has the opportunity to learn Buddhism and still find it objectible, I respect and totally understand. As what I have said, everyone has their own right to accept and refuse beliefs according to their wishes. I suggest we should not complicate things further and find holes for criticisms and exert effort for arguments which is totally unecessary, in which I can say at the end of the day, will find it exhausting and depleting. For me, I can say in strong conviction, the main goal of buddhism anyway, is simply for us to become a good human being. Namo Buddhaya 🙏🙏🙏🌷🌷🌷
mind is an illusion morality is a meaningless social preference only useful for imposing onto the powerless. or, the final moment of mind in this life functions to produce the first moment of the next, and your actions are conserved, producing your suffering
My thinking is that there is probably not rebirth, but if there is, cool. Either way i am going to be the best i can in this incarnation so it changes very little.
Stephen mentions, in the debate, that the Buddha taught to his monks that no two of you should follow the same path. In what text did the Buddha say this? Thanks.
I am a secular buddhist, because I am not sure in a belief of the process of reincarnation. But I don't say that I am completely unsure in the belief. I consider whether or not reincarnation is true is irrelevant. If I am to be reincarnated, I should live my life the best I can in order to reach Nirvana to end this glorious process. If I am not to be reincarnated, then I should live my life the best I can because I have only one shot. Either way, the path to me living the life the best I can is with buddhism.
yet kamma is one of the central tenets of the Dhamma, whos recognition is one of the elements of the Right view, without the Right view there's no Buddhadhamma, only its makeshift versions the knowledge of past lives was one of the 3 supernatural knowledges obtained by the Buddha at Uruvela during the process of his awakening, this fact alone testifies for the importance of the doctrine of kamma for the Dhamma
excellent constructive comment. I think both the speakers provide great insight. instead of saying hes right or wrong we can leave room for ambiguity and say "the truth may lie somewhere in between " waiting to be found once we reach the maturity nessesary to experience it for ourselves...
Reincarnation is not a Buddhist belief. It is called rebirth because the same consciousness is not reincarnated. The philosophy of atta or permanent self underlies reincarnation, whereas the knowledge of anatta (a kind of opposite) is consistent with rebirth.
It is very difficult to understand real Buddhism ,it is energetic power in the body which can be realized by the person who follow it with pure heart and pure mind .
I'd like to ask Stephen Bachelor that: he believed that the Buddha was more of a pragmatist than a realist, that the idea of rebirth appealed to the majority so that they would adopt the practice more. For such a man who taught the importance of Truth, true speech and truth-seeking, wouldn't his teaching about rebirth, four stages of enlightenment, and so on be an intellectual dishonesty or not based on direct experience/knowing, which goes against his very basic principle of the Buddha-Dhamma? Secondly, just before his parinibanna, the Buddha encouraged all his disciples to pursue nibbana in the current life with a sense of urgency. To me, this further strengthens the doctrine of anatta (non-self) because if we assume rebirth and the release of suffering (nibanna) to be true, we would be a different being in the next life and most likely lose the memory of a previous life. This is unless one is a stream-enterer which would guarantee nibanna in maximum 7 future lifetimes, assuming that the Buddha preached only Truth (Buddha-Dhamma).
The irony in this debate is that Batchelors explanation of Buddhist pragmatism, which I personally find accurate, negates the reason for explaining it. As many Theravadan monks would say "If you find this useful take it up, if not set it aside". Batchelors debate of pragmatism causes him to take a realist approach!
Except his realism doesn't actually establish a solid objective. I don't recall he ever experienced an insight or even the first Jhanic state. His idea of secular materialism is precisely what hinders an insight from Vipassana, because he doesn't have the right views. I have no problem with secular Buddhism, just not scientific materialism reading of Buddhism, which is what is going on with the western movement right now. That's Carvaka, not Buddhism. Steven Batchelor is especially inclined to do that (saying its your brain that basically causes thought), and to be frank, its just that he doesn't fully understand Buddhist philosophy of dependent origination, especially not Mahayana philosophies like Madhyamaka, which completely destroys the materialistic argument. The east already had something similar to secular Buddhism long ago, that would be Tang dynasty radical Zen; its just that it could be secular without being materialistic. Focusing only on meditation makes Buddhism no different from Hindu, Daoism or Sufi Islam, it's the dependent origination and three dharma seals that makes Buddhism unique.
If you don't believe rebirth yet due to not yet attained the direct knowledge through meditation, you may not rejected either. Just be open minded and ready for the possibility. That's the Buddhis spirit.
I am afraid that in referring to the Cūḷamaluṅkyasutta (47’ ff.) Batchelor does not take into consideration that rebirth is NOT listed among the avyākatas, viz., it’s not one of the issues that the Buddha did not explain because he deemed as irrelevant to liberation. On the contrary, the Buddha talked about rebirth extensively, and even taught practices of recollection of past lives; therefore the Cūḷamaluṅkyasutta somehow confirms that rebirth is not something that the Buddha passively inherited from the Indian society, as Batchelor argues, but it is a significant instrument to practice itself.
Gautama didn't passively inherit ideas about reincarnation/rebirth, he ACTIVELY inherited them from the faulty religion around him. Why? Because as a human being he was imperfect and as a good mentor he let us know to always test his words against reality. Those so afraid of death that they cling to rebirth-ideas should not seek to pass such clingy genetics to their children. There is only this, and it's right here, so focus!
Rebirth is not always about the next life....it can also be about the next moment. Eg....to take a certain action may make you end up in a certain place or circumstance (ie, born into a new moment, a new place, a new state of mind). The choices me make in this moment determines the next moment we are born into.
Yes. I don't think you have to take the concept of rebirth in a literal way for it to remain an essential aspect of the practice. In the same way, Christians don't have to take the immaculate conception in a literal way for it to remain an intrinsic part of the experience of Christianity.
The Buddha said this: “Consider when a Realized One arises in the world, perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed. He has realized with his own insight this world-with its gods, Māras and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, gods and humans-and he makes it known to others. He teaches Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And he reveals a spiritual practice that’s entirely full and pure.
An useful place to see the split (since not associated with Buddhist traditions) is when Ven Brahmali says that if you studied medicine, you'd trust and believe the teacher. Another approach would be to always be checking what the teacher said versus teachers in other schools, and even healing practices from completely different cultures. Very interesting as well when he mentions that there were already widespread no-rebirth doctrines in the time of Siddhārtha Gautama.
if you are not comprehending reincarnation you are a fool , you are not following any sort of Buddhist philosophy at all. The Buddha literally calls you a fool or ignorant. What you have here is new age crap dressed up like it was some sort of science or philosophy
We don't pray to the Buddha but we do worship the Buddha. Worship because we acknowledge the worth of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. Praying is to ask for help.
The Buddha said this: “Firstly, brahmin, someone has done bad things and not done good things by way of body, speech, and mind. So what they’ve done and what they’ve not done is why some sentient beings, when their body breaks up, after death, are reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. Furthermore, brahmin, someone has done good things and not done bad things by way of body, speech, and mind. So what they’ve done and what they’ve not done is why some sentient beings, when their body breaks up, after death, are reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.” AN
If everything is transitory and impermanent in the Buddhist worldview, then how can anything in such a worldview be dependable, since even the principles of the worldview itself are subject to the transitory impermanence of change?
@@backwardthoughts1022 My question is.. how can any of the Buddhist beliefs, concepts, or principles be considered reliable since even they are subject to change? If everything is impermanent and subject to change, then... every [truth, belief, concept and principle] that Buddhism proposes... is also subject to impermanence and change, and thus... it can't be considered reliable.
@@janopian389 If Christianity is true, then God is not subject to change. He is purported to be uncreated, eternal/permanent, indestructable, unconditional and subject to nothing. (He is also believed to be the source of perfect unconditionsl love and dignity.. both of which are thus, also eternal and permanent).
I'm not an expert on Buddhism, but I think Ven Brahmali makes a very fundamental mistake and does injustice to Buddha when he states that the idea of rebirth is the foundation of Buddha's teachings, be they the four noble truths or eight fold paths. Buddha was trying to understand 'dukkha'. The concept of rebirth and karma in the previous life were some concepts he adopted from the then prevailing religious discourse to explain it and the means to reach the end of 'suffering'. Having discarded 'god' as an explanatory idea, Buddha found the idea of rebirth a more rational concept. Today, 2500 years later, we know that rebirth is an idea that has no rational/scientific basis. Had Buddha been alive today, he wouldn't have fallen upon this ridiculous idea to explain anything. Though rebirth/karma were only minor ideas in Buddhist teachings, the priestly class that grew up around Buddhism later made these ideas fundamental to Buddhist religion. In our era, it's our duty to retrieve the real Buddha, the rationalist, from the clutches of the monks and priests.
I agree here. While much respect and gratitude should be paid to the old traditions and sanghas for preserving the dharma and keeping it there is much clinging to dogma around rebirth among the monastics. To me everything that is important in buddhism is grounded and rational and verifiable through one’s own practice. I struggle with right view only because the monastics insist rebirth is non negotiable to be a practicing buddhist. But they forget, I am beginning to think, that this life alone holds plenty of motivation to live a moral and good life. I honestly don’t understand the need for extra lives to motivate this.
HONEST QUESTION. Which would be preferable: that after describing to someone what Buddhism is, that that person then believed in a secular Buddhism, or that that person then believed in no kind of Buddhism? (If these were the only two options.) I would be interested in reading some polite responses, and will periodically check back to this forum to read them. 谢谢。
It seems to me that Batchelor is basically is going for a buddhist flavored logical positivism. Why bother? If one wants to, "make it up as one goes," just do it. No need to try to shoe horn it into a buddhist box.
@btw Buddhism is True I am not sure I know what you mean and I am not sure you know what I mean. For me trying to be a Buddhist is based on my delusion of what a Buddhist is so let that delusion go. From my limited understanding a Buddha is not deluded. I am still deluded so I could be wrong . What do you THINK?
Future is a mental construct born out of our senses and imagination. Mental operations are all about anticipating outcomes based on past experiences. The Buddha asks us to expand our perspective beyond our momentary perceptions and conceptions. What better way to expand your perspective than looking at reality from the height of 1000's lifetimes?
Ajahn Brahmali speaks from the heart, from his life experience of living the contemplative lifestyle and taking the Dhamma as his full time job from 5 AM until at least 9 PM. This is how every Thai Forest monk is trained to talk - spontaneously with little to no preparation. Unfortunately, this approach is ill-suited to a Western-style debate where facts and external evidence take precedence over personal experience. He could've mentioned the stupendous volume of research on rebirth done by Professor Ian Stevenson. who devoted the better part of his life to this research. Granted, his evidence is largely anecdotal, but it is heavily cross-referenced. And if Stephen Batchelor dismissed that, he could simply mention the scriptures where the Buddha repeatedly taught about having right views on rebirth. You can be a Buddhist without believing in rebirth as much as you can be a Christian without believing in heaven.
TINTO RETTO I haven't been to a Thai Forest monastery, but I'm quite sure most any Dhamma talk is given spontaneously, regardless of tradition. I'm not particularly fond of Amaravati. They didn't show even moral support for the 2009 Bhikkhuni Ordination when many other Theravada monasteries around the world did. Even Bhikkhu Bodhi, the internationally rennown classical Theravada scholar, showed his support.
TINTO RETTO You seem to be quite capable of making your own opinion on these controversial issues, so I will leave you to it. I have no issue with anyone's views on these things as long as the ordained nuns get the respect and recognition they deserve.
In what he speaks, Brahmali does not understand Buddhism nor does he represent what Ajahn Chah taught. Brahmali is definitely a 'scholar', in knowing the words in the scriptures but does not understand the meaning of the words he reads. Brahmali is essentially a materialist. In the Bible, Jesus said to a man: "to enter the kingdom of heaven you must be born again". The man (Nicodemus) erroneously believed he had to be born into his mother's womb a second time. Brahmali is similar to Nicodemus, a materialist, a misunderstander & thus a heretic.
Every Thai Forest monk is not trained to talk spontaneously with little to no preparation. This was a tradition in the Ajahn Chah monastery but other Thai monks in other Thai forest traditions did not follow this. Ajahn Sumedho's mumbling rambling talks are examples of spontaneous talk. But not Brahmali. Brahmali is not of the forest tradition but of a new sutta based tradition. Many of us who were part of the forest tradition have outgrown the old Guru-Student relationship and only follow the suttas now. Brahmali is the same. He is sutta tradition & his understanding of the suttas is incorrect. That said, Brahmali, Brahm, etc, are not of the Thai forest tradition. Instead, their doctrines are of the old Sri Lanka Mahavihara Tradition, where they believe Dependent Origination explains rebirth/reincarnation over 3 life times (rather than the origin of here-&-now suffering). If you compare the teachings of Brahmali & Brahm on Dependent Origination to the teachings of Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Buddhadasa, Ajahn Sumedho, Ajahn Amaro, etc, you will find they are completely different. Brahmali & Brahm, true to name, following the Brahministic-Buddhist tradition that took over & polluted Buddhism many centuries ago.
BarbarraBay "and only follow the suttas now" You follow texts written hundreds of years after the death of Buddha, which were written due to political pressure and in many cases contradicted several of the 18 original schools which predated Theravada. Keep in mind the texts had further additions after that and even before hand there were already changes to the vinaya which had no justification. Enjoy Tissa's pollution of Buddhism.
How do you know that someone else has had an insight and speaking “truth” and not gone crazy? Surely you have to have the insight itself to understand it. You don’t have to accept an insight to get an insight. So if karma and rebirth it really is an insight and true (I don’t know atm) it will just be a natural progression to accepting it when I move down the path. Therefore you should not be pressed to believe it before you have an insight to back it up. You should not be made to accept Karma and rebirth at any point, you should rely solely on you understanding and insights and your work to try and find whether they really are true by your own practices, whether it be meditation or something else entirely. Just my opinion
+Oliver Wild I've never walked around the entire earth, winding up at the same place I started. But I still carry on my life as if the earth was round. I have a certain amount of faith in the photos and other evidence, have heard from others who have circumnavigated the planet, but in the absolute sense, I have no direct experience and cannot say "I have seen the earth is round for myself." For practical purposes, you have to operate with a certain level of faith based on second-hand knowledge and reason. You meditate to get a clear mind so you can distinguish which is more wise-to live life based on the belief the earth is flat, round, or some other shape.
***** yeah we are programmed by nature to suffer for food, sex, status and many other things much more but buddhism teaches us how to reverse that process which means less craving equals less suffering..no one is fking telling you not to stop wanting things, stop looking for the end process god damn it (buddhism is not all about Nirvana, nirvana, nirvana oh god please stop comparing it with christianity end states) you all are so narrow minded, it's the process all the way along..living in the present, enjoying the present moment there is all there to it. the main point about buddhism is people tend to jump to the future or go back to their pasts in their minds to change something or prevent something from happening and these are all futile because what only matters now is the present moment and you are slowly letting it slip away without even realising and sooner or later you are going to die without realising you haven't even lived because you were too busy wanting this and that to happen,
+NyowNyowl once one started cursing, it means that he's losing an argument and hence he shoudnt be taken serious. please answer me, what is the fundamental basic understanding of live and death in Buddhism, and does heaven exist in Buddhism?
Ranjith Hapu first, you lied for saying buddhism has heaven. Secondly, supposedly heaven does exist in buddhism. Then what is the clear justification to substantiate the buddhist teaching of incarnation? buddhism teaches that life is like circle, die then becomes something else, and your reincarnation depends on your enlightenment and karma. That is a huge contradiction in Buddhism
Dear br ,first learn budhisam then you will know all univarse and what buddha did during 45 years what teach evry thing you will know thanks triple jem bless you
Thanks for insightful discussion. Bodhidharma was asked by the Chinese monk about if he knows where his next life going to be? he replied " i dont know, because iam not dead yet". (he does not really care about his next rebirth) this shows that he wanted the monk to live in the present life fully with according with the vinaya ( moral discipline). other places, he did say "when you create karma, you are reborn along with karma". Kindly, understand that, the teaching of rebirths of following lives are for ordinary people, not having much insightful about the practice or experiential practices in the meditation. But for both Bhante Brahmali and Sir Stephen should understand the rebirths is within the "Sati" and khana or ksana (moment, instant), the thoughts arise, enduring and ceasing off (dying of). This very moment is called the "rebirth" of a person. I expect that Bhante Bramali would bring this crucial point in the discussion. This way, Sir Stephen would undeniably accept the rebirth theory, because it is no longer a belief or theory but it is a reality, happening right now, in this very moment. This is the core teaching of khana or instant rebirth. May you be well and happy!
I am profoundly disappointed with Ajahn Brahmali when he said he believes it to be true simply because Buddha or texts, or his gurus said it, and if you do not follow it, you are no more a buddhist. I think it is completely against what Buddha said. Buddha´s own words: "Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" - then you should abandon them.' " But argumentwise both have the same point. Its not the means thats important. Whether you believe in birth or rebirth is also not important. Its the consequences of your actions that is important. Here is the quote from Buddha himself: 1)"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires. 2)"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease - free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires. 3)"'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires. 4)"'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both ways.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires. "One who is a disciple of the noble ones - his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure - acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now.
"I think it is completely against what Buddha said" Buddhologists might be quick to point out that you are taking him out of context, that the Buddha taught eclectically, depending on his audience, and would modify his teachings to suit. In the Kalama he was teaching non-buddhists who were prone to skepticism as is. While we see a very different tone when dealing people who have already converted to being a disciple of the Buddha, where he lays down very clear unambiguous guidelines about what is good and what is bad, such as how one conducts oneself, how one speaks, and how one meditates. Even in the Kalama, he is giving no indication that his teachings could be unskillfull or could lead to harm or suffering, he is making a general statement to appeal to his audience as to win them over, which he so often does in the texts. He gives fire teachings to fire-worshipers and he gives teachings that the self is the aggregates to people need this specific teaching, none of those can be used to draw absolute generalizations. As mentioned, in regards to already-converted Buddhists, there is not a single mention of him providing Kalama-like teachings to his monks. This is critical to understand. Once you have accepted the buddhadhamma there is clear cut path that one is expected to follow and have confidence in, one isn't to fallow one's own path as that isn't the way that the Buddha laid out. He asserted directly was is true and what is false, what is noble and what is pernicious, without ambiguity or wiggle-room. Scholars like the late Michael Dorfman has discussed this at length and side against you on this issue. Therefore, Ajahn Brahmali might be far far more justified in his statement than you think, because that his how the Pali depicts the Buddha and his teachings.
You are now claiming indirectly that Buddha taught wrong things to "non-monks". Be clear of one thing brother/sister, Buddha never gave private sessions to anyone. All what he said was to be heard by his monks, memorised and taken as a lesson. So what he said cannot be ambigious, and if he said something to someone, then he meant it for everyone. Don´t be a fanatic dear.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Im not sure he is saying you should discount anything, except karma and rebirth (at least until you have reason to believe it because of your own understanding). Just my opinion. Hope this helps. If i'm wrong please correct me
Just wondering if the concept or Re-birth itself isnt contrary to the teachings of the 4 noble truths themselves? The holding on to the belief or desire to continue on in our rebirth rather then the acceptance of what is here and now and a lack of permanence?
...wouldn't it make Batchelor's life "more easy" (in terms of interacting with the wider communities) if he simply didn't self-identify as a Buddhist. He could call himself an applied philosopher influenced by Buddhist practice, a "yogi," whatever...
I agree with Stephen Batchelor that it is a shame the debate is almost entirely focused on the idea of rebirth. I also think it is very wise of him not to react to Ven Brahmali's personal attacks.
Brahmali made no personal attacks so far as I can tell, in fact he seems as gracious as possible. Brahmali has every justification in the world to call in question whether a Buddhist can properly reject rebirth and karma. Also, it's odd to expect that a debate between a so-called secular Buddhist and a traditional Buddhist not center on rebirth and karma, since that is most obviously where they differ. Brahmali never even said Batchelor is wrong; just that it's not the Dharma. Which again, he has every reason to say so based on scripture and history. "Secular Buddhism" would be the only Buddhist sect to say otherwise, so it's up to them to defend their claims that they are not non-Buddhist or at best heretical.
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.
Rebirth is just important as Karma they are connected. I understand Ven Brahmali. To say all living being is born equal would not be true. Some humans are born with talent, beauty, intelligent the list goes on, we can all see this, to say this is a gift/ blessing from God would not be fair, one life and you're given things that are good or things that were bad, How does God decide who gets what? Karma explains and shows the results of your actions now and future lives.
Secular Buddhism does not refute rebirth, in that we are in a state of constant change we are being reborn. It simply avoids metaphysical religiosity and the priestly class that say that they know and they will look after our afterlives as long as we give up our healthy skepticism. We see rebirth in the moment and we can be in awe in the not knowing after this condition existence ends. The Buddhism simply ethicised Karma in relation to wholesome rebirth here and now. Here and now!
I have high regards for Teravada tradition and I can say that Stephen's thinking is not false. I deeply respect Stephen for the struggle he has gone through. However, other's may not have similar struggles as he has, or their priority may be different. This type of mental agony can be deeply unsettling. I having come from Science background do think about this often. So now the question on rebirth. It's very possible, our scientific community just haven't dealt with this question. However you could look at the studies done by "Ian Stevenson" where he examines thousands of children having memories of past lives. This is a very serious study done by a well disciplined psychologist. Then the next study that is being done was on people who experienced near death experience. Check out this link. Again, hundreds of people reporting an entity that lives on.So the issue is about how far the modern scientific inquiry has gone. Science is a process of discovery. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.09.004
I think I tend to agree with Ajahn Brahmnali, if someone claimed to be a Christian but said they did not believe in an afterlife, one might question them calling themselves a Christian as well...
What I know about Buddhism is to live in present and not in past or future...not even tomorrow......live as pure as possible, be compassionate to living beings.....future will take care itself....
Yes. Also, the only meat you're allowed to eat is chicken, cow, and pork, as long as you recognize that the animal was slaughtered against its will, and went through agonizing pain for nothing more than to end up on your plate. :D
I think it likely incorrect if people think of rebirth as I'll come back looking exactly as I am now and with my memory intact. This is just an attachment to self. I think rebirth is more like the seasons which come every year. The universe is in constant change and rebirth much like an endlessly flowing river.
I am agree with you about Karam because is base of our life because life will take place as per our karam either wrong or good hence we are facing in our life according our KARAM , Thanks for reply .
The consequence of discarding rebirth is the individualism and materialism known as "YOLO," which is the theme of every movie and music video that arises from consumer cultures
Ajahn Brahmali knows what he is talking about. He gets to the point. He shows what the Buddha actually taught hence the term 'Buddhist' ... That is not dogma, to think that is dogma is the all too common Abrahamic mindset. You cannot just cherry-pick what suits you and yet still insist on calling yourself a Buddhist. Bachelor just loves hearing himself talk and has lots of words but little if anything to say. Larper! 🤷🤣
According to the _Canki Sutta_ “even although something be thoroughly believed in, it may be empty, void, false; on the other hand, something not thoroughly believed in may be fact, truth, not otherwise” (M. ii. 170). This particular Sutta is telling us to have an open mind with regard to rebirth. It is not suggesting to us that we doubt rebirth then demand of the opposition-the rebirthers-prove it to me against my arguments.
Idiot. Study the 1st & 2nd sermons of the Buddha, where the listeners entered & realised the path & Nirvana due to realising impermenance. Instead, you try to argue about nothing, showing your mind is the supreme putthujjana.
You sound like you are possessed by Mara the Evil One - you and that Brit who is a Protestant in Buddhist robes (oh, I forget, Batchelor demitted twice).
Thank you Mujaku. I still see you are spamming these videos. Are you & Ardent Hollings the same person? Regardless, if you disagree with what i posted, then this will be wrong understanding. "Rebirth" is for puttujjana because every stream-enterer & every arahant in the suttas realised: "All that is subject to arising is subject to cessation". Unlike you, Vishnu, Brahma & Krishna, every stream-enterer & every arahant in the suttas did not believe: "All that is subject to cessation is subject to re-arising". Brahmali has wrong view. Based on what Brahmali spoke, there is no other option but regard his mind as puttujanna. Regards
Now both if you putthujjana fools, Ardent & Mujaka please review the suttas & stop slandering Buddha: Now during this utterance, there arose in the venerable Kondañña the spotless, immaculate vision of the True Dhamma: "Whatever is subject to arising is all subject to cessation." Then the Blessed One uttered the exclamation: "Kondañña knows! Kondañña knows!," and that is how that venerable one acquired the name, Añña-Kondañña - Kondañña who knows. "Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, O Lord." "Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?" "Unsatisfactory, O Lord." "Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?" Indeed, not that, O Lord." "O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life, what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this becoming.'" Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Monks, do you too understand the Dhamma as taught by me in the same way that the monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, does when, through his own poor grasp [of the Dhamma], he not only slanders us but also digs himself up [by the root] and produces much demerit for himself?" "No, lord, for in many ways the Blessed One has said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness.'" "It's good, monks, that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in this way, for in many ways I have said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness.' But this monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, through his own poor grasp [of the Dhamma], has not only slandered us but has also dug himself up [by the root], producing much demerit for himself. That will lead to this worthless man's long-term harm & suffering. "Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in dependence on which it burns - a fire that burns in dependence on wood is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is classified simply as a rubbish-fire - in the same way, consciousness is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.
By your logic it's OK to posit the existence of the tooth fairy and then to demand evidence for or against its existence. It's silly to assume that the tooth fairy, at least relatively, exists.
If you become enlightened by practicing Vipassana Dhamma and become a saint, you will be able to accept that the teachings of the Buddha do not need to be amended. For those who have not yet attained enlightenment on their own, even though the teachings of the Buddha are true, doubts may still arise that they need to be updated.
What surprises me is that both of these men have studied and practiced the teachings of the Buddha for many years in great depth and still take the self as a given. This is especially pertinent when considering that one of the three essential doctrines in Buddhism is anatta/sunyata. Awareness of anatta/sunyata is nirvana. ‘Birth’ as an idea is only due to the belief of a self existing in a past, a present or a future; the continual re-emphasis of which could be named karma. Where and when is that self? As the Heart Sutra states, ‘no attainment with nothing to attain… Far apart from every deluded view they dwell in nirvana.’🙏🏻
Around 1:46, Ven Brahmali's attempt to distinguish belief in rebirth from belief in Jesus Christ is utterly pathetic and unconvincing. The examples he gave for believing in rebirth (because of how I feel reading the suttas and because I know upstanding people who believe it) are identical to Christian arguments for Jesus. All he does is reveal his contempt for the West and his lack of logic. It's also worth noting that rebirth and Jesus are on a par in the sense that they can also both be taken metaphorically/archetypally instead of literally, symbolizing psychological realities (on which, unfortunately, Batchelor misses the boat and openly denies having any symbolic understanding). They are both trying too hard to conform to a tradition instead of becoming enlightened with a humble acknowledgment of what can be known in THIS LIFE.
This was a horrible, inane debate. If secular Buddhism has some truth that religious Buddhism missed, then present it and argue it. Instead, all these two argued is whether secular Buddhists "have the right" to call themselves Buddhists. Stephen: you struggled with doubt about what the Buddha taught. Instead of sitting with your doubt, you went and made a new form of Buddhism and now are whining that the others don't respect it. Stop writing books and sit with doubt. Having doubts is normal. Brahmali: your only response needs to be "practice and see for yourself." No, we don't need to decide what is Buddhism and what isn't. It doesn't matter. Just practice and see the truth for yourself. That's all. There. Solved this one.
I think Stephen Batchelor is al little off the mark on reincarnation. If Buddha was only being practical and not interested in unveiling the true nature of one's mind, then caste system like reincarnation which was the landscape of the Hinduism of the time should have been a part of Buddhism. The fact is, it isn't and it was the greatest social engineering to take place in India since. He not only challenged the supremacy of the Brahmins but also established a Sangha (monk order) that is casteless. It brought a new social justice and vibrancy in the society. Ven. Brahmali is lucid and precise ( despite his Scandinavian accent) and not wooly headed in his presentation of the words of the Buddha. We can't pick and choose from Dharma and keep only the pretty teachings, because the Dharma has to be understood in its entirity. For all the good intentions and erudition of Stephen he does bring unsolicited and unnecessary confusion to new fellow pilgrims on the path.
+Hodge Boxer I understand your skepticism when I suggested one should understand Buddhism in its entirety and not cherry pick. True, Buddhism is more like "an art of living" than just a faith based dogma. There is no God that is out to punish you. It is your own past karma that has determined your present and your present action that will determine your future. However, to use an old analogy,if you don't see the full picture then it is like five blind men describing the an elephant as a leg, trunk, ear etc by feeling only parts of an elephant and unable to see the whole elephant: you will certainly take away a wrong and incomplete picture. Further,it is important to understand the core philosophy and not get a half baked idea of it, and when you do understand the core philosophy you realize that reincarnation is absolutely logical. In buddhism the emphasis has always been an experiential result rather than blind faith.You accept something only because it is thus. Hence, Buddha exhorts us to reject what is false and an ignorant perception.
+Hodge Boxer :) Define then what "Good" is . If you observe it, you will realize how dynamic this concept is. Ultimately you don't believe in Buddhism. You test it out. In that process of testing it out, if you see that it works then you take it. If you can't test it here and now then figure out why. The realm of these teachings is in the heart, not mind..
I don't trust this Butchelor after hearing his several talks and his Bodhi College website. He don't really believe the Buddha's teachings or know much about Buddhism. The Buddha's teachings are never filled with "might, maybe or perhaps". The Buddha's teachings are all clear and specific. Butchelor even misquoted the 4 Noble Truths as 4 tasks. He is just trying to make money using Buddhism, I discovered it from his Bodhi College website.
It is only in this sense that we speak of the uniformity of nature .We can only say that the laws of nature are practically universal ,but not theoretically so .
Here's the fundamental problem I see with this debate - no one defined their terms at the start. We have no idea what either speaker's unique understanding of rebirth is. For example, maybe one person believes rebirth is like reincarnation - aka a "soul" carries on after death and is implanted into a new body. Maybe another person views rebirth as an acorn sprouting and becoming a tree. And when the tree dies, it's eaten by insects, bacteria, and fungi, so the tree becomes all of these things, and it also becomes soil, which becomes a new plant. Different people will have varying levels of acceptance or rejection of either of these two beliefs. You have to get on the same page otherwise you may be misunderstanding your debate partner and vice versa.
The Buddha's teachings in the Singalovada Sutta provides perfect guidance for lay Buddhists and lay people to 'operate' in ANY type of lay world, ancient or modern, and any different 'culture' or 'nation', etc. There is no need whatsoever to "reinterpret" the Buddha Dhamma for modern intellectuals or economists living in a secular world they have created by laying extraordinary importance upon the power of money.
Thank you to both speakers for a debate conducted in an exemplary manner. To me one of the most compelling reasons to believe that the Buddha and his early disciples understood rebirth as a reality is the existence of monasticism. Why else would young people at the prime of their lives renounce wealth, friends and family and commit themselves to a life of voluntary poverty and celibacy? They could have lead decent lay lives enjoying the pleasures of the senses with metta for all beings.
@@maliksamarasinghe Not perhaps, you could. And therefore your point about the issue that "I think it's true because people went to great lengths for it" is weak.
One can not be a disciple of the Buddha and not see the existence of re-birth. That's OK. One can still practice the eightfold path, take on the five precepts, etc. BUT one cannot 'teach' the way of the Buddha as his dharma makes it clear that re-birth is a necessary part of enlightenment. Anything else would not be his teaching. It's not a 'doctrine.' It's a pathway. As concerns science... my university background, I'm still waiting for a "TRUTH" to come of it. And the things they call 'research' today are getting even further from reality, based on bias and finance. Great debate. Love you both. Hope to run into you both next time around.
We should try to figure out what makes sense in both views presented here, and where there might be misunderstandings, so we can go forward. Rebirth, reincarnation are concepts that have to be defined properly and when you try to do so, you end up with a lot of confusion. What is it that is "re-"&"born"? Probably not our body? Our mind, with all or part of its memories? My approach would be to start with birth. If I don't know whether I am the reincarnation of someone else, I do know that I did "incarnate" (without the "re") at least once. This is one of the few certainties in philosophy (cogito ergo sum). And I assume that this process happens quite frequently, namely with anyone reading this, and it implies awareness. The theory therefore is that awareness is ubiquitous. Then I believe awareness really is the "subjective" aspect of reality. Does that help yet? ...maybe the perspective should be changed from a rebirth being a sequence in time, to a perspective that awareness incarnates many times all over the universe (not linked to space and time), and when we die, this process does not. In this sense, awareness in one state (one mind) bears the consequences of the actions in another state (another mind). This would form a basis of "karma" (another word that the scriptures are limited to), in the sense that awareness is not linked to a particular mind, but encompasses all of them. Just as you can think of the "material" world (really an image) to be the same for everyone, awareness is not limited to one existence....(or did I just glitch into hinduism here? :) )
Brahmali seems to want to dogmatically cling to his version and interpretations of Buddhism, and especially reincarnation. Religious hierarchies love to cling to their authority. I see many Western Buddhists as closer to the original writings because the Buddha was an anti-absolutist and asked us to examine everything. Alot of ritual and local paganism accreted in Buddhism over millennia. Even non-Western Buddhism is hugely diverse. I see the old guard as grasping over sectarianism at times, and throughout history. This could be considered it's own baloney of sorts. My point here is that Buddhism already has a tremendous amount of diversity. Ajahn Brahmali is grasping here at a dogmatic conceptualization of rebirth. I do think it is important for Buddhists to share common core principles though, like sunyata, dukkha, dependent origination, impermanence, and some conceptualization of no inherent self. I do not think Westerners on the whole are giving up on those core beliefs, and I think that is what matters most. I don't think we should throw out rebirth, just question it. It is OK to question it. Regarding karma, I think cause and effect still matters in this life, but it may or ay not extend to other lives. We do not know if it does. I see Ajahn Brahmali's definition of awakening too close to the unproven reincarnation conceptualization. I see Western Buddhism as Buddhism and not just secularization because we retain the real core - sunyata, dukkha, dependent origination, impermanence, and some conceptualization of no inherent self. Buddhism does not hinge on rebirth into a new body being a reality. Rebirth can be conceived as something happening during this life. I think we can be open to reincarnation too while doubting whether it's an actual phenomenon. This doubt changes my practice 0%. The type of rebirth or no rebirth at all changes my practice 0%. What's left is still a practice rooted in Buddhism. I do respect Ajahn Brahmali's points here (he seems like a great man and I love his passion), even though the tie of all Buddhist concepts to a 100% acceptance of reincarnation seems weak. Remembering your past lives seems the stuff of folklore, until it can proven with certainty. It is completely in the realm of metaphysics, and for now, is pure speculation. There is diversity, including doubt from many Buddhists already in regard to rebirth >>> www.lionsroar.com/just-more-of-the-same/
That's REBIRTH, not reincarnation. Reincarnation means reborn as the same person which is impossible and illogical as nothing is permanent and evolution is always going on. REBIRTH means reborn as a different person or being.
I find Stephen closely represents my own sense of things in most aspects. The motivation to do one's best ,especially to leave a happier future is so much more profound and mature when it is not directed at your own personal advantage. I many years ago finally rejected the idea of becoming a monastic ( despite living as one in many ways anyway) after years of struggling with the impression that this was what an authentic seeker would do. This interview confirms that joining clubs and believing the same as those around one ,is far from the way to psychological freedom ( unless you're lucky and happen to believe the 'right' thing and thus join the right group).i can see advantages- the support for any necessary efforts etc, but feel that a blind spot can be created, especially by the adornment of authority, that the group safely covers . What if Buddhist monasticism is a carefully constructed vessel for carrying teachings, but the intended product is exactly lay people, who can take the teachings and run, using full intelligence and creativity, and maybe never even using the word 'Buddhism' ? Unfortunately ( or fortunately) Buddhism has not created wonderfully humane societies despite a good long try, so I don't feel that mixing such hopes with a particular brand of prescription makes much sense . Not for the big issues that we face as societies, and ecosystems. Ironically Brahmali's assertion of a self that continues through lives, culminating in Buddhahood ( the same or a different self?) and release ( an end to experience or ...?.) seems in conflict with anatman ,or no abiding self, which is not to say that there is no sense of continuity, but that ,within life ,experience is more like a book being handed forwards and being edited at each stage ,within this very life. My teenage self feels like another barely remembered person, why would a memory of something much further back have any impact on my brief present awareness and attitudes ( OK, it might be transformative, or even just interesting ;o]) ? Simple aging ,illness and the brevity of this life puts present activities into perspective perfectly well. As do considerations of the beauty, complexity and pace of forests, tectonics, sun lifetimes, etc.. If we consider a 'pure' awareness, as some propose, this is by definition somehow untarnished by characteristics, and thus not different from one person to another ,one time to another, and there is no reason to consider it as belonging to a particular being and being reborn. It is just a characteristic of some beings , or a more encompassing phenomenon. Indeed this light has been born many times- about 7 billion humans, plus other species right now. But why have a view on it ? Why try and tie down the future or lift the weight of the past ? Thinking is great fun, doing our best for Life ,that we cannot seriously isolate ourselves from, is as close as anything comes to spirituality? Fundamentally that light of life is only found ......
Simon Barton The first secular Buddhist was the Buddha. As long as they are following the eightfold path, they are doing what needs to be done, regardless of their perspective and stance on rebirth. The sangha was designed specifically as an environment to block out worldly distractions and practice more diligently, all the time, thanks to the assistance of lay people. The Buddha called his teachings the doctrine of analysis, not Buddhism. At the end of the day, if you practice, you can’t go wrong, but to alter teachings and their meaning to fit modern standards is a step towards distorting Buddhism. As an agnostic Buddhist, it’s still very important to keep everything as it is without changing the original interpretations so as to not scare away the average westerners who might shy away from aspects of the teachings they might find to be spooky. Truly, when it comes to evolution, after life, and origin of life, we don’t know a whole lot. It’s okay to put his supernatural teachings to the side as a possible theory while we’re still figuring everything out. It’s not okay to misrepresent what the Buddha taught.
I find it very hard to explain certain aspects of my personality in this life as mere chance and not traits formed in previous lives. Likewise I would have committed suicide a long time ago if I thought that death really was a way out, but I don't believe that. You just gotta keep at it until you're a Buddha, and that might take a few lives. Also, as people's minds become quieter and more pure they start to remember stuff that didn't happen in this life, just like psychic abilities start to manifest.
20 mins into the video and I'm a little confused because I found this video when I searched "christian vs buddhism debate" and came across this video. Who is on the christan side of the debate???
It's secular/western Buddhism vs. Traditional Buddhism. Basically it revolves around the truth of rebirth - the secular/western speaker views rebirth as a backward cultural remnant from times past that can be done with, while the traditional Buddhist views rebirth as a reality and says that acceptance of it as reality is absolutely needed for fruitful buddhist practice.
I agree with a lot of the comments about the respect with which this debate was conducted. No yelling, no talking over one another, and so on. That is commendable. Having said that, I think Ajahn Brahmali made the stronger case. He didn't even invoke evidence available in the form of thousands of cases of rebirth, the majority of which are available at The University of Virginia - Charlottesville (the program that was initially headed by Prof. Ian Stevenson and is currently headed by Prof. Jim Tucker). Unfortunately a secular Buddhist like Mr. Batchelor has to contend with a number of issues. For example, he took exception at Ajahn Brahmali saying that one cannot call oneself a Buddhist if one rejects one of the foundational premises, and indeed what is presented as a fact, by the Buddha. This is like saying 'I am an Einsteinist' and rejecting the general theory of relativity. His argument in this particular case, that the label Buddhist must be applied to people who share a certain set of values and not to people who believe a certain set of ideas, is not a real defense in this case. If you are using the name of someone as a badge, but you reject one of their core teachings, then you are being disingenuous. You can say, I like the ideas of the Buddha, except for this core one. That makes you a person who is perhaps a Buddhist ally, but whatever you're following at that point isn't Buddhism as taught by the Buddha in a broad sense. There is another point that must be understood here. Ajahn Brahm, in his lectures, speaks about the attainment of a concentration that is potent enough that if it were directed, it would help one have direct first person experience of past lives. Now, one of the core monastic rules for monks of the forest tradition is not speaking publicly about one's attainments. Moreover, it is considered proper form to speak humbly of one's own knowledge. Ajahn Brahmali is one of Ajahn Brahm's main disciples. I have no doubt that he's been in many retreats and he's gone deep enough into meditation that he's probably had insights that his monastic rules prohibit him from sharing. Is first person knowledge of rebirth one of these? I don't know. He said that he doesn't know, and I wonder whether he was telling a white lie in order to not draw attention to his own attainments. Or perhaps he hasn't ever turned his mind of deep meditation towards the question of past lives. I suspect it is the former, given his clear interest in the topic of rebirth. In any event, my point in this paragraph is that the two debaters on stage have different levels of personal attainment. One (Mr. Batchelor) is convinced that rebirth isn't true, and that suffices to tell us that he hasn't subjectively remembered previous lives himself. If he had, it would be very difficult to explain why he thinks it isn't true. The other (Ajahn Brahmali) is claiming as a working hypothesis the truth of rebirth, but appears to be advanced enough as a monk that he may have direct knowledge of rebirth. In his case, it may be the lesser evil to simply claim that rebirth is his working hypothesis based on confidence in the Buddha (rather than breaking his monastic rules and drawing attention to his attainments). This last statement is frustrating to someone interested in this debate. But it is what it is.
The elegance and subtlety of Buddhism is far beyond the weak grasp of Mr.Bachelor... he is only able to wrestle with the packaging. He really needs to drop the 'Buddhist' label as he is danger to it. 🤷🏼♂️🤣
@@dublinphotoart I hear you. You may be right. I don't know enough about Mr. Batchelor to comment on his grasp, but calling oneself Buddhist implies following the teachings of the Tathagatha, and he seems to have diverged from them.
9 yrs later. I enjoyed the debate. Morality is the way to live. It's never too late. Have a right view. ❤😊❤
2023....
I have the deepest admiration, respect and gratitude towards both of these humble practitioners of Buddhism. Metta to all.
sadhu sadhu sadhu _/\_
physicalists aren't buddhist. physicalists are more like born again christians, trying to pray nonexistent emergent properties of consciousness into existence.
buddhists are concerned with developing methods of rigorously observing the mind.
‘You have a right to be confused. This is a confusing situation. Do not take anything on trust merely because it has passed down through tradition, or because your teachers say it, or because your elders have taught you, or because it’s written in some famous scripture. When you have seen it and experienced it for yourself to be right and true, then you can accept it.’
And before this, you don't have to
That is exactly what the buddha said. Find out for yourself. 🙏
Thank you for using this platform for teaching, Venerable Brahmali _/\_/\_/\_.
I learned more from the humility, diplomacy friendliness and humour displayed here than I did from two hours of opinion.
Me too! It's a great model of how to disagree with respect. Much needed.
Thank You so much Venerable Brahmali .👌🖖
The Buddha says that we have uncountable number of past lives. But our minds are not pure enough to recollect them. Let's purify our minds. Greetings from sri Lanka
Thank you great Bante. Buddhism is truth of the nature. Lord Buddha revealed universal truth. His dharma base on cause and effect .
I give many thanks and much respect to Stephen Batchelor and Ven Brahmali for a wonderful and illuminating debate.
wonderful debate. Thank you to both of us.
Excellent conversation. Learnt a lot and enjoyed it fully and appreciated it so much. Thank you! Very healthy!
Both speakers gave a very wonderful and sincere discussion of their personal beliefs and the reasons for them to be.
Sometimes it seems to me that Stephen Batchellor speaks of "modernity" as if it were some sort of point of arrival - as id t were not, itself, transient.
Quite the opposite. Time is transient, we can only "be" in our present. Which is what he wants to be.
Thoroughly enjoyed it. Debates should be like this. Exemplary!
Good insightful debate. Well done everyone involved. Good video for anyone studying Buddhism.
Thinking about it, I really think they are almost at the same place. While Brahmali is traditional and follows the original teachings of the buddha, he wouldn't say that he 'knows' if the 'supernatural' aspects are true, but he has faith. Batchelor is almost on the same wavelength. Batchelor would agree he too, can't prove or disprove of the 'supernatural' aspects of Buddhism, but would never discard the possibility of it being possible. Brahmali has confidence in the 'supernatural' being true, while Batchelor discards confidence and no confidence in the 'supernatural' and simply just practices. The practical teachings are golden and that's all that truly mattered to the Buddha. If one does not have a true knowing and experience with the 'supernatural' being true, then confidence in the 'supernatural' at the most is appropriate alongside practice, just as long as their is no belief.
The strong reactions posted pertaining to Stephen Batchelor's views show just how much fear people feel when their beliefs are questioned. This is a sign of extreme attachment which arises from the lack of proper dharma education and consistent practice.
fuk u . you are extremely attached to your ignorance. It is a travesty that you display any sort of Buddhist name at all, if you are too ignorant to understand that reincarnation is essential to the Buddhist faith.
@@enstigatorofficial You are in error. Repent.
fuk off ignorant asshole. Buddhism has practiced reincarnation for thousands of years and it is crucial to understanding the teachings on karma. you buy that robe at Kmart you disgusting perverted filth, if you understood realms you would know the torment of hell awaits you according to the Pali Canon
@Enstigator Official get some help!
Enstigator Official a little too much hatred there brother
I agree with Ven Brhamali. Buddha lived during a time in India when there were other atheistic schools of philosophy like Charvak ( Lokayatas), Ajivikas and others, totally materialistic philosophies, they did not believe in God, soul, rebirth or anything
They were total atheists. Ajivika founded in the 5th century BCE by Makkhali Gosala, was a Śramaṇa movement and a major rival of early Buddhism and Jainism. So why Buddha did not identify himself with those philosophies and deny rebirth ? Budhha believed in rebirth, in fact there are passages in the Buddhist literature where he quotes that he remembered his previous births during the enlightenment. One more thing, the great Dalai Lama ( Tibetan Buddhism) quotes that Buddha believed in rebirth. Stephen Batchelor can have his own version of Buddhism but he cannot deny that Buddha believed in rebirth.
+Cape P
Would you like to answer please, what or who gets to be reborn, since Buddha taught Anatman/Anatta ?
@@agnostinosatomon7023
When life ceases the karmic energy reforms as a different being. In truth, you do not have past lives, since those lives don't specifically belong to you.
Most Buddhists profess that nothing survives rebirth in samsara, due to the concept of anatma.
The 5 aggregates get reborn.
agnostinos atomon the 5 aggregates. There is no self because even that self is ever changing. All that’s left isn’t the physical memories, personality, etc. but the five aggregates.
Sure, but the Buddha was just a man, and was ignorant of modern science, which offers absolutely no evidence for reincarnation, let alone a reincarnation toward enlightenment hypothesis. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the books by Stevenson in no way offer that. On the other hand we do have evidence for terror management theory, which shows that human culture, especially religious notions, decrease death anxiety by giving humans an importance and durability that counter the insignificance and finitude represented by death
There is so much anger being posted on here. Anger destroys the mind. Batchelor has his view, and Brahmali has his. Cease cherishing views. Be in peace.
Yeah why does it matter that they have different views?
+MountAnalogue well said
Batcelor has a false view and he is trying to pass that off as Buddhism People should be angry and shocked at the audacity of this ignorant fool Stephen who can not comprehend the full scope of karma including multiple rebirths. Bachelor is trying to package his innate western ignorance as Wisdom for a profit.
Thank you for your comment. I am a bit disheartened by the lack of loving compassion on this comment page. I see a lot of attachment to views. I have found a lot of freedom in letting these absolutes go. Best Wishes to all.
an idiot tries to change Buddhism a wise man changes himself to fit the path that has taken people to enlightenment for 2500 years.
A fantastic debate! Well done to both gentlemen.
I think we're too caught up in the labeling of things, if a person practice the Noble Eightfold Path then he/she is a Buddhist. It hard to have confident in something that you haven't witness or experience it. We have to experiment to see if the result is as predicted, if it is then we can confidently accept that it is. But we still need to keep an open mind and not to disregard what we have not yet experience/achieve. If we disregard it then what's the purpose of conducting an experiment without having a hypothesis.
Buddhism is required purity of mind ,purity of heart and practice in the life .
What do you want to say by purity of heart? Again I am reminding you that to write purity of heart is meaningless. This word is used by Godly Mazhabs like Hindu, Muslim, Isai etc Pl take care in future. In Buddhism only purity of mind is required, being epicenter of all activities.
From another point of view, there is the core teaching of the brahma viharas (the ‘four immeasurables’), which are trainings in the affective side of life, rather than the cognitive. It doesn’t seem misplaced at all to say that they are aimed at cultivating ‘purity of heart.’
In any case, surely ‘purity of heart’ could only be a noble goal, no matter what ones creed.
What the fuck do those nonsense rhetorical words MEAN ?
How lovely to watch a civil, respectful debate.
this was totally eye opening.Both men are into a separate identities. They come out with their intellectual beliefs and begin to gain respect for each other and thats really awesome.
Very interesting and considered debate/discussion. Thanks a lot for the upload. The question of tradition and how it changes or does not.... whatever the case may be.... and again the question of how religions might change and be transformed in different cultural settings. Thanks again.
I'd like to think Buddhists are inherently more civil and eloquent in speaking and certainly less abrasive. Reading these comments I am constantly reaffirmed that it is simply a romantic view of the practitioner. In reality, many fall short of the practice in their vehement and dogmatic view points when the whole point of this the Buddhist experience is to let go of those things. There are many paths to enlightenment, some more direct than others. Rebirth is a perfectly acceptable idea to accept but it is a leap of faith like any super natural claim.
You have to remember that there are people who hate Buddhism and write comments pretending to be Buddhists for the very purpose of giving Buddhism a bad name.
How is rebirth a supernatural claim ? I think it's a much more logical or reasonable claim than events happen by chance, luck or act of god, isn't it ? Also bear in mind that science is not know-all yet and also never debunked or refuted rebirth. In fact, Einstein's energy transformation theory is very coherent with rebirth.
@btw Buddhism is True exactly, Thai singer Langgalamu today is a living proof of Taiwanese sing Teresa Teng rebirth. I think those who don't believe in rebirth are due to indoctrination caused by certain religions.
@btw Buddhism is True I understand where this train of thought comes from, but that is using analogical thinking to imply something is empirical when it is not. There is no scientific evidence proving the existence of reincarnation. While our atoms continue to compile themselves in various living and nonliving things, it is not known whether consciousness or a continuous karmic life force continues after death. Reincarnation in Buddhism clearly denotes the idea that a person's actions are responsible for where they end up in the next life. This also implies that you can only become something that has life and cannot be reincarnated as a non-living thing.
This is fundamentally different from the scientific understanding that we are composed of atoms created from stars (nonliving) that have gone supernova and spread the fundamental elements to create life. In a scientific understanding, we are composed of many organic and inorganic compounds that came from several sources in the universe. I understand the desire to meld belief and mysticism with empiricism to give it credibility, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence that is more than anecdotal and circumstantial.
I have a deep respect and regard for Buddhism and many eastern religions, but, as someone with a science background, I make sure not to confound the two for the sake of my own convenience or need for validation. When you do that, you get charlatans using a flimsy and erroneous understanding of quantum physics to justify spiritual dogma or dubious astrometric math to claim the earth is a certain age to fit with a holy book's interpretation of reality. This exercise does not give clarity to reality but obfuscates it.
I am content knowing some things are true and having faith that some things might be true. I enjoy reveling in the mystery of faith.
@btw Buddhism is True Sadhu brother! I accept that completely, as long as it is not confounded with scientific principles. The Buddha's teachings are logical within its own esoteric framework. I think existence is complicated enough without trying to jam puzzle pieces together that don't necessarily fit. I come from a Christian background, which has an entirely different metaphysical framework. I have since adopted the dharma as my philosophical and moral compass.
I do not understand how a person,who practices the teachings of the Buddha, can discount rebirth. Everything falls apart without it.
I find no conflict in rebirth and being an atheist/ agnostic Buddhist. Because of not-self teachings of the Buddha, parts of aggregates disintegrates, no single entity moves as a soul to a new body. Even moment to moment, the aggregates changes and we’re reborn all the time with shifting identifications with the aggregates. Rebirth isn’t the same as reincarnation.
The whole teachings of the Buddha is to meditate and verify for yourself his teachings. Practically speaking, I’m still doing that after 40 years of knowing Buddhism. The relief from sufferings is verified, end of sufferings totally, not yet, and rebirth or existence after death, agnostic about it. I’m still appreciating the meditation and the teachings related to it. Metaphysical wise.. I’m agnostic. Psychology wise and phenomenology of the mind wise.. it’s definitely verified by my own direct experience through meditation.
I’m happy to say after being born into a Buddhist family, growing up in the Buddhist Asian culture learning and practicing it, I’m more agnostic about many things and has 99% less beliefs than when I started meditating decades ago. I have a more profound respect for the Buddha’s teachings but is less religious than I have ever been. Beliefs had fallen away with the deepening practice of meditation. While I still enjoy reading scholars write about different dogmas and beliefs, I find them not useful to the meditation practice as much as testing the methods out directly.
I find the explanation of the late Maha Thera Punnaji much more logical and relevant than what Ajahn here is explaining about rebirth th-cam.com/video/MF193PfSHoU/w-d-xo.html
I pay respect to Ajahn Brahmali from the bottom of my heart He is the real disciple of the Lord Buddha not only humans pay respect to him but also angels in the heaven also do like that! Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu! there is the Arahant monk in the world.🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
I follow mr.steven for a few clips. Has he followed any version of tipitaka at all? If so, he should state which verses he accepted and which verses he rejected. Or anything arbitrary as long as it supports his view. I am here very confused.
These two men are at the opposite wing tips of the same bird. One concerned that Buddhism cannot take root in the west if it just presents itself as an antidote to Brahmanism, and the other concerned that the traditional teaching will be diluted by the other secularists. The fact is that western culture is in state of flux and the western Buddhism that will emerge may not be anything like their own concepts. I am glad that people keep the tradition and Secularists give a route into Buddhism.
Very reasonable.
Very true and although I consider myself very agnostic as a Buddhist, I think the original teachings should be interpreted and taught as the Buddha taught. Just because we don’t know whether or not the supernatural teachings of rebirth and karma are true, doesn’t mean we should cherry pick certain suttas that would support a case for the Buddha being a people pleasing atheist and ignoring the suttas that show that he clearly isn’t.
I found the debate very interesting. I was puzzled by the claim, repeated by Stephen, that there are more connections in the brain than atoms in the universe, as this seems very unlikely, given that every single neural connection is dependent on a large number of atoms. It might be true for the number of permutations arising from the number of potential connections, but this didn't seem to be what was stated?
hes an idiot so he became a physicalist.
I can understand where Mr. Batchelor is coming from in his search for what he think is truth. Going from Tibetan Buddhism to Zen Buddhism and now Buddhist atheist, and It is our Divine right to choose which path we wanted to take and which in our conciousness would accept. Unfortunately, I can sense that along the way of his practice he became cbjective and complex which I vividly observed in this debate and to all of his interviews. I admire Venerable for calm and concise delivery on this debate. I had been into different philosophies and practices of different religions including Buddhism. I can say that all teachings and philosophies has, one way or another will be beneficial for one person but not necessarily would lead you to the right path for it still depends on certain individual on how that certain philosophies resonate with him. In my own view, the Basic essence of Buddhism, regardless of lineage, regardless of whether it is Hinayana, Mahayana or Vajrayana, is compassion and Part and parcel of compassion is being humble. The Eightfold path alone is very fundamental and simplified in which I don't have any problem explaining to children as early as 8 years old and, amazingly, they find it very logical and adoptable. Other religious philosophies, although they are good, seems to falter in my experience because there is no compassion. Tibetan Buddhism philosophies and practices are in its highest form and might be quite complex to understand unless one was born with it as his religion itself. I was so fortunate that in this lifetime I was able to grasp the sublime teachings of Tibetan Buddhism that suited my inner ideology and did not objected them consciously. For those who has the opportunity to learn Buddhism and still find it objectible, I respect and totally understand. As what I have said, everyone has their own right to accept and refuse beliefs according to their wishes. I suggest we should not complicate things further and find holes for criticisms and exert effort for arguments which is totally unecessary, in which I can say at the end of the day, will find it exhausting and depleting. For me, I can say in strong conviction, the main goal of buddhism anyway, is simply for us to become a good human being. Namo Buddhaya 🙏🙏🙏🌷🌷🌷
mind is an illusion morality is a meaningless social preference only useful for imposing onto the powerless. or, the final moment of mind in this life functions to produce the first moment of the next, and your actions are conserved, producing your suffering
My thinking is that there is probably not rebirth, but if there is, cool. Either way i am going to be the best i can in this incarnation so it changes very little.
Stephen mentions, in the debate, that the Buddha taught to his monks that no two of you should follow the same path. In what text did the Buddha say this? Thanks.
Then how can we explain the rebirth real experiences ?
I am a secular buddhist, because I am not sure in a belief of the process of reincarnation. But I don't say that I am completely unsure in the belief. I consider whether or not reincarnation is true is irrelevant. If I am to be reincarnated, I should live my life the best I can in order to reach Nirvana to end this glorious process. If I am not to be reincarnated, then I should live my life the best I can because I have only one shot. Either way, the path to me living the life the best I can is with buddhism.
yet kamma is one of the central tenets of the Dhamma, whos recognition is one of the elements of the Right view, without the Right view there's no Buddhadhamma, only its makeshift versions
the knowledge of past lives was one of the 3 supernatural knowledges obtained by the Buddha at Uruvela during the process of his awakening, this fact alone testifies for the importance of the doctrine of kamma for the Dhamma
excellent constructive comment. I think both the speakers provide great insight. instead of saying hes right or wrong we can leave room for ambiguity and say "the truth may lie somewhere in between " waiting to be found once we reach the maturity nessesary to experience it for ourselves...
Buddhism should be call right: the next religion , the next science.
Buddhism is not a religion. Religion = believe in a god.
Reincarnation is not a Buddhist belief. It is called rebirth because the same consciousness is not reincarnated. The philosophy of atta or permanent self underlies reincarnation, whereas the knowledge of anatta (a kind of opposite) is consistent with rebirth.
It is very difficult to understand real Buddhism ,it is energetic power in the body which can be realized by the person who follow it with pure heart and pure mind .
I think it is cool that you two guys in the beginning of the video look very similar to Stephen Batchelor. Uplifting video. Thanks.
I'd like to ask Stephen Bachelor that: he believed that the Buddha was more of a pragmatist than a realist, that the idea of rebirth appealed to the majority so that they would adopt the practice more. For such a man who taught the importance of Truth, true speech and truth-seeking, wouldn't his teaching about rebirth, four stages of enlightenment, and so on be an intellectual dishonesty or not based on direct experience/knowing, which goes against his very basic principle of the Buddha-Dhamma? Secondly, just before his parinibanna, the Buddha encouraged all his disciples to pursue nibbana in the current life with a sense of urgency. To me, this further strengthens the doctrine of anatta (non-self) because if we assume rebirth and the release of suffering (nibanna) to be true, we would be a different being in the next life and most likely lose the memory of a previous life. This is unless one is a stream-enterer which would guarantee nibanna in maximum 7 future lifetimes, assuming that the Buddha preached only Truth (Buddha-Dhamma).
The irony in this debate is that Batchelors explanation of Buddhist pragmatism, which I personally find accurate, negates the reason for explaining it. As many Theravadan monks would say "If you find this useful take it up, if not set it aside". Batchelors debate of pragmatism causes him to take a realist approach!
Except his realism doesn't actually establish a solid objective. I don't recall he ever experienced an insight or even the first Jhanic state. His idea of secular materialism is precisely what hinders an insight from Vipassana, because he doesn't have the right views. I have no problem with secular Buddhism, just not scientific materialism reading of Buddhism, which is what is going on with the western movement right now. That's Carvaka, not Buddhism. Steven Batchelor is especially inclined to do that (saying its your brain that basically causes thought), and to be frank, its just that he doesn't fully understand Buddhist philosophy of dependent origination, especially not Mahayana philosophies like Madhyamaka, which completely destroys the materialistic argument. The east already had something similar to secular Buddhism long ago, that would be Tang dynasty radical Zen; its just that it could be secular without being materialistic. Focusing only on meditation makes Buddhism no different from Hindu, Daoism or Sufi Islam, it's the dependent origination and three dharma seals that makes Buddhism unique.
If you don't believe rebirth yet due to not yet attained the direct knowledge through meditation, you may not rejected either. Just be open minded and ready for the possibility. That's the Buddhis spirit.
I am afraid that in referring to the Cūḷamaluṅkyasutta (47’ ff.) Batchelor does not take into consideration that rebirth is NOT listed among the avyākatas, viz., it’s not one of the issues that the Buddha did not explain because he deemed as irrelevant to liberation. On the contrary, the Buddha talked about rebirth extensively, and even taught practices of recollection of past lives; therefore the Cūḷamaluṅkyasutta somehow confirms that rebirth is not something that the Buddha passively inherited from the Indian society, as Batchelor argues, but it is a significant instrument to practice itself.
Gautama didn't passively inherit ideas about reincarnation/rebirth, he ACTIVELY inherited them from the faulty religion around him. Why? Because as a human being he was imperfect and as a good mentor he let us know to always test his words against reality. Those so afraid of death that they cling to rebirth-ideas should not seek to pass such clingy genetics to their children. There is only this, and it's right here, so focus!
Amusing but totally arbitrary interpretation.
Amusing but totally arbitrary interpretation.
Amusing but totally arbitrary interpretation.
Amusing but totally arbitrary interpretation.
Rebirth is not always about the next life....it can also be about the next moment. Eg....to take a certain action may make you end up in a certain place or circumstance (ie, born into a new moment, a new place, a new state of mind). The choices me make in this moment determines the next moment we are born into.
Yes. I don't think you have to take the concept of rebirth in a literal way for it to remain an essential aspect of the practice. In the same way, Christians don't have to take the immaculate conception in a literal way for it to remain an intrinsic part of the experience of Christianity.
Regardless of who is right or wrong, I think the monk won the debate.
Glad to see your comment. I follow you
Based
The Buddha said this:
“Consider when a Realized One arises in the world, perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed. He has realized with his own insight this world-with its gods, Māras and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, gods and humans-and he makes it known to others. He teaches Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And he reveals a spiritual practice that’s entirely full and pure.
An useful place to see the split (since not associated with Buddhist traditions) is when Ven Brahmali says that if you studied medicine, you'd trust and believe the teacher. Another approach would be to always be checking what the teacher said versus teachers in other schools, and even healing practices from completely different cultures. Very interesting as well when he mentions that there were already widespread no-rebirth doctrines in the time of Siddhārtha Gautama.
Nobody is worshiping idol of Lord Buddha but they are following philosophy of Lord Buddha
if you are not comprehending reincarnation you are a fool , you are not following any sort of Buddhist philosophy at all. The Buddha literally calls you a fool or ignorant. What you have here is new age crap dressed up like it was some sort of science or philosophy
We don't pray to the Buddha but we do worship the Buddha. Worship because we acknowledge the worth of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. Praying is to ask for help.
The Buddha said this:
“Firstly, brahmin, someone has done bad things and not done good things by way of body, speech, and mind. So what they’ve done and what they’ve not done is why some sentient beings, when their body breaks up, after death, are reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. Furthermore, brahmin, someone has done good things and not done bad things by way of body, speech, and mind. So what they’ve done and what they’ve not done is why some sentient beings, when their body breaks up, after death, are reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.”
AN
If everything is transitory and impermanent in the Buddhist worldview, then how can anything in such a worldview be dependable, since even the principles of the worldview itself are subject to the transitory impermanence of change?
causation
ie. moments arise due to causes and conditions
@@backwardthoughts1022
My question is.. how can any of the Buddhist beliefs, concepts, or principles be considered reliable since even they are subject to change? If everything is impermanent and subject to change, then... every [truth, belief, concept and principle] that Buddhism proposes... is also subject to impermanence and change, and thus... it can't be considered reliable.
If you find one thing that doesn't change - tell the world about it! I think even the Dalai Lama would become your apprentice.
@@janopian389
If Christianity is true, then God is not subject to change. He is purported to be uncreated, eternal/permanent, indestructable, unconditional and subject to nothing. (He is also believed to be the source of perfect unconditionsl love and dignity.. both of which are thus, also eternal and permanent).
@@1StepForwardToday God is a concept, I'm sorry. The Dalai Lama is saved. Greetings
Namo buddhaya, 🙏🙏🙏
I'm not an expert on Buddhism, but I think Ven Brahmali makes a very fundamental mistake and does injustice to Buddha when he states that the idea of rebirth is the foundation of Buddha's teachings, be they the four noble truths or eight fold paths. Buddha was trying to understand 'dukkha'. The concept of rebirth and karma in the previous life were some concepts he adopted from the then prevailing religious discourse to explain it and the means to reach the end of 'suffering'. Having discarded 'god' as an explanatory idea, Buddha found the idea of rebirth a more rational concept. Today, 2500 years later, we know that rebirth is an idea that has no rational/scientific basis. Had Buddha been alive today, he wouldn't have fallen upon this ridiculous idea to explain anything. Though rebirth/karma were only minor ideas in Buddhist teachings, the priestly class that grew up around Buddhism later made these ideas fundamental to Buddhist religion. In our era, it's our duty to retrieve the real Buddha, the rationalist, from the clutches of the monks and priests.
I agree here. While much respect and gratitude should be paid to the old traditions and sanghas for preserving the dharma and keeping it there is much clinging to dogma around rebirth among the monastics. To me everything that is important in buddhism is grounded and rational and verifiable through one’s own practice. I struggle with right view only because the monastics insist rebirth is non negotiable to be a practicing buddhist. But they forget, I am beginning to think, that this life alone holds plenty of motivation to live a moral and good life. I honestly don’t understand the need for extra lives to motivate this.
HONEST QUESTION. Which would be preferable: that after describing to someone what Buddhism is, that that person then believed in a secular Buddhism, or that that person then believed in no kind of Buddhism? (If these were the only two options.) I would be interested in reading some polite responses, and will periodically check back to this forum to read them. 谢谢。
It seems to me that Batchelor is basically is going for a buddhist flavored logical positivism. Why bother? If one wants to, "make it up as one goes," just do it. No need to try to shoe horn it into a buddhist box.
One thing I have heard that helps me. Some one said the goal of Buddhism is not to be a Buddhist but to be a buddha.
@btw Buddhism is True
I am not sure I know what you mean and I am not sure you know what I mean. For me trying to be a Buddhist is based on my delusion of what a Buddhist is so let that delusion go. From my limited understanding a Buddha is not deluded. I am still deluded so I could be wrong . What do you THINK?
Future is a mental construct born out of our senses and imagination. Mental operations are all about anticipating outcomes based on past experiences. The Buddha asks us to expand our perspective beyond our momentary perceptions and conceptions. What better way to expand your perspective than looking at reality from the height of 1000's lifetimes?
Ajahn Brahmali speaks from the heart, from his life experience of living the contemplative lifestyle and taking the Dhamma as his full time job from 5 AM until at least 9 PM. This is how every Thai Forest monk is trained to talk - spontaneously with little to no preparation.
Unfortunately, this approach is ill-suited to a Western-style debate where facts and external evidence take precedence over personal experience. He could've mentioned the stupendous volume of research on rebirth done by Professor Ian Stevenson. who devoted the better part of his life to this research. Granted, his evidence is largely anecdotal, but it is heavily cross-referenced. And if Stephen Batchelor dismissed that, he could simply mention the scriptures where the Buddha repeatedly taught about having right views on rebirth. You can be a Buddhist without believing in rebirth as much as you can be a Christian without believing in heaven.
TINTO RETTO I haven't been to a Thai Forest monastery, but I'm quite sure most any Dhamma talk is given spontaneously, regardless of tradition.
I'm not particularly fond of Amaravati. They didn't show even moral support for the 2009 Bhikkhuni Ordination when many other Theravada monasteries around the world did. Even Bhikkhu Bodhi, the internationally rennown classical Theravada scholar, showed his support.
TINTO RETTO You seem to be quite capable of making your own opinion on these controversial issues, so I will leave you to it. I have no issue with anyone's views on these things as long as the ordained nuns get the respect and recognition they deserve.
In what he speaks, Brahmali does not understand Buddhism nor does he represent what Ajahn Chah taught. Brahmali is definitely a 'scholar', in knowing the words in the scriptures but does not understand the meaning of the words he reads. Brahmali is essentially a materialist. In the Bible, Jesus said to a man: "to enter the kingdom of heaven you must be born again". The man (Nicodemus) erroneously believed he had to be born into his mother's womb a second time. Brahmali is similar to Nicodemus, a materialist, a misunderstander & thus a heretic.
Every Thai Forest monk is not trained to talk spontaneously with little to no preparation. This was a tradition in the Ajahn Chah monastery but other Thai monks in other Thai forest traditions did not follow this. Ajahn Sumedho's mumbling rambling talks are examples of spontaneous talk. But not Brahmali. Brahmali is not of the forest tradition but of a new sutta based tradition. Many of us who were part of the forest tradition have outgrown the old Guru-Student relationship and only follow the suttas now. Brahmali is the same. He is sutta tradition & his understanding of the suttas is incorrect. That said, Brahmali, Brahm, etc, are not of the Thai forest tradition. Instead, their doctrines are of the old Sri Lanka Mahavihara Tradition, where they believe Dependent Origination explains rebirth/reincarnation over 3 life times (rather than the origin of here-&-now suffering). If you compare the teachings of Brahmali & Brahm on Dependent Origination to the teachings of Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Buddhadasa, Ajahn Sumedho, Ajahn Amaro, etc, you will find they are completely different. Brahmali & Brahm, true to name, following the Brahministic-Buddhist tradition that took over & polluted Buddhism many centuries ago.
BarbarraBay
"and only follow the suttas now"
You follow texts written hundreds of years after the death of Buddha, which were written due to political pressure and in many cases contradicted several of the 18 original schools which predated Theravada. Keep in mind the texts had further additions after that and even before hand there were already changes to the vinaya which had no justification. Enjoy Tissa's pollution of Buddhism.
How do you know that someone else has had an insight and speaking “truth” and not gone crazy? Surely you have to have the insight itself to understand it. You don’t have to accept an insight to get an insight. So if karma and rebirth it really is an insight and true (I don’t know atm) it will just be a natural progression to accepting it when I move down the path. Therefore you should not be pressed to believe it before you have an insight to back it up. You should not be made to accept Karma and rebirth at any point, you should rely solely on you understanding and insights and your work to try and find whether they really are true by your own practices, whether it be meditation or something else entirely. Just my opinion
+Oliver Wild I've never walked around the entire earth, winding up at the same place I started. But I still carry on my life as if the earth was round. I have a certain amount of faith in the photos and other evidence, have heard from others who have circumnavigated the planet, but in the absolute sense, I have no direct experience and cannot say "I have seen the earth is round for myself." For practical purposes, you have to operate with a certain level of faith based on second-hand knowledge and reason. You meditate to get a clear mind so you can distinguish which is more wise-to live life based on the belief the earth is flat, round, or some other shape.
Enjoyed debate . Thanks for sharing
Thank you gentlemen.
The philosophy of Lord Buddha is great philosophy which is matching with nature's philosophy and nature is above than any else .
***** yeah we are programmed by nature to suffer for food, sex, status and many other things much more but buddhism teaches us how to reverse that process which means less craving equals less suffering..no one is fking telling you not to stop wanting things, stop looking for the end process god damn it (buddhism is not all about Nirvana, nirvana, nirvana oh god please stop comparing it with christianity end states) you all are so narrow minded, it's the process all the way along..living in the present, enjoying the present moment there is all there to it. the main point about buddhism is people tend to jump to the future or go back to their pasts in their minds to change something or prevent something from happening and these are all futile because what only matters now is the present moment and you are slowly letting it slip away without even realising and sooner or later you are going to die without realising you haven't even lived because you were too busy wanting this and that to happen,
+NyowNyowl once one started cursing, it means that he's losing an argument and hence he shoudnt be taken serious. please answer me, what is the fundamental basic understanding of live and death in Buddhism, and does heaven exist in Buddhism?
+JesusChrist TheGoodSheppard yes
Ranjith Hapu first, you lied for saying buddhism has heaven. Secondly, supposedly heaven does exist in buddhism. Then what is the clear justification to substantiate the buddhist teaching of incarnation? buddhism teaches that life is like circle, die then becomes something else, and your reincarnation depends on your enlightenment and karma. That is a huge contradiction in Buddhism
Dear br ,first learn budhisam then you will know all univarse and what buddha did during 45 years what teach evry thing you will know thanks triple jem bless you
Thanks for insightful discussion. Bodhidharma was asked by the Chinese monk about if he knows where his next life going to be? he replied " i dont know, because iam not dead yet". (he does not really care about his next rebirth) this shows that he wanted the monk to live in the present life fully with according with the vinaya ( moral discipline). other places, he did say "when you create karma, you are reborn along with karma". Kindly, understand that, the teaching of rebirths of following lives are for ordinary people, not having much insightful about the practice or experiential practices in the meditation. But for both Bhante Brahmali and Sir Stephen should understand the rebirths is within the "Sati" and khana or ksana (moment, instant), the thoughts arise, enduring and ceasing off (dying of). This very moment is called the "rebirth" of a person. I expect that Bhante Bramali would bring this crucial point in the discussion. This way, Sir Stephen would undeniably accept the rebirth theory, because it is no longer a belief or theory but it is a reality, happening right now, in this very moment. This is the core teaching of khana or instant rebirth. May you be well and happy!
I am profoundly disappointed with Ajahn Brahmali when he said he believes it to be true simply because Buddha or texts, or his gurus said it, and if you do not follow it, you are no more a buddhist. I think it is completely against what Buddha said. Buddha´s own words: "Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" - then you should abandon them.' "
But argumentwise both have the same point. Its not the means thats important. Whether you believe in birth or rebirth is also not important. Its the consequences of your actions that is important. Here is the quote from Buddha himself:
1)"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.
2)"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease - free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.
3)"'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.
4)"'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both ways.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.
"One who is a disciple of the noble ones - his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure - acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now.
"I think it is completely against what Buddha said"
Buddhologists might be quick to point out that you are taking him out of context, that the Buddha taught eclectically, depending on his audience, and would modify his teachings to suit. In the Kalama he was teaching non-buddhists who were prone to skepticism as is. While we see a very different tone when dealing people who have already converted to being a disciple of the Buddha, where he lays down very clear unambiguous guidelines about what is good and what is bad, such as how one conducts oneself, how one speaks, and how one meditates. Even in the Kalama, he is giving no indication that his teachings could be unskillfull or could lead to harm or suffering, he is making a general statement to appeal to his audience as to win them over, which he so often does in the texts. He gives fire teachings to fire-worshipers and he gives teachings that the self is the aggregates to people need this specific teaching, none of those can be used to draw absolute generalizations.
As mentioned, in regards to already-converted Buddhists, there is not a single mention of him providing Kalama-like teachings to his monks. This is critical to understand. Once you have accepted the buddhadhamma there is clear cut path that one is expected to follow and have confidence in, one isn't to fallow one's own path as that isn't the way that the Buddha laid out. He asserted directly was is true and what is false, what is noble and what is pernicious, without ambiguity or wiggle-room. Scholars like the late Michael Dorfman has discussed this at length and side against you on this issue. Therefore, Ajahn Brahmali might be far far more justified in his statement than you think, because that his how the Pali depicts the Buddha and his teachings.
You are now claiming indirectly that Buddha taught wrong things to "non-monks". Be clear of one thing brother/sister, Buddha never gave private sessions to anyone. All what he said was to be heard by his monks, memorised and taken as a lesson. So what he said cannot be ambigious, and if he said something to someone, then he meant it for everyone. Don´t be a fanatic dear.
+imi hote
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Im not sure he is saying you should discount anything, except karma and rebirth (at least until you have reason to believe it because of your own understanding). Just my opinion. Hope this helps. If i'm wrong please correct me
Yeah fair. People here seem really nice. :) What path are you on if you don't mind me asking? would it be useful for me?
how is that a debate, where are the controversies?
Just wondering if the concept or Re-birth itself isnt contrary to the teachings of the 4 noble truths themselves? The holding on to the belief or desire to continue on in our rebirth rather then the acceptance of what is here and now and a lack of permanence?
In Buddhism, you don't want to be re-birthed, as your main goal is to reach a state of nirvana. But goals do not count as desire.
...wouldn't it make Batchelor's life "more easy" (in terms of interacting with the wider communities) if he simply didn't self-identify as a Buddhist. He could call himself an applied philosopher influenced by Buddhist practice, a "yogi," whatever...
I agree with Stephen Batchelor that it is a shame the debate is almost entirely focused on the idea of rebirth. I also think it is very wise of him not to react to Ven Brahmali's personal attacks.
Brahmali made no personal attacks so far as I can tell, in fact he seems as gracious as possible. Brahmali has every justification in the world to call in question whether a Buddhist can properly reject rebirth and karma. Also, it's odd to expect that a debate between a so-called secular Buddhist and a traditional Buddhist not center on rebirth and karma, since that is most obviously where they differ. Brahmali never even said Batchelor is wrong; just that it's not the Dharma. Which again, he has every reason to say so based on scripture and history. "Secular Buddhism" would be the only Buddhist sect to say otherwise, so it's up to them to defend their claims that they are not non-Buddhist or at best heretical.
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.
Is there any translation to spanish?
Thanks
Rebirth is just important as Karma they are connected. I understand Ven Brahmali. To say all living being is born equal would not be true. Some humans are born with talent, beauty, intelligent the list goes on, we can all see this, to say this is a gift/ blessing from God would not be fair, one life and you're given things that are good or things that were bad, How does God decide who gets what? Karma explains and shows the results of your actions now and future lives.
Secular Buddhism does not refute rebirth, in that we are in a state of constant change we are being reborn. It simply avoids metaphysical religiosity and the priestly class that say that they know and they will look after our afterlives as long as we give up our healthy skepticism. We see rebirth in the moment and we can be in awe in the not knowing after this condition existence ends. The Buddhism simply ethicised Karma in relation to wholesome rebirth here and now. Here and now!
Is there a transcript of this debate?
I have high regards for Teravada tradition and I can say that Stephen's thinking is not false. I deeply respect Stephen for the struggle he has gone through. However, other's may not have similar struggles as he has, or their priority may be different. This type of mental agony can be deeply unsettling. I having come from Science background do think about this often. So now the question on rebirth. It's very possible, our scientific community just haven't dealt with this question. However you could look at the studies done by "Ian Stevenson" where he examines thousands of children having memories of past lives. This is a very serious study done by a well disciplined psychologist. Then the next study that is being done was on people who experienced near death experience. Check out this link. Again, hundreds of people reporting an entity that lives on.So the issue is about how far the modern scientific inquiry has gone. Science is a process of discovery. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.09.004
I think I tend to agree with Ajahn Brahmnali, if someone claimed to be a Christian but said they did not believe in an afterlife, one might question them calling themselves a Christian as well...
It's not just the afterlife, Steven Batchelor doesn't seem to understand basic notion of dependent origination.
What I know about Buddhism is to live in present and not in past or future...not even tomorrow......live as pure as possible, be compassionate to living beings.....future will take care itself....
Yes. Also, the only meat you're allowed to eat is chicken, cow, and pork, as long as you recognize that the animal was slaughtered against its will, and went through agonizing pain for nothing more than to end up on your plate. :D
According to his point, Stephen Batchelor is not a real Buddhist which I mean he does not believe in Buddha's teaching.
I think it likely incorrect if people think of rebirth as I'll come back looking exactly as I am now and with my memory intact. This is just an attachment to self. I think rebirth is more like the seasons which come every year. The universe is in constant change and rebirth much like an endlessly flowing river.
Buddhism is name of nature and nature is truthful hence Buddhism is according nature
Best way of realization of Buddhism to follow practically ,thanks
I am agree with you about Karam because is base of our life because life will take place as per our karam either wrong or good hence we are facing in our life according our KARAM , Thanks for reply .
The consequence of discarding rebirth is the individualism and materialism known as "YOLO," which is the theme of every movie and music video that arises from consumer cultures
Ajahn Brahmali knows what he is talking about. He gets to the point. He shows what the Buddha actually taught hence the term 'Buddhist' ... That is not dogma, to think that is dogma is the all too common Abrahamic mindset. You cannot just cherry-pick what suits you and yet still insist on calling yourself a Buddhist.
Bachelor just loves hearing himself talk and has lots of words but little if anything to say. Larper! 🤷🤣
According to the _Canki Sutta_ “even although something be thoroughly believed in, it may be empty, void, false; on the other hand, something not thoroughly believed in may be fact, truth, not otherwise” (M. ii. 170). This particular Sutta is telling us to have an open mind with regard to rebirth. It is not suggesting to us that we doubt rebirth then demand of the opposition-the rebirthers-prove it to me against my arguments.
Idiot. Study the 1st & 2nd sermons of the Buddha, where the listeners entered & realised the path & Nirvana due to realising impermenance. Instead, you try to argue about nothing, showing your mind is the supreme putthujjana.
You sound like you are possessed by Mara the Evil One - you and that Brit who is a Protestant in Buddhist robes (oh, I forget, Batchelor demitted twice).
Thank you Mujaku. I still see you are spamming these videos. Are you & Ardent Hollings the same person? Regardless, if you disagree with what i posted, then this will be wrong understanding. "Rebirth" is for puttujjana because every stream-enterer & every arahant in the suttas realised: "All that is subject to arising is subject to cessation". Unlike you, Vishnu, Brahma & Krishna, every stream-enterer & every arahant in the suttas did not believe: "All that is subject to cessation is subject to re-arising". Brahmali has wrong view. Based on what Brahmali spoke, there is no other option but regard his mind as puttujanna. Regards
Now both if you putthujjana fools, Ardent & Mujaka please review the suttas & stop slandering Buddha:
Now during this utterance, there arose in the venerable Kondañña the spotless, immaculate vision of the True Dhamma: "Whatever is subject to arising is all subject to cessation." Then the Blessed One uttered the exclamation: "Kondañña knows! Kondañña knows!," and that is how that venerable one acquired the name, Añña-Kondañña - Kondañña who knows.
"Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, O Lord." "Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?" "Unsatisfactory, O Lord." "Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?" Indeed, not that, O Lord." "O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life, what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this becoming.'"
Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Monks, do you too understand the Dhamma as taught by me in the same way that the monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, does when, through his own poor grasp [of the Dhamma], he not only slanders us but also digs himself up [by the root] and produces much demerit for himself?" "No, lord, for in many ways the Blessed One has said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness.'" "It's good, monks, that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in this way, for in many ways I have said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness.' But this monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, through his own poor grasp [of the Dhamma], has not only slandered us but has also dug himself up [by the root], producing much demerit for himself. That will lead to this worthless man's long-term harm & suffering. "Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in dependence on which it burns - a fire that burns in dependence on wood is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is classified simply as a rubbish-fire - in the same way, consciousness is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.
By your logic it's OK to posit the existence of the tooth fairy and then to demand evidence for or against its existence. It's silly to assume that the tooth fairy, at least relatively, exists.
If you become enlightened by practicing Vipassana Dhamma and become a saint, you will be able to accept that the teachings of the Buddha do not need to be amended.
For those who have not yet attained enlightenment on their own, even though the teachings of the Buddha are true, doubts may still arise that they need to be updated.
What surprises me is that both of these men have studied and practiced the teachings of the Buddha for many years in great depth and still take the self as a given. This is especially pertinent when considering that one of the three essential doctrines in Buddhism is anatta/sunyata. Awareness of anatta/sunyata is nirvana. ‘Birth’ as an idea is only due to the belief of a self existing in a past, a present or a future; the continual re-emphasis of which could be named karma. Where and when is that self? As the Heart Sutra states, ‘no attainment with nothing to attain… Far apart from every deluded view they dwell in nirvana.’🙏🏻
Around 1:46, Ven Brahmali's attempt to distinguish belief in rebirth from belief in Jesus Christ is utterly pathetic and unconvincing. The examples he gave for believing in rebirth (because of how I feel reading the suttas and because I know upstanding people who believe it) are identical to Christian arguments for Jesus. All he does is reveal his contempt for the West and his lack of logic. It's also worth noting that rebirth and Jesus are on a par in the sense that they can also both be taken metaphorically/archetypally instead of literally, symbolizing psychological realities (on which, unfortunately, Batchelor misses the boat and openly denies having any symbolic understanding). They are both trying too hard to conform to a tradition instead of becoming enlightened with a humble acknowledgment of what can be known in THIS LIFE.
This was a horrible, inane debate. If secular Buddhism has some truth that religious Buddhism missed, then present it and argue it. Instead, all these two argued is whether secular Buddhists "have the right" to call themselves Buddhists.
Stephen: you struggled with doubt about what the Buddha taught. Instead of sitting with your doubt, you went and made a new form of Buddhism and now are whining that the others don't respect it. Stop writing books and sit with doubt. Having doubts is normal.
Brahmali: your only response needs to be "practice and see for yourself." No, we don't need to decide what is Buddhism and what isn't. It doesn't matter. Just practice and see the truth for yourself. That's all.
There. Solved this one.
I think Stephen Batchelor is al little off the mark on reincarnation. If Buddha was only being practical and not interested in unveiling the true nature of one's mind, then caste system like reincarnation which was the landscape of the Hinduism of the time should have been a part of Buddhism. The fact is, it isn't and it was the greatest social engineering to take place in India since. He not only challenged the supremacy of the Brahmins but also established a Sangha (monk order) that is casteless. It brought a new social justice and vibrancy in the society. Ven. Brahmali is lucid and precise ( despite his Scandinavian accent) and not wooly headed in his presentation of the words of the Buddha. We can't pick and choose from Dharma and keep only the pretty teachings, because the Dharma has to be understood in its entirity. For all the good intentions and erudition of Stephen he does bring unsolicited and unnecessary confusion to new fellow pilgrims on the path.
+Hodge Boxer I understand your skepticism when I suggested one should understand Buddhism in its entirety and not cherry pick. True, Buddhism is more like "an art of living" than just a faith based dogma. There is no God that is out to punish you. It is your own past karma that has determined your present and your present action that will determine your future.
However, to use an old analogy,if you don't see the full picture then it is like five blind men describing the an elephant as a leg, trunk, ear etc by feeling only parts of an elephant and unable to see the whole elephant: you will certainly take away a wrong and incomplete picture. Further,it is important to understand the core philosophy and not get a half baked idea of it, and when you do understand the core philosophy you realize that reincarnation is absolutely logical.
In buddhism the emphasis has always been an experiential result rather than blind faith.You accept something only because it is thus. Hence, Buddha exhorts us to reject what is false and an ignorant perception.
+Hodge Boxer :) Define then what "Good" is . If you observe it, you will realize how dynamic this concept is. Ultimately you don't believe in Buddhism. You test it out. In that process of testing it out, if you see that it works then you take it. If you can't test it here and now then figure out why. The realm of these teachings is in the heart, not mind..
but the aspects of the attatchment and egoism being destroyed of buddhism is good.
I don't trust this Butchelor after hearing his several talks and his Bodhi College website. He don't really believe the Buddha's teachings or know much about Buddhism. The Buddha's teachings are never filled with "might, maybe or perhaps". The Buddha's teachings are all clear and specific. Butchelor even misquoted the 4 Noble Truths as 4 tasks. He is just trying to make money using Buddhism, I discovered it from his Bodhi College website.
It is only in this sense that we speak of the uniformity of nature .We can only say that the laws of nature are practically universal ,but not theoretically so .
Here's the fundamental problem I see with this debate - no one defined their terms at the start. We have no idea what either speaker's unique understanding of rebirth is.
For example, maybe one person believes rebirth is like reincarnation - aka a "soul" carries on after death and is implanted into a new body. Maybe another person views rebirth as an acorn sprouting and becoming a tree. And when the tree dies, it's eaten by insects, bacteria, and fungi, so the tree becomes all of these things, and it also becomes soil, which becomes a new plant. Different people will have varying levels of acceptance or rejection of either of these two beliefs.
You have to get on the same page otherwise you may be misunderstanding your debate partner and vice versa.
The Buddha's teachings in the Singalovada Sutta provides perfect guidance for lay Buddhists and lay people to 'operate' in ANY type of lay world, ancient or modern, and any different 'culture' or 'nation', etc. There is no need whatsoever to "reinterpret" the Buddha Dhamma for modern intellectuals or economists living in a secular world they have created by laying extraordinary importance upon the power of money.
It's been re-interpreted for centuries. It's extremely diverse already.
Thank you to both speakers for a debate conducted in an exemplary manner. To me one of the most compelling reasons to believe that the Buddha and his early disciples understood rebirth as a reality is the existence of monasticism. Why else would young people at the prime of their lives renounce wealth, friends and family and commit themselves to a life of voluntary poverty and celibacy? They could have lead decent lay lives enjoying the pleasures of the senses with metta for all beings.
You could say this for any religion.
@@LukasOfTheLight , yes, perhaps you could. But the issue here is what the early Buddhists understood with regard to rebirth.
@@maliksamarasinghe Not perhaps, you could. And therefore your point about the issue that "I think it's true because people went to great lengths for it" is weak.
One can not be a disciple of the Buddha and not see the existence of re-birth. That's OK. One can still practice the eightfold path, take on the five precepts, etc. BUT one cannot 'teach' the way of the Buddha as his dharma makes it clear that re-birth is a necessary part of enlightenment. Anything else would not be his teaching. It's not a 'doctrine.' It's a pathway. As concerns science... my university background, I'm still waiting for a "TRUTH" to come of it. And the things they call 'research' today are getting even further from reality, based on bias and finance. Great debate. Love you both. Hope to run into you both next time around.
James Sheffer wonderfully captured the essence of Ajahn Brahmali's argument
We should try to figure out what makes sense in both views presented here, and where there might be misunderstandings, so we can go forward.
Rebirth, reincarnation are concepts that have to be defined properly and when you try to do so, you end up with a lot of confusion. What is it that is "re-"&"born"? Probably not our body? Our mind, with all or part of its memories?
My approach would be to start with birth. If I don't know whether I am the reincarnation of someone else, I do know that I did "incarnate" (without the "re") at least once. This is one of the few certainties in philosophy (cogito ergo sum). And I assume that this process happens quite frequently, namely with anyone reading this, and it implies awareness.
The theory therefore is that awareness is ubiquitous. Then I believe awareness really is the "subjective" aspect of reality. Does that help yet? ...maybe the perspective should be changed from a rebirth being a sequence in time, to a perspective that awareness incarnates many times all over the universe (not linked to space and time), and when we die, this process does not.
In this sense, awareness in one state (one mind) bears the consequences of the actions in another state (another mind). This would form a basis of "karma" (another word that the scriptures are limited to), in the sense that awareness is not linked to a particular mind, but encompasses all of them. Just as you can think of the "material" world (really an image) to be the same for everyone, awareness is not limited to one existence....(or did I just glitch into hinduism here? :) )
Brahmali seems to want to dogmatically cling to his version and interpretations of Buddhism, and especially reincarnation.
Religious hierarchies love to cling to their authority. I see many Western Buddhists as closer to the original writings because the Buddha was an anti-absolutist and asked us to examine everything. Alot of ritual and local paganism accreted in Buddhism over millennia. Even non-Western Buddhism is hugely diverse. I see the old guard as grasping over sectarianism at times, and throughout history. This could be considered it's own baloney of sorts. My point here is that Buddhism already has a tremendous amount of diversity.
Ajahn Brahmali is grasping here at a dogmatic conceptualization of rebirth.
I do think it is important for Buddhists to share common core principles though, like sunyata, dukkha, dependent origination, impermanence, and some conceptualization of no inherent self. I do not think Westerners on the whole are giving up on those core beliefs, and I think that is what matters most.
I don't think we should throw out rebirth, just question it. It is OK to question it. Regarding karma, I think cause and effect still matters in this life, but it may or ay not extend to other lives. We do not know if it does. I see Ajahn Brahmali's definition of awakening too close to the unproven reincarnation conceptualization. I see Western Buddhism as Buddhism and not just secularization because we retain the real core - sunyata, dukkha, dependent origination, impermanence, and some conceptualization of no inherent self.
Buddhism does not hinge on rebirth into a new body being a reality. Rebirth can be conceived as something happening during this life. I think we can be open to reincarnation too while doubting whether it's an actual phenomenon. This doubt changes my practice 0%. The type of rebirth or no rebirth at all changes my practice 0%. What's left is still a practice rooted in Buddhism.
I do respect Ajahn Brahmali's points here (he seems like a great man and I love his passion), even though the tie of all Buddhist concepts to a 100% acceptance of reincarnation seems weak.
Remembering your past lives seems the stuff of folklore, until it can proven with certainty. It is completely in the realm of metaphysics, and for now, is pure speculation.
There is diversity, including doubt from many Buddhists already in regard to rebirth >>> www.lionsroar.com/just-more-of-the-same/
I think you have misinterpreted Ajahn Brahmali
There have been research and compilation hundreds of cases of reincarnation by (Dr. Ian Stevenson's Reincarnation Research).
Buddha taught Rebirth, not Reincarnation. There is a distinct difference.
That's REBIRTH, not reincarnation. Reincarnation means reborn as the same person which is impossible and illogical as nothing is permanent and evolution is always going on. REBIRTH means reborn as a different person or being.
I find Stephen closely represents my own sense of things in most aspects. The motivation to do one's best ,especially to leave a happier future is so much more profound and mature when it is not directed at your own personal advantage. I many years ago finally rejected the idea of becoming a monastic ( despite living as one in many ways anyway) after years of struggling with the impression that this was what an authentic seeker would do. This interview confirms that joining clubs and believing the same as those around one ,is far from the way to psychological freedom ( unless you're lucky and happen to believe the 'right' thing and thus join the right group).i can see advantages- the support for any necessary efforts etc, but feel that a blind spot can be created, especially by the adornment of authority, that the group safely covers . What if Buddhist monasticism is a carefully constructed vessel for carrying teachings, but the intended product is exactly lay people, who can take the teachings and run, using full intelligence and creativity, and maybe never even using the word 'Buddhism' ?
Unfortunately ( or fortunately) Buddhism has not created wonderfully humane societies despite a good long try, so I don't feel that mixing such hopes with a particular brand of prescription makes much sense . Not for the big issues that we face as societies, and ecosystems.
Ironically Brahmali's assertion of a self that continues through lives, culminating in Buddhahood ( the same or a different self?) and release ( an end to experience or ...?.) seems in conflict with anatman ,or no abiding self, which is not to say that there is no sense of continuity, but that ,within life ,experience is more like a book being handed forwards and being edited at each stage ,within this very life. My teenage self feels like another barely remembered person, why would a memory of something much further back have any impact on my brief present awareness and attitudes ( OK, it might be transformative, or even just interesting ;o]) ? Simple aging ,illness and the brevity of this life puts present activities into perspective perfectly well. As do considerations of the beauty, complexity and pace of forests, tectonics, sun lifetimes, etc..
If we consider a 'pure' awareness, as some propose, this is by definition somehow untarnished by characteristics, and thus not different from one person to another ,one time to another, and there is no reason to consider it as belonging to a particular being and being reborn. It is just a characteristic of some beings , or a more encompassing phenomenon. Indeed this light has been born many times- about 7 billion humans, plus other species right now. But why have a view on it ? Why try and tie down the future or lift the weight of the past ? Thinking is great fun, doing our best for Life ,that we cannot seriously isolate ourselves from, is as close as anything comes to spirituality? Fundamentally that light of life is only found ......
Simon Barton The first secular Buddhist was the Buddha. As long as they are following the eightfold path, they are doing what needs to be done, regardless of their perspective and stance on rebirth. The sangha was designed specifically as an environment to block out worldly distractions and practice more diligently, all the time, thanks to the assistance of lay people.
The Buddha called his teachings the doctrine of analysis, not Buddhism.
At the end of the day, if you practice, you can’t go wrong, but to alter teachings and their meaning to fit modern standards is a step towards distorting Buddhism.
As an agnostic Buddhist, it’s still very important to keep everything as it is without changing the original interpretations so as to not scare away the average westerners who might shy away from aspects of the teachings they might find to be spooky. Truly, when it comes to evolution, after life, and origin of life, we don’t know a whole lot. It’s okay to put his supernatural teachings to the side as a possible theory while we’re still figuring everything out. It’s not okay to misrepresent what the Buddha taught.
I find it very hard to explain certain aspects of my personality in this life as mere chance and not traits formed in previous lives.
Likewise I would have committed suicide a long time ago if I thought that death really was a way out, but I don't believe that. You just gotta keep at it until you're a Buddha, and that might take a few lives.
Also, as people's minds become quieter and more pure they start to remember stuff that didn't happen in this life, just like psychic abilities start to manifest.
💚My ego can seem quite helpful Stephen sir. I hope my ego isn’t baked into my interpretation of Abhidhamma Venerable Ajahn Brahmali🙏
20 mins into the video and I'm a little confused because I found this video when I searched "christian vs buddhism debate" and came across this video. Who is on the christan side of the debate???
+519blackpanther This is atheism vs Buddhism.
Buddhist atheism versus religious Buddhism
not religious buddhism, you mean traditional kind of?
It's secular/western Buddhism vs. Traditional Buddhism. Basically it revolves around the truth of rebirth - the secular/western speaker views rebirth as a backward cultural remnant from times past that can be done with, while the traditional Buddhist views rebirth as a reality and says that acceptance of it as reality is absolutely needed for fruitful buddhist practice.
I agree with a lot of the comments about the respect with which this debate was conducted. No yelling, no talking over one another, and so on. That is commendable. Having said that, I think Ajahn Brahmali made the stronger case. He didn't even invoke evidence available in the form of thousands of cases of rebirth, the majority of which are available at The University of Virginia - Charlottesville (the program that was initially headed by Prof. Ian Stevenson and is currently headed by Prof. Jim Tucker). Unfortunately a secular Buddhist like Mr. Batchelor has to contend with a number of issues. For example, he took exception at Ajahn Brahmali saying that one cannot call oneself a Buddhist if one rejects one of the foundational premises, and indeed what is presented as a fact, by the Buddha. This is like saying 'I am an Einsteinist' and rejecting the general theory of relativity. His argument in this particular case, that the label Buddhist must be applied to people who share a certain set of values and not to people who believe a certain set of ideas, is not a real defense in this case. If you are using the name of someone as a badge, but you reject one of their core teachings, then you are being disingenuous. You can say, I like the ideas of the Buddha, except for this core one. That makes you a person who is perhaps a Buddhist ally, but whatever you're following at that point isn't Buddhism as taught by the Buddha in a broad sense.
There is another point that must be understood here. Ajahn Brahm, in his lectures, speaks about the attainment of a concentration that is potent enough that if it were directed, it would help one have direct first person experience of past lives. Now, one of the core monastic rules for monks of the forest tradition is not speaking publicly about one's attainments. Moreover, it is considered proper form to speak humbly of one's own knowledge. Ajahn Brahmali is one of Ajahn Brahm's main disciples. I have no doubt that he's been in many retreats and he's gone deep enough into meditation that he's probably had insights that his monastic rules prohibit him from sharing. Is first person knowledge of rebirth one of these? I don't know. He said that he doesn't know, and I wonder whether he was telling a white lie in order to not draw attention to his own attainments. Or perhaps he hasn't ever turned his mind of deep meditation towards the question of past lives. I suspect it is the former, given his clear interest in the topic of rebirth. In any event, my point in this paragraph is that the two debaters on stage have different levels of personal attainment. One (Mr. Batchelor) is convinced that rebirth isn't true, and that suffices to tell us that he hasn't subjectively remembered previous lives himself. If he had, it would be very difficult to explain why he thinks it isn't true. The other (Ajahn Brahmali) is claiming as a working hypothesis the truth of rebirth, but appears to be advanced enough as a monk that he may have direct knowledge of rebirth. In his case, it may be the lesser evil to simply claim that rebirth is his working hypothesis based on confidence in the Buddha (rather than breaking his monastic rules and drawing attention to his attainments). This last statement is frustrating to someone interested in this debate. But it is what it is.
The elegance and subtlety of Buddhism is far beyond the weak grasp of Mr.Bachelor... he is only able to wrestle with the packaging. He really needs to drop the 'Buddhist' label as he is danger to it. 🤷🏼♂️🤣
@@dublinphotoart I hear you. You may be right. I don't know enough about Mr. Batchelor to comment on his grasp, but calling oneself Buddhist implies following the teachings of the Tathagatha, and he seems to have diverged from them.